Australia Had a Mass-Shooting Problem. Here’s How it Stopped
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 06. 2022
- Sign up for the stock footage provider that we use: storyblocks.com/wendover
Watch Jet Lag: The Game at / jetlagthegame
Buy a Wendover Productions t-shirt: standard.tv/collections/wendo...
Subscribe to Half as Interesting (The other channel from Wendover Productions): / halfasinteresting
CZcams: / wendoverproductions
Instagram: / sam.from.wendover
Twitter: / wendoverpro
Sponsorship Enquiries: wendover@standard.tv
Other emails: sam@wendover.productions
Reddit: / wendoverproductions
Writing by Sam Denby and Tristan Purdy
Editing by Alexander Williard
Animation led by Josh Sherrington
Sound by Graham Haerther
Thumbnail by Simon Buckmaster
References
[1] www.nytimes.com/1990/12/25/sc...
[2] www.afr.com/politics/they-did...
[3] injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...
[4] www.theguardian.com/australia...
[5] www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliame...
[6] www.anao.gov.au/sites/default...
[7] www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/co...
[8] www.gunpolicy.org/documents/7...
[9] www.gunpolicy.org/documents/7...
[10] www.researchgate.net/publicat...
[11] pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27332...
I’m certain this comment section is going to be filled with open minded people with civil discussions in regards to this topic!
Definitely no Tanners, Kyles, or Jakes, calling people soyboy commies for participating in the debate of high fire-rate weapons
@@rams_r_champs automatic weapons have been illegal in america for over 30 years
The comment section is always civil! No need for the sarcasm
@@rams_r_champs You literally proved him right within 3 minutes of his comment.
Definitely some smoothbrained takes on how “well regulated” as written in the late 1700s meant the exact same thing then as it does today.
Or lack of knowledge about prefatory clauses
It may have been helpful to clarify that the Liberal government in Australia is the major right wing party, rather than how liberal is used in American politics, so it was a conservative politician that kicked this off. It also would have been good, I think, to mention that the Queensland premier Rob Borbidge basically committed political suicide - knowingly - by supporting the reforms, quoted as saying he felt the cause was more important than his career.
Reminder that American Democrats are center right from big picture.
Wow, those two facts definitely change the tone of the narrative!
Sounds like the US definition of a Libitard.
Yeah. They're liberal in the sense of economic liberalism, not social liberalism. And they have a huge spread of politicians around the political compass, with different factions holding different opinions. In the most recent election (a few weeks ago), the far right of the party took charge which backfired when they lost a surprisingly large number of inner city seats to independents.
Ah, so if you have the unicorn of a politician with the courage to look past their own political self interest, you too can have effective gun reform!
I would like to see an explanation for the massive increase in gun violence during the 1980s. Previously mass shootings were rare, yet for a period of about 30 years automatic firearms were cheap and common in most post-WWII countries
wouldnt we all...
Mass shootings, in the US, at least, tend to be a social contagion. Once one happens tends to pave way for the next.
Also, there was a concerted effort to eliminate most involuntary commitments that came to a head in the 80s. Whereas previously, people with clear mental health disorders could be detained and locked away, for treatment, now they’re left to their own devices.
Mass shootings are 10 men per million being aholes a year in US, killing total of 50, rest of 20000 gun murders are not mass shootings so seem bigger problem. Of gun murders half go unsolved, which encourages em .. Why those 10 now are acting is not cause of gun laws, it's some psychological issue, like the rise in Schizophrenia up 2x this decade to 14000 diagnosed this year. Sorta dumb to say lax gun laws caused this. I admit if we limit 340m americans gun rights maybe we could lower by half the numbers. But we could limit burglaries if we seized all ladders, can we do this to citizens rather than ask police find other ways? Police just punish gun murders, do lazily want citizens to hand in guns and ladders ..
It's a combination of lack of mental health facilities, an emergence of a plethora of mental health medication much of which has proven to cause more harm than good, and a general shift in attitudes and norms in society all kicking off with the introduction of the 24 hour news cycle and the internet. This is of course a very high level analysis, and it goes much deeper, but in the spirit of brevity I will not go on because I could do so forever. It is very apparent to me that this is much more a sociological phenomenon than anything pertaining to the actual firearms themselves, or else this would have been a problem ever since repeating firearms were introduced over 150 years ago.
Also keep in mind that while yes there have been some major incidents in places like Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Canada, and others, the bulk of mass shootings have been the in the United States. Is this a gun problem? No, it is a people problem in a country with a deep gun culture. Mass killings happen and have happened all over the world, but look at many outside of Western countries, and especially outside the United States. Specifically terrorism, where groups like the PLO and IRA as well as rogue individuals loosely affiliated with them used bombs for their weapon of choice. Modern Islamic extremis have used bombs as well as vehicles. One could argue, and correctly so, that in the United States the problem of mass killings is much worse. Gun culture is a quick and easy scapegoat, but again the gun itself is just the tool of choice. The aggressive American culture of getting ahead, being the best at the expense of others, and so called "keeping up with the Joneses" is much to blame, but this has been amplified in the internet and social media era. Those left behind in this endless rat race are more negativity impacted than ever. This is a breeding ground for the proverbial loner that sits in their parents basement on the internet and plots to take out their enemies.
One may ask as well, then why doesn't this happen in a place like Japan, a country where there is even more pressure to perform, and people are worked even harder and stressed moreso. Culture. American culture is the Wild West. Go take your rifle and shoot up the town if you are having a bad day. Japan is all about honor. If you can't cut it, you are dishonorable, and you commit suicide, you don't go after others and disrespect their honor. American culture over the last 30 years has been to encourage people to blame everyone but themselves, and some take it to an extreme.
I am American, and I am pro gun rights. But I see many flaws in our modern culture. We have strayed too far away from the personal responsibility of past generations. Nowadays there is always a pill for that, a quack doctor for that, or a scapegoat for that. I think these mass killers deep down want to really kill their father they never met, their teacher that was too hard on them, or that old school bully that tormented them, but that may not be possible so they just take out their aggression on random people.
@@digitalfootballer9032 last paragraph hits hard. As an Australian who is also pro human (firearm) rights, i agree wholeheartedly.
The intro caught me off guard straight away. No one in Australia would call the indigenous population "hostile". Goes to show how I've been taught a certain way at school here in Australia.
gotta say, I'm not from Australia and yet that wording caught me off guard too.
It's an unusually strong word, but you got to remember he's from the US. Anyone here can correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not from the US) but I believe there's a lot more history there about Native Americans fighting back against the Europeans. So while the choice of word may seem strong to us, it may not be to them.
@himaro101 in the US, I was mainly taught that overall, the invading entity is normally the more hostile (yay colonialism) party - for Africa, Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, etc. That's not to say that the native party wasn't hostile with or without being provoked, but in school I wasn't taught about indigenous Austrailians being hostile but instead being the victims of colonialism (since it was and still is a problem with Native Americans, that was the aspect we focused on more)
Yeah, the intro really threw me off too: while there was Indigenous resistance, the Frontier Wars don't really make it into history in high school or popular history (and I don't really think there was anything like the wheeling and dealing and armed resistance you see in the history of the Americas - mostly a bunch of skirmishes that lead to reprisals that were basically wholesale slaughter).
And that's not even touching the whole "untamed wilderness" bit - while there were certainly enough wild places for bushrangers to be a thing after colonisation (and subsequent depopulation), there's been a kinda-hypothesis that what Captain Cook found was actually not untamed at all and the Europeans just had no idea what they were looking at. But even leaving aside the Dark Emu controversy, IIRC the existence of firestick farming and the Budj Bim Eel Traps are definitely settled in the science.
