Jim Acosta Interviews AI Version of Teenager Killed in Parkland Shooting (variety.com) 127
Jim Acosta, the former CNN chief White House correspondent who now hosts an independent show on YouTube, has interviewed an AI-generated avatar of Parkland shooting victim Joaquin Oliver. The late teen's parents created the avatar to preserve his voice and advocate for gun reform. Oliver's parents "granted Acosta the first 'interview' with the recreated version of their son on what would have been his 25th birthday," notes Variety. "Oliver was one of 17 people killed in the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School." From the report: Acosta asked AI Oliver about his solution for gun violence, to which the avatar responded: "I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support and community engagement. We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections, making sure everyone feels seen and heard. It's about building a culture of kindness and understanding." The avatar added, "Though my life was cut short, I want to keep inspiring others to connect and advocate for change." Acosta then asked AI Oliver about his personal life, such as his favorite sport and favorite basketball team. The two discussed the movie "Remember the Titans" and their favorite "Star Wars" moments.
After a five-minute chat with the AI, Acosta then connected with Oliver's father, Manuel Oliver. "I'm kind of speechless as to the technology there," Acosta said. "It was so insightful. I really felt like I was speaking with Joaquin. It's just a beautiful thing." Manuel, who has been an outspoken voice in the push for gun control, said he believed bringing "AI Joaquin to life" would "create more impact." According to Manuel, the avatar is trained on information on the internet as well as things Oliver wrote, said and posted online. He said he wanted to make it clear to viewers that he is under no illusions about reviving his son. "I understand that this is AI. I don't want anyone to think that I am, in some way, trying to bring my son back," he said. "Sadly, I can't, right? I wish I could. However, the technology is out there." [...]
Manuel said he is excited about the future of the project and what it means for his son's legacy. "What's amazing about this is that we've heard from the parents, we've heard from the politicians. Now we're hearing from one of the kids," Acosta said. "That's important. That hasn't happened." Manuel said he plans to have AI Oliver "on stage in the middle of a debate," and that "his knowledge is unlimited." You can watch the full interview on YouTube.
After a five-minute chat with the AI, Acosta then connected with Oliver's father, Manuel Oliver. "I'm kind of speechless as to the technology there," Acosta said. "It was so insightful. I really felt like I was speaking with Joaquin. It's just a beautiful thing." Manuel, who has been an outspoken voice in the push for gun control, said he believed bringing "AI Joaquin to life" would "create more impact." According to Manuel, the avatar is trained on information on the internet as well as things Oliver wrote, said and posted online. He said he wanted to make it clear to viewers that he is under no illusions about reviving his son. "I understand that this is AI. I don't want anyone to think that I am, in some way, trying to bring my son back," he said. "Sadly, I can't, right? I wish I could. However, the technology is out there." [...]
Manuel said he is excited about the future of the project and what it means for his son's legacy. "What's amazing about this is that we've heard from the parents, we've heard from the politicians. Now we're hearing from one of the kids," Acosta said. "That's important. That hasn't happened." Manuel said he plans to have AI Oliver "on stage in the middle of a debate," and that "his knowledge is unlimited." You can watch the full interview on YouTube.
ChatGPT is being interviewed (Score:5, Insightful)
The face on it is a Parkland victim.
Re:ChatGPT is being interviewed (Score:4, Insightful)
Next week we will be interviewing a tomato
Re: (Score:1)
Next week they will be reading quotes from an AI-embodied twitter post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was already not too happy about the whole "AI" scam-fashion-thing-whatever, but this is wrong on so many levels I don't have enough fingers to count it (and i count in binary)
So, anyway, they want to walk this path (like, for real ??)
Ok
But I demand that instead of proudly producing one such interview, they provide ten thousands of them
I want to see the interview in which the victim was abducted by alien snails
The one where the victim explains how he was raped by babies
The one where in t
Re: (Score:2)
No. He'll interview the I Am Hunger in America [youtube.com] girl.
