Earlier this week, most of the families of the victims of the Robb Elementary School shooting settled with the City of Uvalde in the amount of $2 million. It came as no surprise to learn they also planned to go after other agencies involved in the delayed (some would say terribly botched) response to the active shooter situation. But guess what? There’s more. They filed two additional law suits yesterday, one against a gun manufacturer and the other against a social media giant and a video game company. Yep, you read that right. Video games made him do it.

Even though the DOJ said the blame for what happened that terrible day in Uvalde falls on the police response, plaintiffs’ attorneys are trying to paint a different picture. Considering how quickly attorneys jump on the bandwagon to sue gun manufacturers after a mass shooting, it shouldn’t shock anyone that the families filed against Daniel Defense. It manufactured “AR-15 style rifle an 18-year-old gunman used to kill 19 children and two teachers and injure several others at Robb Elementary two years ago.” Again, the only thing that would surprise me is if Daniel Defense wasn’t included in the additional law suits.

But, it’s the so-called logic behind suing it as well as the parties to the second law suit filed yesterday that has me shaking my head. In the second filing, the plaintiffs named Meta, parent company of Facebook and Instagram, as well as Activision, the company behind the video game Call of Duty (among others).

The complaints contend the three companies are responsible for “grooming” a generation of “socially vulnerable” young men radicalized to live out violent video game fantasies in the real world with easily accessible weapons of war. . . The lawsuits allege Meta and Activision “knowingly exposed the Shooter to the weapon, conditioned him to see it as the solution to his problems, and trained him to use it.”

Huh?

This is the same sort of argument we saw certain members of Congress make more than a decade ago when they tried to shut down parts of the gaming industry. The glaring problem with this sort of assertion is it takes all responsibility away from the person responsible for picking up a gun and using it, from their family for not teaching them right from wrong and how to handle their emotions. It applies an intent to the company and assumes that any kid who plays a so-called violent video game is going out to buy an assault rifle to deal with those who piss them off.

Which begs a number of questions: How is the kid, especially a minor, supposed to find and possess this so-called easily accessible “weapon of war”? How does this kid bypass the background checks, etc? Where were his parents/guardians in all of this? And how about the person who sold or gave him the weapon? Where is he (or she) in the filing?

But it gets better (or worse, depending on your point of view).

The truth is that the gun industry and Daniel Defense didn’t act alone. They couldn’t have reached this kid but for Instagram,” attorney Josh Koskoff said of the shooter. “They couldn’t expose him to the dopamine loop of virtually killing a person. That’s what Call of Duty does.”

So now we have a conspiracy. Is your head spinning yet because mine certainly is.

How did the shooter get the gun? He legally purchased it. Read that again. He legally purchased it. But even then the attorney for the plaintiffs have an explanation for why he waited until he was 18 to do so:

Just 23 minutes after midnight on his 18th birthday, the Uvalde shooter bought an AR-15 made by a company with a market share of less than one percent,” Koskoff said in a statement. “Why? Because, well before he was old enough to purchase it, he was targeted and cultivated online by Instagram, Activision and Daniel Defense. This three-headed monster knowingly exposed him to the weapon, conditioned him to see it as a tool to solve his problems and trained him to use it.”

Who is this Koskoff who represents the plaintiffs?

He is Joshua Koskoff, a third-generation lawyer with Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder. Licensed in Connecticut, he’s become the traveling attorney who likes to take on gun manufacturers, represent families in school shootings, and he also sued Harvard for something that happened in the 1850’s. You can see his professional bio here. As a Texan, I can honestly say I’m not impressed. I understand these families are hurting. I hurt for them. But I fear they have bought a song and dance played by the liberal media, liberal members of government, and liberal lawyers and it will wind up hurting them even more in the end.

Saying that playing a video game “grooms” someone to become violent is laughable on its face. How many people, young and old, play video games and don’t pick up a gun to settle arguments? I’ll let you in on a little secret: before sitting down to write this post, I spent an hour or so playing The Division 2. My character used an SMG, an AR, a sniper rifle, and threw grenades as well as used drones to kill the bad guys. All it did was help work out some tension I had because of work. I didn’t make me want to pick up a gun and do deal directly with the cause of my tension.

Oh, and I’ve been playing video games for decades. If you remember Pong, you know just how long I’ve been playing.

And isn’t it a bit sexist to say these companies targeted young men but not young women? Especially since there are more and more young women playing video games now than ever before?

I hope the families find some modicum of peace for all they’ve suffered and lost. I’m afraid they’ve become tools in the liberal war on private gun ownership. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I have no doubt there is a possibility of a trial verdict, if it goes that far, against Meta and Activision for the sole reason that the attorneys filed in California for that particular suit. If the suit against Daniel Defense is filed, as expected, in Uvalde, I foresee several things. The first is an immediate request for change of venue by the defendants. The second is that the plaintiffs will have a hard time proving not only a causal connection between the parties but intent to influence the shooter (and others) in a way that would have a negative impact on society as a whole. It will be interesting.

And it won’t be a shock if any, or all, of the parties wind up settling and demand a non-disclosure clause.

Only time will tell and, no matter how it ends, the families (as well as Uvalde) will wind up being the losers because all this will do is keep the wounds from that terrible day open and bleeding, at least metaphorically. They might end up with some more money, but it won’t change what happened and it won’t change anything except, maybe, cause Meta to be even more anti-2A than it already is.

Welcome, Hot Air readers!

Featured Image created by Amanda S. Green using Midjourney AI (2024).