IDK, I know it's just the intro, but it's definitely different to how people might describe colonisation (even after you account for like, my bias in describing all of that)
@@tammygant4216The intro was factually wrong. WTF Wendover?
Stats professor here. I just wanted to say a brief word on correlation vs. causation. You're right that _proving_ causation is basically impossible with just data; it could always be a weird coincidence. This is where you have to decide whether there's a reasonable explanation linking the two things you're investigating. There are 4 possible relationships you want to address if you want to make a plausible case that event A caused event B:
(0) Maybe A causes B.
(1) Maybe A and B are unrelated but happened together by coincidence or chance.
(2) Maybe A and B are both caused by something else. i.e., they're both results of C and neither is a cause of the other.
(3) Maybe B causes A rather than A causing B, or perhaps they both contribute to each other.
Standard statistical tests only address (1). For (0), (2), and (3) it's up to researchers _(and everyone, really)_ to determine if the proposed causation is reasonable or not; that is, is the explanation of _why_ the causation exists "good enough"? In a case like this I would say clearly yes _(fewer guns in general and more responsible owners = less mass murder seems reasonable enough to me)_ but I'm also predisposed to be pro-gun control from my other political affiliations, so maybe I'm blinded by my personal desires or views.
*Some classic examples of (1), (2), and (3):*
*_(1) Autism and vaccines._*
Medical professionals have, with time, become better at recognizing autism. At this point they can recognize it almost as soon as the kids can talk and take actions on their own, around 1.5 - 2 years. The CDC recommends most vaccinations for children between 1 and 1.5 years old. Some people see this and think "My baby wasn't autistic before, so the vaccinations must have caused it!" but it's just a coincidence. Those things happen around the same age, with the vaccinations happening slightly earlier, so it appears to be causal, but numerous studies have found no links. It's just an illusion based on timing and when the autism diagnosis can be made.
*_(2) Murder and ice cream._*
The classic example here is ice cream sales and murder rate. They tend to go up and down together. Obviously murders don't cause ice cream sales to rise and falling ice cream sales don't prevent murders. They're both driven by extreme heat. When it gets hot, people get short tempered _(and drunk)_ and kill each other more often. Hot people also buy ice cream.
*_(3) Addiction and unhappiness._*
There are a lot of controversial examples in this category, but a good one is drug use vs. happiness or unhappiness. In general, drug addicts are pretty unhappy people. The obvious conclusion is that drug use causes unhappiness. But it's really not that simple, since most people begin using drugs _because_ they're unhappy _(loneliness and lack of personal contact is the most common cause of using illicit drugs in the first place)._ So does the unhappiness come from the drugs or do the drugs come from the unhappiness? It's really not clear, and it's probably a bit of both.
_People who are addicted to drugs can often quit cold turkey if they have significant positive life changes, particularly reconnecting with friends or family. People use drugs when drugs are their only source of good feelings, and can often stop when they have some other source of positivity._
Thank you for reading my statistics lecture in this CZcams comment, I'm sure this is why you came to the comments section in the first place. Have a wonderful day, you beautiful patient person. :-)
I don't know, Jeffrey. Sounds like you were bought off by big ice cream to cover up their murderous schemes!
These ice cream trucks... they are up to something!
*grumbling noices
You rock for typing this all out in a way my simple mind can (mostly) comprehend
Wow, this was very interesting. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you for giving me PTSD from statistics class🫣
Thank you Prof 🙏🏼
I did a double take when I heard the line "While Prime Minister Howard donned a bullet-proof vest whilst speaking in Sale, Victoria" as I did not expect to hear those words whilst getting ready for work in Sale, Victoria. My town never gets mentioned.
There is a reason for that. ;)
Unless the new is talking about the best weather in Victoria.
@@BatCaveOz Sale has rain on the way. Best weather. Don't make me laugh.
I didn't expect to hear gympie qld which never gets mentioned to haha
@@mrrhody7234 Nor did I. Not two places you usually here of outside Australia.
My head was hurting trying to figure out if each line was a setup for an ad or just a long-winded explanation related to the story
I think a big point that was missed here was gun related suicides, and how this effects the gun related deaths numbers.
When I did a paper on this during high school suicides made up nearly 50-60% of Australia's firearm related deaths in the years prior to the ban. After the ban, the suicide rate continued to trend followed the economic trend like it did is similar countries, however the means of suicide changed. Firearms related deaths plummeted while pharmaceuticals skyrocketed. If memory serves me right based off the trends, the lack of firearm related suicides accounted for something along the lines of 80-90% of the reduction in firearm related deaths after the ban at least up to the point I did the paper which was 5-7 years after the ban went in place.
Mind you the US has a similar percentage of firearms related suicides, so it would be plausible there would be similar results here.
I agree. I have serious depression and if I lived somewhere else with easy to access guns I would probably be dead by now.
I know people who have attempted suicide unsuccessfully via pharmaceuticals, and given the help they need, are living happier lives now. They wouldn't have had that chance with a firearm.
@@OfTheOverflow yes! 100% me included
So... Do you happen to know whether most committed suicide by other means or whether the total number of suicides went down significantly? That would seem like a good result too, even if not the intended one.
@@Snowshowslow Post ban the total suicides was still very close to the espected suicides when following the trends of similar countries. I think it was +/-10-15% but it has been a long time since I did the paper.
Im 13 minutes in and I haven’t heard about planes yet. This is shocking.
perhaps he doesn't want to mention planes in a video about acts of terrorism?
(that's not a snarky "you're wrong" comment, I am genuinely wondering if that is the reason, I'm assuming that's why but I don't know for sure)
@@cerjmedia i think that would be fitting
There is a statistically unlikely but still realistic possibility that he just forgot to include planes. But most likely he wanted to give the subject matter the respect it deserved.
what about red bricks?
You were a little quick to write that comment, as planes are mentioned at 15:07
"never let a good crisis go to waste"
That perfectly describes the way politicians accomplish their goals
I got chills when he quoted that. True words of an authoritarian dictator wannabe
That perfectly describes any competent leader. If there's a crisis, it means things need to change. And it's much easier to make changes during a crisis than when everyone is settled into their roles again.
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv That, or just a hard core pragmatist.
@@FunkyJeff22 if that was what he meant they why is the "go to waste" there? That sentence literally implies to take your chance to get things your way
Yes, that’s how politics works. It sounds nefarious, but would we not say the same about a nation’s response to a natural disaster? Or famine? Or war? Another way of reading it is not as politicians as nefarious actors, but as bumbling fools who need some major external event to justify finally having the backbone to do something. Most politicians aren’t out to control the masses, they’re there for themselves - the comfortable job and easy paycheck. Worry more about their intransigence on all other issues rather than the one time they decide to take action on something specific.
I’m Tasmanian, and I remember the Port Arthur massacre very well, it effected all of us in our small state of then under half a million people. There are so many stories I could tell of that day, but I won’t. All I will say is lots of people here in the 1990s knew of a young bloke who looked like a surfer driving around in a yellow Volvo with surfboards on the roof racks who didn’t surf. The surfers knew.
I need to correct one thing though. Even Tasmania’s weak gun laws at the time had long since banned automatic weapons for civilians. Handguns were also strictly controlled. Any other long guns seemed to be a free for all though. I know. I had them then. One I bought was a semi-automatic rifle(7.62x39) from the same dealer in his tiny gun shop as the arsehole who carried out the massacre. I even bought an illegal 30 round magazine from him. My attitude has completely changed since. I hated John Howard at the time, but I can see for myself the results of those reforms.