This isn't the First time AI imagery has been used for political purposes and it will most definitely not be the last.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend's son was in the building where Cruz opened fire. Prior to the shooting, teachers were preaching the whole thing about everyone being ok and you should be friends with everyone. Before Cruz left school, other students would joke that if somebody was going to commit a school shooting, it would be him. It turns out they were right and they had judged him for who he was, even if they didn't react to that judgement. After the shooting, kids dropped the whole, "Everyone's ok" mentality they were taught
WTAF?? (Score:2, Insightful)
how is this journalism? None of this is based in reality or fact......which does lend itself to the liberal dream.
Re: (Score:1)
Does the thought of murdered children make you uncomfortable? They show should the unedited Uvalde aftermath video on the news daily. That's the reality of the USA.
Re: WTAF?? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The United States is a wonderful place to live.
It's the kind of place where school shootings aren't news, but a new chat bot is.
Re:WTAF?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reviving dead children as puppets to make them parrot your own chosen political message is a disgusting piece of brainwashing.
It's a far cry from using photos and placing them next to political messages.
But making it look like the dead themselves are back to life to tell everyone about a political message chosen for them is impossible to endure.
If you disagree, please tell us: Why not have a lifelike AI-based replication of famous murder cases appear in advertisements for car insurance or medical products? Have them laugh and joke about their own death a little, recommending the viewer to take medication X instead, so they don't end up dead like them. Why not? Let's have some AI-generated advertising where George Floyd and Geoffrey Epstein recommend vacation resorts on private islands in the Carribean? WHY THE HELL NOT?
Why have any amount of decency when you can instead further your own agenda with anything that works?
Re: (Score:2)
Reviving dead children as puppets to make them parrot your own chosen political message is a disgusting piece of brainwashing.
It's a far cry from using photos and placing them next to political messages.
This is the immediate family making the choice, not some random pundit.
But making it look like the dead themselves are back to life to tell everyone about a political message chosen for them is impossible to endure.
If you disagree, please tell us: Why not have a lifelike AI-based replication of famous murder cases appear in advertisements for car insurance or medical products?
Because the audience understands it's an AI representation and not the actual person reincarnated. And people have the ability to judge if the tech is being used appropriately.
I mean we literally do have photos and other archival footage of dead people already. And those, just like this, are used in the media to advocate for issues related to their cases.
Why aren't you freaking out about whether those photos and videos are being used app
Re: (Score:2)
Every day, some "immediate family member" sexually abuses their children. So that point is quite moot.
Children are not the property of their parents and the parents shall not be allowed to reanimate the dead, either.
Would you be ok with the parents reanimating their dead adult children, nudify them and earn money via OnlyFans? No? WHY THE HELL NOT?
Same thing.
Our society is predicated upon the notion that we honor and respect the dead. No one has the right to change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Every day, some "immediate family member" sexually abuses their children. So that point is quite moot.
Children are not the property of their parents and the parents shall not be allowed to reanimate the dead, either.
Would you be ok with the parents reanimating their dead adult children, nudify them and earn money via OnlyFans? No? WHY THE HELL NOT?
Same thing.
Our society is predicated upon the notion that we honor and respect the dead. No one has the right to change that.
No, and I'm not ok with them sexually abusing their children either.
Surely you can understand that I support parents being allowed to largely raise their children in the way that they wish, with common sense exceptions like they not be allowed to abuse their children.
Similarly, I support parents being allowed to guard the memory of their children, with common sense exceptions that they not be allowed to sexually exploit their dead children either.
Re: (Score:2)
So? A lot of people find it disgusting, should they just shut their fucking mouths because family makes all things right? Families sometimes do really creepy things. This was a pretty good example of that.
The family "owning" the likeness of their children is a slippery slope I would not like to go down. Bad enough some youtube channels do this to their living children. As you say, would the OP be okay with the family selling the AI rights of their child to start pushing for 2A? Probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
You could not possibly be more right. Well stated. This feels so slimy and dirty. If Evil actually exists, it exists here.
Re: (Score:2)
But making it look like the dead themselves are back to life to tell everyone about a political message chosen for them is impossible to endure.
