Are Uvalde Victims’ Families Suing the Wrong Villains?

Some of the Uvalde victims’ families have filed a lawsuit against Activision, Meta, and gun manufacturer Daniel Defense, claiming these companies played a role in the 2022 massacre at Robb Elementary School. The lawsuit, originally filed on the second anniversary of the shooting, accuses the companies of negligence, aiding and abetting, and wrongful death. According to the complaint, the shooter was influenced by violent video games and targeted ads for AR-15-style rifles on Instagram. The families argue that the video game series Call of Duty served as both a training simulator and a marketing tool for the weapon eventually used in the shooting. They say the game normalized graphic violence and praised the player’s proficiency in killing, while Meta’s platform allegedly showed the shooter how to buy the gun.

In court, Activision argued the First Amendment protects its games as artistic expression. Their attorney said that creators of books, movies, and video games can’t be held responsible for the actions of their audience. That might sound callous, especially with grieving parents in the courtroom, but from a legal standpoint, they’re not wrong. Courts have already shut down similar claims going back to Columbine. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs’ attorney is arguing for discovery, saying Activision had contracts with real gun makers and included depictions of their products in the game, even without branding.

Now, let me be clear. My heart breaks for the Uvalde victims’ families. They have endured unimaginable pain and continue to be failed at every turn by their community, their government, and now the legal system too. But while games like Call of Duty may attract the school shooting types, they do not create them. Millions of people play these games without ever picking up a real gun, let alone carrying one into a school.

And I say this as someone who has no love for Activision. They’ve built an empire on shady business practices and predatory monetization schemes. I don’t play Call of Duty, and I’m not here to defend it. But blaming video games and Instagram for a mass shooting is like blaming a movie theater for selling a ticket for a violent movie to someone who turned out to be a killer. If I didn’t know any better, my Trench-sense would be tingling with suspicion that a certain disbarred Florida attorney with a habit of chasing school shooting headlines might be lurking somewhere in the background of this case.

Let’s also not ignore the basic reality of how these games are acquired. Call of Duty is rated for ages 17 and up, and while it can be bought online, you still need a credit card, debit card, or PayPal account to do so. That’s something that, in theory, should be monitored by a parent. But personal responsibility is never as satisfying to litigate as a billion-dollar tech company.

In my view, more of the blame lies with the state of Texas. This was a just-turned 18-year-old who reportedly couldn’t even load the weapon properly at first. His own family saw him struggle with the magazine falling to the floor. Yet Texas still allowed him to legally purchase a weapon designed for the battlefield. A weapon meant to inflict maximum bodily damage in the shortest amount of time. That’s not a failure of gaming culture or social media. That’s a failure of gun policy, plain and simple.

This lawsuit may bring some form of closure or justice to the families. But if it doesn’t spark a deeper reckoning about how easy it is for unstable young men to arm themselves legally in this country, then it’s just another tragic sideshow to the real issue we continue to avoid.

(Sources)