I’m glad the gunman(I refuse to use his name) is never going to be released. There is more he is suspected of prior to Port Arthur, and even background checks might have prevented that particular massacre…
What also would have prevented many deaths is having allowed more law abiding citizens to carry in public.
Banning or heavily restricting guns wont stop someone driving a truck into a large crowd, or going on a stabbing spree. Just means you’re now less capable of defending yourself.
@@paulwilliams667 we have a small population, with a very law-abiding culture, and our police are well armed. We haven’t had a mass shooting in Tasmania since the Port Arthur massacre. Or any other mass murder. We live in a country where any murder makes national news.
I need to put it simply. Australia is not the USA. There have been a number of instances where someone will deliberately drive into a crowd, or go on a stabbing spree in other states of Australia, but they are way fewer than the number of mass shootings we were having nationwide prior to the stricter gun laws. Lots of law-abiding citizens carrying guns just means lots more people who can potentially go off the rails with a deadly weapon. If you’re carrying a sidearm, what are you going to do to someone shooting everyone he sees with a semiautomatic rifle(he had an AR-15 and FN FAL)? Most people would just piss their pants! I’ve used the FN FAL, known in Australian service as the L1A1 or SLR when I served, it has substantial hitting power and range.
@@NoName-ds5uq Agreed, Australia is a very different place from America and each requires unique solutions.
As for what I'd do with a pistol vs someone armed with a long rifle, last year a man named Dennis Butler opened fire with an AR15 at a graduation party. He was ended by a woman with a pistol before causing any casualties. The way I see it, having freer access to weapons will probably make tragedies somewhat more common. Is it worth handing over all power and responsibility to the government for my protection? Emphatically NO. Every totalitarian country in the last 100 years has made citizen ownership of weapons impossible, or nearly impossible, for a reason.
@@paulwilliams667 Which is why the US is doomed to suffer mass gun murders every single week. People with your attitude are part of the problem. Smarter people realise that some things need high levels of regulation for the good of the community, and guns are one of them. I mean, seriously, can you not just look at the US and realise how having guns in almost every home has completely failed and resulted in mass deaths? Can't you see that, are you that delusional?
@@paulwilliams667as a Tasmanian no thank you, I'm very happy with our current gun laws thanks 😊
I think it is worth mentioning another influencing factor that made the gun buy-back scheme successful. Anecdotally, top dollar was paid for the weapons being bought back and quality of the weapons was always over-estimated. This generosity by functionally buying above market I think helped minimise feelings of getting 'ripped off' by the government.
Except you can't put a price on rights, so they did get ripped off.
@@xc8487 looool
This is why the American buy-back will always fail. Everyone attempting to do the buy-back consistently undervalues guns here. A gun whose worth on an international market for say 1000 dollars, the national market for 800, and local for 600, will be appraised at 50 dollars for American buy-backs. Unless you are a gun manufacturer, giving up your guns as a commodity (never used, always locked in a safe) will put you in the extreme red monetarily. Because the point of said American buy-back is not to shift the culture away from guns and relying on a well equipped and supportive police force, but rather to disarm both the citizens and the police so that you and your political friends can do whatever the hell you want to the community at large. There's all sorts of overtly illegal and usually also immoral things that politicians would like to do to people but both the citizenry and the police and even to a lesser extent the military will not stand for. But if no one can fight back, nothing they can do.
And this is ignoring the use of guns out in rural areas. I'm not going to try testing the theory that guns are not needed when I happen upon a grizzly bear and all I have is a small knife. Europe lacks any major predators or natural dangers because they've killed off all of them over the years. Did you know that there was a European lion species? That's where all the lion heraldry comes from. The Asiatic lion overlapped in Turkey and Romania, too. And there was even a huge cave lion species native to Europe. But no lions naturally live in Europe anymore. You'd need a gun to fend one of them off. For all intents and purposes, a crossbow is basically a manually loaded gun that fires a massive slow moving bullet. More than one bolt would be needed to tackle a lion.
@@xc8487 the results speak for themselves.
So you must not of handed back any firearms if you think the prices where high.
I live in Melbourne, Australia. I do remember the Hoddle Street and Queen Street Massacres.
Still a more interesting question to ask is what led to the sudden increase in gun related massacres in the 1980s and 90s compared to the 1960s, and 70s?
The increase in massacres since the 60’s and 70’s is due to the changing media coverage of murderers in those decades. Specifically the on screen fetishizing of Bundy, Manson, and the son of Sam cases plastered on every TV in the country for weeks because they started to understand that fear drives ratings without understanding what it would do to society and young minds
Cultural issues I think. Also possibly the rise in mental health issues. Hard to say what exactly
Political stability leads the virgin psychos to want to cause destruction, whereas their time would otherwise be taken up with war or revolution
accessibility and improved technology probably, remember the economy and industry in general was several stunted during WWII which ended in the mid-40's and much of the 50's was spent recovering from that stunt, the 60's and 70's had a boom of improved technology and manufacturing output including for guns, also around that time mass shootings also picked up steam elsewhere including the US and copy cats likely got inspired, it's kinda like how social media in recent decades has encouraged a lot of dangerous trends that people wouldn't have thought up on their own but because they had an outlet to see it where it was also glorified with a lot of attention then they go and do it as well.
International energy crisis in late 70s, recession at the start of the 80s, another recession at the start of the 90s, consider unemployment rates as a result of said recessions.
I appreciate how this video attempted to anticipate some people's objections to its claims (randomness vs. cause, etc.), but it missed the mark: Most objectors are not concerned about the correlation between gun laws and a decrease in a very specific subset of violent crime; instead, they are concerned about whether the decrease in that very specific subset of violence is offset by increases in other equally-serious threats (and/or that it includes incidents that are not created equal, and so are misleading).
Here's what I mean by "offsetting": Objectors to gun regulations are often concerned that a decrease in gun violence will be offset by an increase in violent acts committed with other weapons (or by physically-strong unarmed individuals using brute force to prey upon smaller, weaker victims), or that a decrease in mass-casualty attacks will be offset by an increase in individual crimes, or that a decrease in private-sector crimes may be offset by a marginal increase in the probability of tyranny by the government. Many are concerned about the cumulative effects of these offsets rather than simply one or another, though many also have a hard time articulating that in heated conversations where they're being shamed for supposedly not caring about innocent victims.
There's also the concern that not all gun deaths are created equal. For instance, if a criminal shoots an innocent victim, that's one thing, but if a strong, muscular, knife-armed mugger or rapist is shot by a diminutive female would-be victim, that's an entirely different situation, since taking the gun out of her hands wouldn't decrease the violence that occurred, just who was on the receiving end of it. Similarly, I suppose that even a "mass shooting" statistic could follow this logic, since if someone were about to be mugged by a group of at least four gangsters, the incident would be labeled a mass shooting even if it was entirely self-defense.
All these are reasons why objectors will often also object to the term "gun violence" itself, as the real goal should be to eliminate cases of criminal violence regardless of weapon, rather than weapon violence regardless of criminality.
Very interesting point never thought of it this way nefore but lets be honest, most objectors are definitely concerned about correlation between gun laws nd decrease in specific crime i.e mass shooting, they dont want gun regulation because they see guns as traditional value. Also this idea that gun ownership shouldnt be regulated because a big rapist man or gangster could attack you out of nowhere isnt wise, when they had no gun regulations how many ppl warded off rapists and gangsters by shooting them? Was there a decrease in crime then cause everyone could get a gun? They seem to be conflating gun ownership with an actual mastery and willingness to go into like a trained military mode when confronted with danger which is just far from reality.