Most of us will endure it.
So if you do actual journalism these days (Score:2)
During the last election I watched at least two dozen journalists who tried to criticize Donald Trump get dog walked.
I don't think people realize just how much control the billionaire class has over media now.
Re: (Score:1)
"During the last election I watched at least two dozen journalists who tried to criticize Donald Trump get dog walked."
Name one.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/28... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Editors quitting because their boss wouldn't let the paper pick a side is fundamentally different from "journalists who tried to criticize Donald Trump get dog walked".
Re: (Score:2)
a) You should look up the definition of 'dog-walked'. It covers exactly what happened here.
b) The 'boss wouldn't let the paper pick a side' is an intellectually-dishonest simplification of what occurred. Bezos (a billionaire operating exactly as alluded to by the OP) abruptly halted a long tradition of endorsements by WaPo because they were going to criticize Trump. Only an idiot would buy Bezos's explanation.
c) Nit-picking over exact definitions like this is also a form of intellectual dishonesty. The main
Re: So if you do actual journalism these days (Score:2)
Jesus Christ you're dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
a) um.
The slang dog walk [dictionary.com] is âoeto overpowerâ or âoeoutsmartâ someone, as if in utter control of them, as when walking a dog. The slang verb own is a close synonym.
Bezos refusing to let the Washington Poo endorse anyone is not anytime "getting dog walked". And the insane ranter's original comment misused the term, not me.
b) The paper could still criticize Trump, and they did [washingtonpost.com]. They just couldn't officially endorse Kamala Harris -- or Trump or anyone else.
c) You are the one who was nit-picking, even though you were picking imaginary nits. Rich newspaper owners is not news. rsilvergun has a long history of making things up and never apologizing or retracting wh
Journalistic Fraud? (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/1... [nytimes.com]
An ‘Interview’ With a Dead Luminary Exposes the Pitfalls of A.I.
A radio station in Poland fired its on-air talent and brought in A.I.-generated presenters. An outcry over a purported chat with a Nobel laureate quickly ended that experiment.
By Andrew Higgins - Reporting from Krakow, Poland
Nov. 3, 2024
When a state-funded Polish radio station canceled a weekly show featuring interviews with theater directors and writers, the host of the program went quietly, resigned to media industry realities of cost-cutting and shifting tastes away from highbrow culture.
But his resignation turned to fury in late October after his former employer, Off Radio Krakow, aired what it billed as a “unique interview” with an icon of Polish culture, Wislawa Szymborska, the winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize for Literature. ...
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you could be expressing outrage at journalists doing interviews. Shock. No journalist has ever done interviews before. Or you could be expressing outrage at the method of thi
Re: WTAF?? (Score:2)
Interviews are also facts. Facts that a person A made a statement B.
He is right this cringe inducing fuckery is not based in facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Facts that a person A made a statement B.
Okay... so if we're including stupid facts then this interview is, "this AI made a statement." That is a fact. It's a stupid fact.
I suppose that statements can be more important when the interviewee is a politician or somesuch, and their statements have policy implications. I don't think that the majority of interviews double as policy statements in that way. They're just someone's opinions.
Re: WTAF?? (Score:2)
We would not have this argument if it was an interview with chatgpt or copilot. But this is an interview with a dead guy. Attributing the statements made by AI to the dead guy is perversion of truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
how is this journalism? None of this is based in reality or fact......which does lend itself to the wealthy elites dream.
FTFY. You exclusively blame "liberals" for something that "conservatives" also do on a regular basis (lie and exaggerate). Congratulations, you have taken the wedge issue bait and made yourself a useful idiot for the people who actually run the show (the wealthy elites). As long as they keep us fighting each other they can do whatever they want with ease, as we're all too busy fighting to pay any attention to what they're doing to screw us all over.
immortality (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the spirit of Joaquin Oliver in this room? (Score:4, Funny)
Now we will ask chatGPT to simulate an ouija board to respond it for us.
