YouTube and Reddit are sued for allegedly enabling the racist mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 dead::The complementary lawsuits claim that the massacre in 2022 was made possible by tech giants, a local gun shop, and the gunman’s parents.

  • Otkaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    It use to be video games and movies taking the blame. Now it’s websites. When are we going to decide that people are just bat shit crazy and guns need some form of regulation?

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because every gun owner thinks they are “the good guys”

        Just wait till I use my gun to save a bunch of lives. Then you’ll see that I’m a hero. /s

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Usually from their perspective they are. Most people don’t try to be bad.

        • Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep. This guy thought he was fighting a righteous battle against the evil of white replacement. Brainwashed, but not insane by any clinical definition any more than any soldier is.

          • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is a key insight. There have been plenty of despots and dictators that ruled countries for decades while committing uncountable atrocities who had full command of their faculties.

    • DarkWasp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I can see the nuance in an argument that an online community, unmoderated, could be using an algorithm to group these violent people together and amplifying their views. The same can’t really be said for most other platforms. Writing threats of violence should still be taken seriously over the internet, especially if it was later acted upon. I don’t disagree with you that there’s a lot of bat shit crazy out there though.

    • Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not popular nowadays to mention that people need to have self accountability, there’s always apparently a website, service, game or social media platform to “blame” for the actions of the individual

      • Quokka@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly and sites that profit off of hosting extremist content that radicalises terrorists need to be held accountable for their actions.

            • aidan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t agree in legislating extremist speech unless it is a call to action

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t inherently oppose private platforms controlling who is allowed to comment- I oppose the government deciding certain beliefs are too radical to be allowed on any platform.

    • aidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Guns have more legislation written about them than nearly any other product. They are heavily regulated. They are not effectively regulated however.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This ineffectiveness is directly due to NRA lobbying, and their zero-tolerance attitude towards any new gun legislation. Any gun-friendly lawmaker who even gets close to writing gun control legislation will end up getting harassed (and likely primaried in the next election). So when gun control legislation passes, it’s inevitably written by people who don’t understand guns at all. No wonder it’s all shit!

        Maybe now that the NRA is having financial difficulties legislators will have make leeway to enact things that might have a chance of working.

        • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the biggest ball of nonsense speak I’ve read all day.

          So we have regulations, the regulations don’t work, and that’s the fault of the NRA…because they oppose more regulations?

          Look, I’m no fan of the NRA either but that’s just word vomit.

          Also, the political angle you describe is also nonsense. Just look at Sen. Feinstein, one of the biggest gun grabbers in American politics, who’s been in her seat for thirty years.

          Getting the party nod or not getting it based on being anti-gun is basically a non-issue. If you’re an anti-gun Democrat, that won’t likely set you apart from other primary challengers, and certainly not enough to singlehandedly unseat an incumbent (not to mention the questions raised by your party leaving you vulnerable to primary challengers). If you’re an anti-gun Republican, you’ve got bigger issues to worry about than the NRA.

          No, the NRA doesn’t make it so that gun friendly legislators don’t draft gun legislation, leaving it to be written by those who know nothing about the subject…rather it’s just common sense. A pro gun legislator knows that we’ve been trying that shit for years and it just… doesn’t…work. You’re expecting them to push for something that is not only against their political self interest but also their personal self interest, then blaming the NRA when it doesn’t happen.

    • Squander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing about bat shit crazy people is that they dont need guns to be violent, they will find another way.

          • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            As disturbing as that comment is, the inverse sheds light on one of the biggest issues with attempts to regulate guns to reduce gun violence:

            Legal attempts to restrict violence through restrictions of legal freedoms will not and have not democratized safety from violence, mostly because the vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by people who are already in the habit and practice of disregarding laws.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t realistically stab ten people in a crowd before I’m disarmed by the mob. And I certainly can’t do it from a hotel window.

        • CoughProductions@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hella things with more force than guns though, and most of those aren’t outlawed yet. Ppl will make bombs and use vehicular methods if guns arent available. Outlawing guns will not solve the issue I think the most effective method is inclusion and treating people well, maybe there won’t be as many unhinged individuals who act out violently…? Of course more regulation would help too (without infringing 2nd amendment)

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point they are making is that guns, besides being a force amplifier, are also easily accessible. The more steps involved, the less likely you are engaged in said acts. It’s why Americans will drive 1 mile to get a six pack, even though walking to the shop yields the same result. The easiest path is the most likely.

          • Yendor@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Where are all these mass bombings and vehicular murders in other Countries then? You average multiple mass shootings per week in the US, while the events in other countries typically happen less than once a year.

              • Yendor@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That list proves my point - it’s mostly shootings. You have to go back to 2017 to find a vehicle/bombing attack in a western nation.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why limit to “western” nations? Also there are only 3 attacks since 2017 listed in any “western” nation there in the first place

                  • Yendor@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    So what you’re saying is that violence in the US should be compared to Afghanistan and Syria? Ok, I can agree with that.