@@afrosymphony8207 I do think that being on the pro-gun side of the debate is a traditional value for objectors, but not because guns themselves are a traditional value. (It's sort of like how you don't buy a vacuum cleaner because you value vacuum cleaners, but because you want clean carpets.) The traditional value is taking personal responsibility for the safety of one's self and one's family, and perhaps for playing one's part in providing some level of deterrence against tyranny.
You ask how many people have warded off gangsters, muggers, rapists, etc. by shooting them, but the reality is that the _actual_ number we need to look at is the number of people who have warded off criminal attacks by using their gun at all--including those who were able to do so without firing a shot in addition to those who actually fired their weapon in self-defense--and I think that number would be difficult to come by, because not all such incidents are reported.
I do think that in rural areas where most homes have guns, there's a sort of "herd immunity" that develops where people are afraid to break into any house because they never know which one's got an armed person inside. This herd immunity likely provides some level of protection against break-ins even for households that don't own a gun, including ones that cannot do so for various reasons (e.g. familial mental illness). Security from break-ins, whether because your home is armed or because you benefit from herd immunity, is important in far-flung areas where the police response time is very long. The Australian government was only able to get away with saying that a gun isn't needed for self-defense because rural Australians--the ones who live where there is a very obvious lack of police presence, and who actually do need guns for self-defense in reality--were allowed to have guns for shooting varmints.
As for your last point, I would say that at least in rural Oregon where I live, a sizable number of people who carry firearms for self-defense actually do have military training, and a not-insignificant number of them are veterans of foreign wars, whether Iraq, Afghanistan, or (for some of the older ones) Vietnam. That being said, sometimes full military training isn't necessary, because many times, when a gun owner deters a crime, (s)he does so without needing to fire a shot.
As for the issue of deterring tyranny, I'm not going to personally say this definitely couldn't have happened without the gun ban, but objectors do like to point to South Australia's ban on going outside (alone) to walk your dog, a reaction to 36 COVID cases in their entire state, as a reason why we shouldn't have a gun ban like Australia's.
Your objections don't seem to be impacted by the sensible gun regulation that is beeing proposed in the US.
-- Raising age to 21
-- Banning assault rifles like the AR15 (-> gun buyback program)
-- Universal background checks
-- Closing of loopholes that buypass background checks
-- Longer waiting period
With all those things in place you will still be able to legally protect your home with firearms, which seems to be your main argument, and the "herd immunity" effect you mention later is still there.
There's also the positive windfall from those measures on policing. Fewer guns around makes police work easier, more effective, and hopefully more precise.
@@lorenzovaletti4951 how would banning assault rifles be beneficial in any way? New automatic and burst fire rifles are already out of reach for most people to purchase in the US, and have been since 1986. Assault rifle doesn’t mean it’s fully automatic, and banning them selectively but not any other semi automatic rifle out there capable of the same or more harm doesn’t strike me as “sensible gun regulation”. What specific quality of an assault rifle is worth banning?
@@philipmcniel4908 Protecting a "herd-immunity" is not a good reason to have zero or bare minimum gun regulations, the covid one is probably the poorest objection i ever heard. if you want to protect your home you have to meet proper requirements just like how you have to meet requirements to build a house or own a car. its just common sense law really.
Another way to add more data to get a more accurate picture of if decreasing gun availability also decreases gun homicide rates, one can look worldwide. Worldwide, gun homicide rates are not correlated with gun availability. They are, however, correlated with both poverty and income inequality. Australia's population got wealthier at the same time as they implemented the gun reform. Something to think about...
There's a helpful document which points this out authored by the UNODC
Insurance companies make up for bad modeling with good attorneys. My three favorite cases.
1. Hurricane insurance supplement doesn't cover flood damage, that's a separate thing.
2. Business insurance interruption insurance didn't cover COVID shutdown because it was due to pandemic, that's a separate thing.
3. COVID wasn't covered under epidemic insurance supplement because that isn't a listed qualifying disease outbreak. New diseases causing a pandemic insurance, that isn't a thing.
As mad as I'd like to get at these for being kinda scummy, at least with the Covid ones, it's probably the only option they had. (apart from going out of business)
The first one is definitely misleading but it does make sense in a weird way. A hurricane is a rapidly spinning wind storm at its core (heh, literally). Although they do, it doesn't have to come with rain and flooding. Theoretically a large enough waterspout would be a hurricane (an often weaker tornado over water that sucks up water instead of typical land debris). Also, a good tip is that you should always buy your wind and water insurance from the same company otherwise they'll fight for months or years about what damage was due to which.
The second one usually specifically list that they don't cover pandemics, federal regulation and natural disasters. Its meant to provide protection from "normal" shutdowns like a worker strike or shipping delays etc. Sure you'd want it to cover those conditions but if you're buying insurance that specifically says it doesn't cover some situations you really shouldn't expect it to work in those situations.
The third one i'll admit is pretty dumb, but again if your insurance lists specific diseases... well you're kind of an idiot for buying that insurance unless you live in a part of the world where epidemics are a common occurrence. An epidemic is a widespread disease outbreak in a particular area while a pandemic is a worldwide disease outbreak. Pandemics are always caused by a new disease variant because otherwise people would have enough immunity to prevent it from being that widespread.
In conclusion, if your insurance lists specific situations it will or won't cover you should really read those situations and understand they are going to be absolute. The wording of a contract matters so make sure that your insurance covers what you think it does.
@@alexsis1778 to be honest, my source for 2 and 3 is that youtuber advocating for right to repair legislation. Guy runs a 3rd party repair shop and is always bad mouthing Apple. Anyways, during the pandemic he was explaining how he had all these policies for interruption but none of them covered him.
No idea if that is an industry standard for risk mitigation or if he just chose a bad policy. Personally, I think they're great addendums to the hurricane/flood example since they are equally ridiculous in a rational society. They only make sense when corporate profits are treated as equally or even more important than human lives.
@@cameron7374 fuck insurance, let them go broke
The statistical arbitrage is attorneys 😆🤣🤣🤣
While googling about gun policy (especially in the US), one thing that I still cant wrap my head around is that the majority of gun deaths are caused by gun suicide. Its a crucial piece of information that affects every data with "total gun death" label on it but i still cant draw any conclusion yet
Definitions change over time too. The qualification for 'mass shooting' was lowered, which instantly raised 'mass shootings'. Politicians will decriminalize things just to claim a reduction in crime.
@@darksanta4185 TBH decriminalizing marijuana so you can say "crime went down" is pretty based.
But yeah "gun death" statistics including suicided are used to exaggerate and mislead. Most American gun murders are nothing like school shootings either; most of both suicides and murders are done with small convenient guns.
Those suicides are still important. Here's another way to look at it: statistically, gun ownership is one of the single highest risk factors for suicide.
Having a quick and easy means of ending your life means that a few minutes of suicidal thoughts is all that is needed for someone to die. Compared to other methods, which are typically much more painful or require preparation, there's much less time to change your mind.
If these suicidal people hadn't had easy access to a firearm, a significant portion of them would still be alive and able to seek help.
@@darksanta4185 I dont understand what you mean by decriminalizing to claim a reduction in crime based on your previous point. Can you pls explain more?
@@ENCHANTMEN_ yeah i read abt this but isnt totally convinced yet.
The argument makes sense but touches a totally different problem. I mean i fear guns for its capability in giving power to kill others instantly not offing themselves. Dont get me wrong, i am totally biased towards gun banning but i try to listen to both sides.
the US will just be like, ok whats for dinner?