Re: (Score:2)
If the spirit is in the room then spirit ring this bell. (ding)
How insane can this get?! (Score:2, Interesting)
"Now we're hearing from one of the kids... his knowledge is unlimited."
Wow... You're hearing made up bullshit by a mediocre reporter mixing words to tell a story, totally nuts. This is the kind of thing you should fire them for. It's not even a bad movie script... "his" knowledge... Really?
If this kid can "live" forever, preaching CNN's life's lessons, then so can *AI Trump*, running from a virtual machine in the basement of the pentagon, connected to an army of robocops. Think about that, boys and girls...
Re: (Score:1)
Acosta has already been fired, that's why he's doing this in his living room.
Dem party insiders installed worst candidates ... (Score:4, Informative)
People stood up and clapped for that shit and voted for him.
Nope. They mostly thought: "... as dumb as that was, the democratic candidates are even worse ... oh well, he'll probably screw things up less."
That is how Trump won in 2016 and 2024. The democrats party insiders installed such absolutely incredibly bad candidates that even Trump could beat them. If there have been open primaries with a decent selection of candidates, not the appointed and the sacrificial lamb to play the role of a token alternative, Trump would have been defeated like in 2020 when there was a real primary. Note Harris ran in 2020, Democratic voters thought she was so terrible a candidate she was one of the first forced to drop out. She got a brief run up to 15% by landing a zinger on Joe during the debate, but then as she got more attention and people learned more about her, her popularity dropped to 5%. She was anointed/installed as VP in a political deal. She had the chance of a lifetime for a 5% primary candidate. And she f'd it up, she repeatedly lived up to every fear democratic primary voters had about her.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a Trump supporter but the idea that Hillary or Kamela should be in charge? No way.
If Kamela had an ounce of credibility (or ability) she would have taken over from Biden when he started dithering, that was her actual job as VP FFS! The Dems knew this was a bad idea and didn't allow it.
It saddens me that out of an entire nation the main candidates are idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
Why did you refer to the male candidate by his last name and the female candidates by their first name? (hint: it's an indicator of ingrained sexism)
The only indicator here is that you are a nitwit seeking a problem where none exists. Talking your Neo-marxist training as some sort of gospel rather than the BS it is.
People use "Hillary" because that is what she generally used on her 2016 campaign material, posters, etc. Similar story with "Kamala", she used her first name pretty often. Trump, not so much, pretty much he just used the last name.
Re: (Score:2)
the other indicator is that you always support Republicans but keep insisting you aren't one of them...
Nope. I support the truth. Regardless of which party the truth aligns with. You are really just telling us about yourself, that perceived support for one side sticks in your mind, while the other side does not.
Re: (Score:2)
You are rationalizing.
The choice of only 5% of democrats in the Democratic Party's presidential primary is objective reality.
If I'd found out I voted ...
LOL. I voted libertarian.
Patently false (Score:5, Insightful)
"Manuel said he is excited about the future of the project and what it means for his son's legacy. "What's amazing about this is that we've heard from the parents, we've heard from the politicians. Now we're hearing from one of the kids," Acosta said. "That's important. That hasn't happened.""
And it STILL hasn't happened, because this isn't the child, and it's brutally dishonest and shameful to pretend that anything different is happening here.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is... there have been plenty of outspoken and highly visible survivors of school shootings for decades. How the hell do we exorcise this gray paste of untruth?
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is... there have been plenty of outspoken and highly visible survivors of school shootings for decades. How the hell do we exorcise this gray paste of untruth?
A classic trick question comes to mind: "A plane crashes on the border of the United States and Canada. Where do they bury the survivors?"
Of course, the answer is that you don't bury the survivors, because they came through the ordeal just fine. Similarly, school shooting survivors just don't elicit the same sort of sympathy as victims. In right-wing circles, I've even heard of folks like David Hogg being referred to as "lucky". The end result is that sympathy gets reserved for the dead, the victims who
This is the problem with AI (Score:3)
This is nothing more than a deepfake of a child.
Why aren't there laws against this kind of shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is a parent inventing the beliefs their dead child would definitely have 7 years after he died.