I remember the one-off buy back scheme on my tax, it was specifically itemised and labeled and it cost me about $400 or so for that one year. You touched on it few times in the video, ones of the keys is culture. We just don't have a pew-pew culture problem. That leads to Joe Average never having to worry about pew-pew violence in everyday life things like getting mugged on the street, home invasion, getting into a road rage incident, or getting into any other type of problem. The odds of someone pulling a pew-pew on you in any scenario is so close to practically zero that we never worry about it. It's *very nice* living in a society like that.
I *can* go and buy a pew-pew, but the red tape and storage restrictions, continual checks (they will come to your house periodically and check) and costs required is just crazy, so hardly anyone bothers given there is practically zero need. You are literally better off protecting your house and family with a cricket bat. I can also find out exactly how many there are in my suburb, it's in the public database (500 or so last I checked which was surprising, and 246,974 in my state of NSW)
We got this way by slowly limiting the cultural effect and need through legislative control, buy-backs, and amnesties (6350 were surrended by amnesty in the last 10 months in my state).
That doesn't mean the same can work for countires like the US that already have the cultural and freedom thing dialled up to 11.
It worked here because the people with the real need, farmers, got to keep theirs, and everyone else was like, "yeah, sounds reasonable".
It also helped that both before and after Australia never actually had a mass shooting problem, or even a homicide problem, but now it does have a tyrannical government problem, one that couldn't exist if the citizenry was armed, but the fascists who control the anti-gun lobby don't like people pointing out that fact about Australia even if they've at least been smart enough to stop using Australia as the go-to example for how unreasonable policies can work.
A pew pew? Seriously?
if i buy a gun illegally i don't have to go through any of these tons of checks. and it's really easy to get one in Brazil
@@ZontarDow how is Australia government bad
is there or has there ever been gang problem in Australia? I’m personally very pro Gun, and don’t fit the stereotype of a pro gun guy. I’m 18, live in a NY suburb, black and own 5 guns. I’ve always thought to myself part of the reason that AU’s ban wouldn’t work as a good comparison to the US is that the overall crime rate (especially violent crime) in the US is very high relatively speaking. The gangs and cartels here wouldn’t give up guns, and criminals when interviewed in the US, say they consider if their victim would be armed before they decide to commit a crime. Therefore removing guns from law abiding citizens would likely not have the effects that people would hope for, at least not enough to justify the # of people who defend themselves with a gun (which I also understand is a pretty uniquely American thing)
The Indigenous populations of Australia weren’t hostile. When the first fleet arrived there was a good relationship between the British and Indigenous. This relationship only turned hostile when the British began taking land that they swore not to.
That was kind of the situation, everywhere the British colonized. North America, Carribean, India etc
@@nolanderish Just wanted to make sure that people who weren't aware of this weren't misinformed :)
That's not actually true. Different tribes had different temperaments.
If you want to know about hostilities, James Cook shot a man before even making landfall.
@@Ratu_Savu Agree. I wondered about this Wendover statement too.
I was also surprised by that word being used in the intro.
I think the extremity of the control is a point of contention since it's gone on to cover toys too.
As an aussie I haven't heard anyone complain about the restrictions covering toys aside from being a bit unhappy that there has to be an orange tip on the end of the gun.
4:34 looked like it went down from the 80s
What can we do in Brazil? Guns were very strictly regulated and almost prohibited, but we have the largest number of homicides per year.
It's a culture issue. Anytime someone mentions gun control it's a huge red flag that they're most likely a lunatic that believes everything the Democratic party tells them. This video is a joke.
In Latin America it's a problem of culture, crime, inequality and lack of Social Safety Nets.
Thought Colombia was up there also, which also has strict gun control.
Better social welfare programs.
Convince the US to implement gun control. That's where most of the firearms used by criminality in Latin America come from.
While gun control laws are practical and address a multitude of issues, I'm personally more concerned about why random kids are feeling the need to shoot everyone in their schools, perhaps taking away guns will prevent them from actually doing so, but I'd imagine the underlying issue there is entirely unrelated to the existence of guns, and I feel like the gun debate overshadows it to the point that we're just ignoring it...
If they ban guns then criminals will just use knifes , machetes, fire or whatever they may think of using as a weapon just look at china they have the same problem but with people that use knifes to commit massmurders. The problem isn't the object it self but the person using it this is like someone gets its home robbed and blame it on a screwdriver that the thief used, the logic just doesn't make fking sense. Plus gun control (atleast in the US) can't be implemented since the US literally has more guns than people. also even if implementing gun control in the us is possible there is the reality that a determine criminal will just buy the gun in the black market or the criminals may not even have a record.
This comment deserves more attention. People can easily too invested in the peripheral political issue to ask what's really going on.
you said it
A sense of societal collapse and social isolation seems like a driving force behind many of them, maybe even most of them. Unfortunately, those are issues are systemic and very, very difficult to address. At least in the near- or mid-term. In the meantime, reasonable gun control laws may only be a bandage, but bandages are pretty important in the process of saving lives.
Yeah. Banning guns doesn't stop the violence at all, just makes it so less overall get killed. Knife mass killing events are mentioned where guns are banned or very difficult to get.
People are always comparing the increase and decrease in gun violence but I would like to know how much of that was replaced with other forms of violence. Sure gun murders were stopped but were murders in general prevented? There are a lot of variables at play.
It seems that Australia's statistics for murders and homicides overall were not recorded before 1990, but World Bank statistics after 1990 show a general decrease in intentional homicides in Australia overall. Perhaps there is the idea that technological advancements in surveillance, safety, communications and other crime-adjacent industries have led to homicides being more difficult/less viable than just a sweeping gun policy, but it seems to collate with other data from other countries that reducing gun usage helps reduce people dying.
The thing is: murder by something other than a gun is a LOT HARDER. So impulse (and accidental) killings would certainly go down with limiting gun ownership.
@@k.h.6991 In Australia, 99% of all violent gun crime commited post 96 was committed by people who didn't have a license and owned their guns illegally. So can you please tell me how putting further restrictions on licensed shooters will have any reasonable outcome?
It's frightening how often I hear about people getting stabbed here. Stabbed in a nighclub, stabbed on a walk home.
My mate's dad got stabbed and killed by a 14 year old a few months ago. Why? Because the 14 year old was stealing someone's bike and my mate's dad tried to stop him.
@@matty8944 I mean, you're not going against what @K. H. is saying. You're just bringing up something tangentially related.
Also "99% of all violent gun crime" can mean 99% of 100 cases, i.e. 99 cases. Or 99% of 12 cases, i.e. 11.88 cases. Mathematically and logically, I don't see much merit in what you're arguing, in relation to what @K. H. is arguing
The statement “an AR15 was available in Tasmania without a licence” is not accurate.
A firearm licence was required in Tasmania after 1991 to own firearms.
Also, there is no national registry; the registry is managed separately in each state.
You also failed to mention that the Australian constitution prevents the federal government making laws on civilian firearm ownership.
Thanks oil baron but I struggle to see any value to these corrections in relation to the points presented
@@innfos4634 how about the interest of presenting correct and accurate information?
Interesting to learn the Constitution does not directly give the Commonwealth powers to enact gun laws!
@@davtra that’s what stopped the Commonwealth government enacting strict gun control back in 1987 & 1991 when they wanted to.
@@innfos4634 I mean the claim that Australia only had 2 mass shootings since the 1996 Gun Ban is completely inaccurate.
I know of at least 2 dozen and thats just me putting effort into finding them.
There is no government or private agency documenting and collecting the data and making it available to the public for people to make up their own minds.
it is almost like they dont want people to know that the Gun Ban of 1996 failed miserably
It would be interesting to see if the lowered mass shootings had any correlation with annual murders, home invasions, general crime or murders by other means and also to see what percentage of those gun deaths were perpetrated by law abiding gun owners and how that rate changed(if at all) with gun legislation.
I don’t know about murders, but I know gun related suicide dropped
The port Arthur shooting was using a legal gun
@@ghazghkullthraka9714 and then suicides by other means increased to match. The statistics show that the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are justified acts of self defense.
Most school shootings in the USA are from legal firearms
@@ItsNom49 Elliot Roger in 2014 and this recent shooting were both using legal guns just off the top of my head
One topic I’d like to bring up is a correction to the intro of the video, our original settlers were British convicts (with some non prisoner settlers sent with bribes of huge farm land) and the indigenous settlers of Australia were well documented to be incredibly welcoming to the English first fleet.
Never thought I’d be a Karen but it’s not fair to their history that the intro is incorrect, it could give a wrong impression to anyone who doesn’t know our history. Idk I’m just an Australian pretty sure I’m actually a paid actor
Agree with you, it was the first thought that went through my mind. They weren’t ‘hostile’ natives but rather very welcoming but were mistreated, and in may places displaced and massacred by those seeking their land. Some did rise up to try to protect their country, but the hostile native trope does the First Peoples of our land a great disservice.
@@parvizdeamer yeh thought the same thing when I heard it. Also the diseases from the Europeans didn’t help at all
100% agree with you. Felt a bit uneasy hearing the first nations people referred to as merely "hostile" without any further clarification or context. They weren't the aggressors, the colonisers were.
Aborignals were the welcoming one and the british kinda took over their land so they arent really the bad guys here
The intro is very insensitive. The first nation's people had tamed the land using their own land management techniques. They used back burning to manage bush fire. They had their own forms of agriculture and even aquaculture for fish farming. To suggest that Europeans had to step in to "tame" it is a slur against those legacies.
What about rates of other forms of deviancy? Every time theres a mass shooting we talk about guns and very rarely what drove one kid to mass murder his classmates. It feels like a gun ban is trimming the leaves of a problem tree rather than attacking it at its roots.
I was really surprised that there is zero mention in this video of the introduction of the National Healthcare system in '84 and the wide-ranging effects of huge changes in their economy in that twenty year period. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
i live in melbourne and in the past few years there are a lot more crime related shootings especially in the new outer fringe suburbs
As an Australian, I don't think we really care if that decade was just a fluke. We seem to be perfectly okay with gun laws as they are. I'm 30, and I can't remember a single time in my life that loosening gun laws was ever really on the political table. With all the ruckus beforehand, you'd think there would be a huge culture for that here. Truth is, there really isn't. Neither major political parties have had it on the agenda. What's done is done, I guess. America might have something to do with this. Like a bad example. A deterrent, I guess?
isn't funny how the more guns we got, the more crime went down? I wonder what would have happened if they were never banned.
Unless you’re one of the estimated 1.5 million licensed owners. If shooting and hunting is your hobby you’d be frustrated by some of the nonsensical restrictions that can differ state by state.
@@Eric-gw1uo They aren't banned here in Aus. I know a few people who have them. You can get a licence and own them. The licence can be a pain to get but if you are persistent you can get access to a prettty decent array of guns. We want good people to have guns not nutcases.
@@davidlp3019 here in America you weren’t allowed to label someone a nut case without being a bigot or a racist unfortunately
52% of murder in America is black killing black & the rate was 42% 30-40 years ago!! England banned guns in 1774 colonial America & attempted gun confiscation in 1775, started that 8 year war for America's independence & England almost won that war in 1783!! 2500-3000 are killed yearly by knives & for every murder, 2-3 are killed in car accidents in America mate!!
Insurance existing because they're good at modeling doesn't account for the tremendous time and effort insurance companies put into devaluing and dismissing claims. If they actually worked, they could just pay what they're supposed to.
That discounts companies greed. Even if you factor in the costs to pay out why bother if you can get away with not doing it.
And the fact that there's literally legal requirements for people to have all kinds of insurance.. lmao
Private insurance companies are nasty money making machines, but also remember the number of nasty customers who try to cheat them, or even the people who didn't read what they are covered for. If all their customers were honest and smart the companies might work a little less aggressively to check claims.
@@HweolRidda And if the companies were more honest, and clear about policy, there would likely be less malice from customers. Two way street or something like that
Lol right you might as well use the dmv as an example of something working
A very insightful video. Thank you
We did something like that here in Brazil. Didn't worked that well...
Chad move right here
Just because you didn't implement it well doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked if it was.
@@Game_Hero It was really well implemented, i've saw just a couple of guns on civil hand during all my life. Our biggest problem here is high crime rate, cartels and criminal organizations in general, they don't care about gun control laws... Guns are becoming a trend again, our active president kind of making easier to buy it...
@@RicardoGaedke So there is a correlation between easy access and firearm violence. Never said it was a causality.
@@Game_Hero well, murder rate has decreased last years since the new president facilitated acces to guns to civil... Could just be because of the pandemics, but not sure about the correlation... let's wait and see if it rises again...
Brazil would love to have a talk with you.
Memes aside, this didn't work with Brazil when they did this, it was the complete opposite in fact. The conditions of each country are different, but today the US shares more with Brazil back when they instituted "Gun Control" than with Australia when they did it.
Oz has a closed border and doesn't;t let anyone in without lots of cash. This video is a lie.
For every Brazil, there’s 2 Australias
@@jesualdocortez6426 lol not true, and america is exactly like brazil so there can be 100 australias for 1 brazil
@@willblack8575 In what way would you say America is like brazil?
Brazil is corrupt and has ineffective law enforcement.
I think one thing in the video was very telling here, and that was the overwhelming public support for gun control measures that existed in Australia before the legislation was enacted. While there was some resistance, the critical mass of voters in favour was clearly a strong enough bulwark to pacify them. If we're making the obvious comparison here, I really don't think said country has nearly that level of support.
Hey look real talk instead of all these people who failed high school algebra acting like they're experts on statistical analysis. Good point.
@@jhonka it is a good point, I would like to see more analysis of other countries to expound on his thesis. Good baseline for discussion by the video author though.
A reasonable point, there is not overwhelming support in America for the level of gun control now present in Australia.
However, there is overwhelming support for some things, like closing the gun show loophole to make background checks properly universal.
True. Which really does say something about the public level of education in said country on this topic.
America is just built different. The Constitution recognises citizens have rights that a majority can't take away. There is no doubt that 51% of many American communities would vote for gun laws that are expressly unconstitutional.
Thank you for not naming a certain individual. Great piece. Very well done.
Don't give Martins name any power by making it a word people can't use he's not scary Australia isn't afraid of him he's boot scum that will rot in hell for eternity
In the years of the mass shootings before the gun ban was every mass shooters identity all the way from their name to what they had for lunch 100 days before the shooting published in every news paper and every news channel glorifying the shooter and has that practice changed ?
California has a pretty huge fire problem and its sad that insurance companies still claim that they cover things like house fires and other disasters especially through ads and other marketing even though every time one of the wildfires happen here either a few percent of the people affected get shafted or in recent years pretty much all of them get nothing and the homeowners usually are forced to sue or enter very expensive legal battles that for most people are not worth going through the immense stress after already losing all of their belongings and or family so the companies that promised to cover these things get to keep the money paid by most of the people who don't have the energy to fight in a courtroom for several years just to get what they were contractually promised.
That's really messed up! If they attempted that in Australia, they would be shut down & banned from operating in the country! Government would litigate on behalf of the ripped off people & get their money owed, or bankrupt the company & claim all it's assets to pay the people the company owed
Came for the Aussie gun reform, stayed for the lesson on Actuarial Science.