Did any of your opinions change between 16 and 25? Did your parents know what you truly believed in when you were 16? Enough to divine what your beliefs would be 7 years later at 25? The whole thing is the worst kind of political hackery..
Re: (Score:2)
This is nothing more than a deepfake of a child.
Why aren't there laws against this kind of shit?
I agree that it's gross and stupid, but I'm not sure how you can make this illegal without a lot of free speech collateral damage.
Hopefully CNN and Jim Acosta are appropriately shamed for this and it doesn't result in the extra viewers they were hoping for.
Really bad idea. (Score:2)
I'm politically on the side of sensible gun regulations, and anything that can slow down or stop a mass shooter.
That said, a stunt like this doesn't help a cause that wingnut ranters have been saying features bullshit "crisis actors".
Anything that diminishes people's ability to see real things, believe what they see, should be thrown over the side.
Deep fakes for a good cause are no more noble than deep fake pron.
Re: (Score:2)
Deep fakes for a good cause are no more noble than deep fake pron.
In a way, they're worse because they're trying to manipulate people. At least the porn is just a fantasy made for people looking for a fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
If it becomes permissible to use deepfakes of dead children to parrot whatever you want them to say in order to further a political agenda, then anything is possible.
And while they're at it, they can use the same deepfake AI to have the same dead child recommend a beer brand that the AI thinks this child would have chosen if he grew up to be old enough to drink beer.
It is the most disgusting form of actual necromancy. Digging and dressing up corpses and using them as talking puppets.
I always knew that Ameri
No control (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Things like this will lead to very hard legal limits placed on what AI will be allowed to do or asked to do.
Do we allow digging up corpses to use as halloween decoration? No? Why not?
Then why would we allow digging up corpses to dress up and use as talking heads for whatever agenda or product?
Reanimating dead people with AI will be a highly punishable offense very soon.
What dataset was the AI trained with? (Score:2)
The kid's collected diaries? Not likely, even if he did keep a diary or journal.
My bet is on a news article about the shooting and a position statement of an anti-gun group.
Very few people leave behind enough data to create a believable AI avatar: one that has a chance of crossing the uncanny valley and convincing a questioner that it is a reasonable simulation of the source's mental state. This situation is using a victim as a political tool.
Re: (Score:1)
It's actually a new state of the art emulation model they made from scanned 1 micron width slices of his brain. It's basically a perfect physical copy and neurologists believe it's probably conscious. It represents a quantum leap forward in the realm of... heh, just kidding, it's chatgpt.
Re: (Score:2)
You remember that one group that has been using one of their kid's diaries for political pressuring the world for 80 years now.
What group do you think did the ridiculous stunt today?
\o/ (Score:1)
A new plateau of creepiness - I salute you AltOne!
Be Right Back .. (Score:2)
“After learning about a new service that lets people stay in touch with the deceased, a lonely, grieving Martha reconnects with her late lover.”
Symptom of complete derangement. (Score:3)
Consider (and while I'm gonna mention Trump, it's NOT about him so don't get distracted) what just happened in a broader context:
Jim Acosta was a journalist at CBS and then, for almost 20 years, at CNN. In his time at CNN he famously got into many arguments with Trump in which Trump accused him of being or providing "fake news", a charge Mr Acosta loudly decried. If he ever was a neutral and unbiased journalist, that time was long ago - he has clearly allowed his personal views into his work for years now, but probably a large portion of his audience did not mind and would have sided with him on the whole "fake news" kerfuffle. But now, after years of arguing that the "fake news" accusation was a lie, he has allowed his personal biases to cloud his judgement so much that he has literally cooked-up and reported "fake news" in the form of an "interview" of an AI-driven animated picture of a dead person supposedly giving answers the dead person WOULD HAVE given IF he was not dead. Yup. A supposedly neutral and unbiased journalist has been driven by his own political passions to create and report completely fake news.
I suppose I could have a lot of different reactions to this one, but I'm actually just dumbstruck. I cannot grasp how this man could have thought this was a good idea, given the larger context.