He should make the same video about Brazil’s gun ban.
@floydian022 Same
@@prestonanonuoso5508 He's gonna find a huge different scenario than Australia
Excellent
@@prestonanonuoso5508 Guns were never banned here in Brazil. 🤷♂️
The insurance company charges them $500 and denies payment whenever possible.
They have other models to estimate how many times they can deny payment before losing customers. This isn't a joke.
Yeah insurance in practice is one of the most predatory and slimy professions on earth
"The proof that it works is that the insurance industry exists." -Wendover productions
Nah, probably a better sign is that lobbying governments for mandatory insurance laws forces many people to buy insurance than would otherwise be normal in a free market.
@@BreadAccountant It wouldn't be insurance if they did it any other way. It's a betting game that has been around for thousands of years to help make large expenses affordable. 150 years ago you paid to have a doctor come to your house. You'll pay in taxes constantly, or when you need it.
A fundamental misunderstanding of insurance runs rampant here. "I don't understand something, so it must be a scam."
No mention of 2019?
What ever the law, how could a fire arm ever be sold to a man tally challenged person?!!!
If it is their right to have a firearm..... yep. Gun Control means making it more difficult for people to get weapons that make even the smallest squabble a possibly deadly encounter. Too bad more people can't see that.
Some criticism, Sam: I respectfully think that this is a poorly researched video. First of all, Chapman et al. did not provide that estimate, but a P value (
Thanks for the thorough reply. A lot of people including myself don't care enough look into the studies, we just want to be entertained by the video.
If what you saying is true then I wouldn't be surprise if some entity with an ulterior motive sponsored this video.
Thanks for the excellent clarification of the lies said in the video. Could you please provide a link to the study? I would like to read it myself.
Its very simple man. An average person doesnt need a firearm. Specially a highly mortal one. Thats common sense. Anything beyond this common sense is overthinking and improductive.
Someone should pin this comment…
naw. Could never happen.
Here in South Africa we have similar laws. We have a government and a police that can't keep illegal guns off the street. Someone can buy a AK for 10-20USD in the townships. We have the whole of Africa supplying some of the guns and then the criminals obviously will not sell that same AK and pistols to the government....
Firearm control needs a functional police otherwise you leave the lambs to the wolves, and the only way the lambs survive is to become wolves. Cause and effect?
Note: Some firearm control is needs. Keep guns out of the hands of criminals and emotionally unstable and the youth. (Suppose the youth is also temporarily emotional unstable). But you can't take it all away.
Regards people.
In very few countries it's illegal to own a gun, but in many you need a license and a reason to own one. Do you go hunting? Prove it and you'll be allowed a hunting rifle. Do you need to defend your home? You won't need an AR-15 for that.
the same country where white people were being literally raped and pillaged? Noice. Hows them gun laws working out?
Police will never be effective enough, people should have the means to defend themselves.
@bLackstar You are your own first responder
@@MattHatter360 I think you need to watch some footage of what goes on in South Africa. You most certainly do need an AR15, common criminals have access to to fully automatic full bore rifles and you expect someone to defend themselves with what, a shotgun? Pistol? When you're being shot at especially in a crime ridden country like SA the only person saving you is yourself
Insurance companies tend to have significant profit margins which also serve as a way of self insuring in case of bad luck. But their main weapons are the fine print and good lawyers. It makes 0 sense to provide insurance for natural disasters or pandemics because the probablilities are correlated between clients. If one client is affected, many others are. So you end up having to pay all your clients and going bankrupt. Or you don't because your fine print specifically states that the insurance doesn't cover the thing the title of the service says it covers. Or at least your lawyers are good enougth at convincing the judges that this is the case.
They also have back insurance
Thank you for observing the unwritten rule and not saying the scumbag's name. I'm Australian and it's one of those things I'll never forget.
Hello! I love your videos, but I beg to differ from your opinion this time. As a Brazilian, I have seen our country go through a weapons referendum in 2005 and despite over 60% of the population disagreeing, the same approach as Australia’s happened here. We don’t have mass shootings in Brazil, like the ones in USA and Australia, but gun violence in Brazil has increased over 25% since the weapon ban and reduced 30% to a newer low since this very law was relaxed in 2018, offering simpler ways for people to own weapons. We still have an absurd amount of murders in Brazil, but this kinda shows that the problem is not JUST gun control, but rather a cultural one. There are several factors IN OUR COUNTRY that contribute to gun violence and there are others in other countries that need to be addressed. This sort of psychological derangement that leads to a person becoming a mass shooter needs to be treated as a cause for research such as psychopaths were treated in the past. It’s great that gun control is working in Australia, but that’s not evidence that this is going to work elsewhere, especially since (at least in Brazil) its fairly easy to find illegal weapons anyway.
Wouldn't have expected a sane person realizing banning a tool from the law abiding won't stop criminals who won't follow it in this comment section.
Proud of you for standing up to the ignorance.
@@MinistryOfMagic_DoM what's ignorant is not realising the US is much closer to Australia than Brazil.
This is what most gun owners in the US are afraid of. They realize that banning guns isn’t going to solve anything because there are so many guns out there and criminals don’t follow the law. Sure, maybe banning some guns may curb some mass shootings, but it would very likely lead to more gun crimes overall. But, the US has a constitution that protects individuals rights to own guns.
@@nickbono8 but the opposite effect has happened in other countries.
Also, "amendment".
@@ozozozozoz4589 sure, it has worked for other countries, but those other countries also have completely different cultures and problems. The second amendment is meant as a power check for the government. The United States’ whole system is about checks and balances. Take away the power from the people and the government can do whatever they please. Hence, Australia’s wonderful COVID protocol to put people in concentration camps “for your safety”. That won’t fly here in the US. Too many people with guns and the government has no clue who has them. Just how it’s supposed to be.
14:54 Not ironclad: certain kinds of insurance are required by statute, meaning that even if the insurance companies' models *didn't* work, they'd still be in business just from the artificial demand created by government policy.
for the predictability part driving a red car tends to get pulled over more so the price for insurance is higher
I find it a little odd how anyone can argue that the decline was in anyway "in isolation". There are a good number of countries that have either outright banned public firearm possession, or have at least introduced stricter gun control since 1970 and the decline seems to be pretty unanimous across the board.
Yes.
Yes.
13:30 Risk aversion is rational in models where Bernoulli utility is strictly concave.
16:10 This is not how statistical inference works. Unless you have a uniform prior, there's a difference between a likelihood distribution and a posterior distribution.
Hey! An actual statistician! Nobody will listen to us tho.
@@JinandJuice90 People can listen but still not understand😔, not everything can be made into a helpful visual. Comments also don't have visuals.
I listened, but I did not understand...
@@yoloman3607 What we're saying here is that Wendover's cited study is inappropriately conducted, and that Wendover's interpretation of the statistical inference is improper.
You're wrong about insurance. In your example, they'd charge 100$, save 10 for eventual payouts, pocket 40 and spend the last 50 on lawyers/lobyists/etc so that they don't have to pay at all.
Another thing he got wrong was that they stay in business because of their accurate "rare predictive model" but actually it's because it's legally required to have insurance... at least in the United States
@@brianwalters9703 just in the US and most of them, if not all of them are global. Mandatory insurance where i live is state-controled and only pays out "for people" (if you die, lose a leg, go to the hospital or something). doesn't insure your car.
That was probably the best overarching description of insurance I've heard in a while
What a great video. The content is well researched and the presentation is engaging. Thank you for providing such amazing educational content for free! You’re amazing.
sure... it isn't full of lies and misinformation at all...