Blasphemy (Score:2)
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." — Orange Catholic Bible
Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead (Score:2)
Ahead of the curve! Though Robert Silverberg, PKD, and Frank Herbert, also touched on the possibilities.
Pretty shameful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well ... (Score:2)
... we now literally have "fake news", lol
"I'm going to pretend that I'm interviewing somebody, but I'm really interviewing some AI avatar ... "
"Insightful"? (Score:2)
"I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support and community engagement. We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections, making sure everyone feels seen and heard. It's about building a culture of kindness and understanding."
That's Acosta's idea of insightful? If I read that anywhere I would suspect it was meaningless AI slop.
Acosta should be ashamed and shunned (Score:2)
Right message, AWFUL delivery (Score:2)
I don't know who thought this was a good idea, but it doesn't take a special insight or million dollar focus group to understand that your average viewer/voter finds this kind of spectacle deceptive, exploitative and a very pointed example of why the public is distrustful of news media.
Your argument is invalid (Score:2)
If this is legitimate but making use of deceased actors and musicians isn't, your argument is invalid. Oh, wait, the estates of those deceased individuals want to keep control of the legacy i.e. be able to keep making money off of it. The penny drops. This has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with making money.
In-san-ity (Score:2)
Anything to push a narrative.
Might as well interview Kermit the Frog (Score:2)
Fraud is fraud. (Score:2)
Re:We'll see the impact of this (Score:4, Interesting)
It's okay to try to convince voters into your side of an argument. I sometimes feel like the Democrats are starting to care less about Democracy to try to further their goals. You know, by doing things like propping up what they consider as unelectable candidates.
If the country really believes this is a thing, you would expect more efforts to amend the Constitution.
The majority of my family is dead. But none of it was from a gun.
The amount of unironic projection in your post is staggering.
Re: (Score:1)
If you really want to have a debate, you probably shouldn't lead with lazy stereotyping like "all Democrats are just like the person who tried to hurt me".
Re: We'll see the impact of this (Score:4, Informative)
I don't want to make an unfair assumption here, but are you comparing the people whose children were murdered in their school to someone who "made his own choice" to die of COVID? What conversation do you think ought to come of that?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I could make an AI agent of someone's life saved by a good guy with a gun.
Total myth. Hundreds of police stood around Uvalde school listening to children being shot. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/n... [pbs.org]
Defensive use far outweighs criminal/negligent use (Score:4, Interesting)
Total myth. Hundreds of police stood around Uvalde school listening to children being shot.
First of all, the numbers for the criminal/negligent use of a gun is greatly exaggerated by including suicides.
Secondly, the defensive use of guns far outnumbers the criminal/negligent use even when including suicide.
Also, keep in mind defensive use does not mean shots were fired. The racking of the slide of a 12 gauge pump shotgun will often cause a criminal to discard their plan and just leave with great haste.
If you really want to save lives, end the war on drugs. That drives most of the gun violence in the USA. Real background checks that include criminal and mental health history would help, as would required safety training, etc. We require such training for a hunting license.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, the numbers for the criminal/negligent use of a gun is greatly exaggerated by including suicides.
I feel so much better now! Maybe we should look into this as well?
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, the numbers for the criminal/negligent use of a gun is greatly exaggerated by including suicides.
I feel so much better now! Maybe we should look into this as well?
We absolutely should. But pretending people suffering mental distress will not simply find a different method will not make things better.
Re: (Score:3)
Shall not be infringed.
You want gun laws, change the second amendment, good luck with that, for good reason.
Freedom isn't free.
Re: (Score:2)
Start with the well regulated militia.
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, the defensive use of guns far outnumbers the criminal/negligent use even when including suicide.
Also, keep in mind defensive use does not mean shots were fired. The racking of the slide of a 12 gauge pump shotgun will often cause a criminal to discard their plan and just leave with great haste.
BS.
Those self-reported defensive uses virtually never actually deter a crime. It's just a gun owner thinking a crime might happen, touching their gun, and claiming their gun saved the day.
If that were actually true, can you imagine how insanely high the US's crime and homicide rates would be without guns? And why is neighbouring Canada so much safer with far, far fewer guns and defensive gun uses.
The "defensive gun use" statistic is nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
The "defensive gun use" statistic is nonsense.
You are mistaken. The numbers vary widely depending on how "defensive use" is defined. But in the most conservative case, that that of the US Dept of Justice, the National Crime Victimization Survey. It puts the number around 60K. Much larger than deaths due to gun violence, even with suicides included, 47K. Without suicides it's 20K.
Reported defensive use is 3X non-suicide gun violence deaths according to the US DOJ Survey. In the absolutely most conservative counting. People are reluctant to report de
Re: (Score:2)
That's survey data. Without further analysis, you haven't removed the people who are convinced they scared off a cat burglar when in fact it was just a cat. Not too different than people using the VAERS data to "prove" the covid vaccines killed millions of people.
Re: (Score:2)
That's survey data.
So are lots of valid statistics.
Without further analysis, ...
It is the most conservative study, by the US government, and it is absolutely the lowest is size of all the various studies. And it is still 3x criminal use.
you haven't removed the people who are convinced they scared off a cat burglar when in fact it was just a cat.
A straw man. Again, this government study had some of the most conservative standards. Hence the lower numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give a link to the study. What you originally mentioned was a survey not a study. I'm sure there are studies that are based on that data. Are there any that support what you are saying?
I'm just pointing out that it helps to have e
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give a link to the study. What you originally mentioned was a survey not a study.
You are playing semantic games, studies can be based on survey data. If you googled and went to their page you would have seen a 20 year survey by 6 PhDs. And a thorough, professional academic study.
"Collection Period 1973–2023
The BJS National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is the nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 240,000 persons in about 150,000 households. Persons are interviewed on
Re: (Score:2)
It's you who seems to be playing games. While your link does link to several studies based on this survey data, you still haven't given the study that backs your claim. Have you read this study or are you giving this information based on someone else who claims to have read the study?
Re: (Score:2)
It's you who seems to be playing games. While your link does link to several studies based on this survey data, you still haven't given the study that backs your claim.
The National Crime Victimization Survey page has a search field. I typed "defensive use". The first link I clicked on included "On average per year 62,200 victims of violent crime, about 1 % of all victims of violence, used a firearm to defend themselves. Another 20,300 used a firearm to defend their property during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft." That's more than the 60K I recalled. On the first thing I clicked on. Go ahead, use the search field. Click and read and learn.
Have you read this study
Yes, years a
Re: (Score:2)
Just because both don't meet your trust threshold doesn't mean they are equivalent. You'd have to be deluded not to see the difference today. Perhaps you're still living back in 1994.
Re: (Score:2)
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pu... [ojp.gov] Now was that so hard. It's 30 years old but it's interesting.
That's my point, it was never hard. I provided a link, the page had a search engine, you could type any topic you wished. Like "defensive use". Teaching how to fish vs giving a fish ... blah blah.
Just because both don't meet your trust threshold doesn't mean they are equivalent. You'd have to be deluded not to see the difference today. Perhaps you're still living back in 1994.
I did not say they are equivalent. I said neither is worthy of trust. Both will iie. If they tell the truth it is just that the truth coincidentally aligns with politics. That's how it works with these wedge issue. They don't really want to solve them. They want the donations and the voter turnout the wedge issues
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point. I was the one who had to actually post the link. Originally, you were too lazy to do the actual search. You even admitted you got the number wrong, but fortunately it worked in your favor. Then to cover your laziness, you had to write a bunch of text instead of just pasting the link.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point. I was the one who had to actually post the link. Originally, you were too lazy to do the actual search.
Actually, that was you. I gave you "National Crime Victimization Survey", which was my recollection of where the numbers came from. I read the article years ago, I couldn't tell you if the article I so trivially found by using the search on the previous org's website was the same article. Probably not. It indicated about more defensive use than I recalled.
You even admitted you got the number wrong,
A rounding is not an error. I said 60K, the paper said 62K? Then the paper added an addition group of 20K. Which I don't think is as strong a group as the
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken. The numbers vary widely depending on how "defensive use" is defined. But in the most conservative case, that that of the US Dept of Justice, the National Crime Victimization Survey. It puts the number around 60K. Much larger than deaths due to gun violence, even with suicides included, 47K. Without suicides it's 20K.
Reported defensive use is 3X non-suicide gun violence deaths according to the US DOJ Survey. In the absolutely most conservative counting. People are reluctant to report defensive US to the government for fear of prosecution or lawsuit. We have jurisdictions in the US where people engaged in lawful self defense have been prosecuted by rogue prosecutors. For example the widely publicized Bodega worker arrested in New York City.
Those numbers are measuring completely different things.
A defensive gun use does not necessarily prevent a crime, much less a homicide.
A gun owner successfully deterring a mugging would could as a very successful defensive gun use, but the benefit would only be in them keeping a few hundred dollars worth of property.
Again, a sanity check. Do you really think it's plausible that the US's homicide rate would triple without guns?
Personally, even if a few additional crimes are prevented I don't think that's wor
Re: (Score:2)
A defensive gun use does not necessarily prevent a crime, much less a homicide. A gun owner successfully deterring a mugging would could as a very successful defensive gun use, but the benefit would only be in them keeping a few hundred dollars worth of property.
Untrue. The injury rate of victims who defend with a firearm is lower.
Again, a sanity check. Do you really think it's plausible that the US's homicide rate would triple without guns?
I think the US homicide rate would severely drop if we ended the war on drugs, which is a driver of most of those homicides. We'd further reduce deaths with universal background checks that included both criminal and mental health checks. And mandatory safety training would again further reduce deaths. Now improve the social safety net for those having a mental crisis, that could prevent a lot of gun related suicides.
And if we did some
Re: (Score:2)
Untrue. The injury rate of victims who defend with a firearm is lower.
Weasel words.
You directly compared the number of defensive uses directly to the number deaths due to gun violence.
That comparison is only relevant if every defensive use averts a death. This is obviously not the case as many defensive uses don't even prevent a crime!!
Again, a sanity check. Do you really think it's plausible that the US's homicide rate would triple without guns?
I think the US homicide rate would severely drop if we ended the war on drugs, which is a driver of most of those homicides. We'd further reduce deaths with universal background checks that included both criminal and mental health checks. And m
Re: (Score:2)
Untrue. The injury rate of victims who defend with a firearm is lower.
Weasel words.
Nope. That's just an inconvenient truth for your point of view.
You directly compared the number of defensive uses directly to the number deaths due to gun violence.
So what? Severe bodily injury, rape, and other outcomes also warrant the use of deadly force in self defense. Do you really want to say a woman who avoids rape does not count as a proper defensive use of a firearm?
The fact remains that defensive use is many multiples in size larger in the most conservative studies.
That comparison is only relevant if every defensive use averts a death.
No.
This is obviously not the case as many defensive uses don't even prevent a crime!!
Preventing or reducing severe injury counts. Again, do you really want to say preventing a rape does not count?
I think the US homicide rate would severely drop if we ended the war on drugs, which is a driver of most of those homicides. We'd further reduce deaths with universal background checks that included both criminal and mental health checks. And mandatory safety training would again further reduce deaths. Now improve the social safety net for those having a mental crisis, that could prevent a lot of gun related suicides.
I agree on these points.
This is the core
Re: Not wise in this political climate... (Score:1)
Re:Not wise in this political climate... (Score:4)
But stats on daily lives in the US show WAY more crimes are stopped by a good guy with a gun...
Hell, a recent story about a guy running around in a Walmart I think it was...mass stabbing people was stopped in the parking lot by an armed citizen....who actually showed more restraint than most folks...held him at gunpoint and had him finally drop the knife.....rather than shoot him.
Good people defend themselves all the time by being a "good guy with a gun"....