@Angus Chandler well it hasn't done anything in Australia 🤷🏽♂️
It might do something in the US if the bad guys bothered following the laws as Americans have a habit of mass shootings
@@sionsoschwalts2762 if you make it harder for bad people to get guns yea
@anguschandler4482 fr
@anguschandler4482 Theres 500 million firearms circulating in the USA right now, by all means id LOVE to hear what your solutions are that dont include killing millions of americans to force them to give up their arms
Buybacks are great. Spend $5 in printer filament, print a frame/receiver, and bam you just turned $5 into $100
One thing I learned about politicians and the media. Every tragedy is an opportunity for displaying relevance. Relevance equals power and wealth.
it works under lab conditions too, indeed as you have noticed it's these rare occasions that are the most helpful for political agendas, and when you consider the lengths people go for power it's not far fetched to see how many tragedies have an even more dark side to them, a man made side, I can think of a certain tower for example
As a political leader, you would be stupid not to engineer events to advance your agenda. It would be the most efficient means
If all your actions aren’t about personal gain, you never become a politician or a news mogul.
@@rafaelvazquez7465 yea, just look at P-body in R-sylvania land right now. Just lie enough and the population even gives up on listening one way or the other. As long as there’s still a knock off mcdonalds it’s all good.
@@rafaelvazquez7465 Are you implying that politicians engineered mass shootings as a means to ban guns in Australia?
It does matter because the issue isn’t guns, gun violence, knives, or knife violence. The problem is just violence and making law restricting guns only makes it so the people who are going to use guns in a nefarious way are the people who have them and the people who need to protect themselves from criminals can’t. Less government not more. The government is already passed way to hard when it comes to the 2A they don’t seem to know what “shall not be infringed” the ban on automatic weapons is definitely unconstitutional.
My only problem with the video was the insurance example. Insurance companies get it wrong all the time (typically in their favor) and no one comes in to under cut them because the industry is heavily consolidating and regulated, lack of transparent pricing, and switching friction. As much as I want to feel confidence in that 1 in 200,000, I can't help but doubt it's reality for not even having a range. Plus numbers are easily manipulated by bias so a single team's model isn't helping this case either.
You made some good points, but I disagree with some of them. You claimed that nobody comes in to undercut them. Does that how it works? Wasn't the video's point that the insurance companies undercut each other if they misprice the premiums? What did you mean that it didn't have a range? Did you mean that it lacked to state a confidence interval/statistical significance? If so, does it really matter? Also, I agree that it's only a single team's model, but just step back and think about it on a fundamental level. If you implement gun laws, you don't think it would prevent mass shootings? Look at the US which doesn't have gun laws but has a plethora of mass shootings. Then, look at other countries with strict gun laws like the UK and you'll notice there aren't mass shooting there. I mean is it really hard to believe that strict gun control will prevent mass shootings?
Yes, but even if that is true, models they base their decisions on are real and something scientists could get to know easily.
@@morninglift1253 You may not know this but 90% of the insurance industry is controlled by 3 companies when its that condenced unless regulation is put into place prices will only rise
@@Bobis32 Are you talking about insurance companies in Australia?
"get it wrong all the time (typically in their favor)" That's not getting it wrong, that's a margin not being as tight as the example shows, I guess the consolidation is different at different times and countries so it's hard to say the "correct" margin for every instant.
I would like to point out that between 86 and 96 England didn't have massively different gun laws to Australia, also would add the fact that even then nearly all gun deaths in the UK were with illegal firearms. Even today legal guns only account for suicides and accidents, they're rarely used in murders
thats the cultural element. English, generally, are unarmed, and cops, generally, are not armed with firearms, which means criminals, generally, are not armed with guns even where guns are available, because their is no need for that level of force, and indeed guns bring unwanted attention and "heat" form the police when they are used.
is knife crime a problem? yes, yes it is, but the effects of knife crime are significantly less than gun crime, and while neither are *desirable*, d prefer the risks of knife crime to gun crime.
@@xerxeskingofking Could you clarify how knife crimes are significantly less? Like on trauma, or amount of damage? Even here in the US, stabbing mortalities are far more common than with firearms. Also, knowing the engineering in knives designed to kill, that stuff is horrifying.
@@xerxeskingofking Knife crime is worse than gun crime, you have NO idea what you're even saying..... You have no business talking about restricting gun rights.
The US also had similarly restrictive egun laws during this time period. When they were loosened gun murders didn't go up at all.
Yeah but it would still be far more convenient if the gun would cost 34k in black market rather than 1k as was the case in uvalde lol. Also the deaths from gun AND knife crime is miniscule in comparison to US's case.
3:02 this is scary, my brother was one of the scouts sent by my school in the Austrlian Jamboree in Perth. Yeah, this happened far from Perth but tell that to a parent of a Scout.
Yeah cool story, still not surrendering a single gun
It would be nice to get some explanation of rare event predictive modeling. Can we get a video that covers that part of insurance soon?
It's probably better explained already on a different channel.
@@snowballeffect7812 perhaps. But if it's going keep coming up on their channel it's nice nice to have a video in their style explaining it
You want a 20 minute video that covers a degree in actuarial science?
@@notn0t does this guy Make 20 minute videos that cover degrees in urban planning, policy, transit, logistics, or probability?
No. He covers topics that you can get a degree in. But in an abbreviated, entertaining, and informative fashion.
Bad take bro just cuz something is complicated doesn't mean it can't be made into good content. That's literally the point of educational CZcams It's obviously not a degree, but it's entertaining and educational.
@@larsmurdochkalsta8808 But what kind of stock footage would he use to illustrate 20 minutes of abbreviated, entertaining and informative actuarial science?
Oh shit, "never let a good crisis go to waste" actually made it in! Saying the quiet part out loud.
Nothing will ever sway you we know there's no hope for the conservative party
@@WoWUndad now say the quiet part out lout. “Nothing will ever sway you so….”
I mean I think we're within a decade of them openly launching death camps to rid the planet of the no good righties...
@@WoWUndad nothing will sway you either. Verbal vomit.
Using the quote "Never let a good crisis go to waste" as some sort of reason to do nothing when something tragic is happening to people is so stupid. I supposed we should not have done anything in world war 2 because that would be taking advantage of a crisis right?
Rare event predictive modelling. Interesting stuff, thx!
When are we getting a video on the fall of Brazil's murder rate and the imposed limits on gun control?
11:20 Also, in many countries crime rates have dropped since the 90s since we stopped putting lead in gasoline around the 70s (the people with the most lead exposure as kids were in their late teens/early 20s). American politicians use the same drop to justify mass incarceration. Although given Australia had a falling murder rate before the 90s maybe their leaded gasoline had a different timeline.
Yes, but mass shootings are not crimes, they are closer to terrorist attacks, based on motivation. So the relationship between crime and lead levels don't necessarily apply.
In Sweden we have an increase in murder despite a strong gun laws….. most increase is due to importing masses of uneducated people that leads to crime from living in poverty.
@@andrasbiro3007 ........ read what you said out loud to yourself
@@andrasbiro3007 Are you implying conducting a terrorist attack is not a crime? If someone kills one person, then it's because of lead, but if they kill 10 people, nah, it must be something different?
but shootings are high in America at the moment
HOSTILE INDIGENOUS POPULATION?...TRY DEFENSIVE POPULATION.
Yeah - that clunked for me too. I think he was trying to echo the pervasive historical narrative that sat in the minds of the settlers and their offspring - that they were heroically civilising savage places and savage people. They would then have felt justified in using armed force to do so.
Honestly a really well done video just like every other video you put out. I’m as pro-gun as you get. I’m all for unfettered access to machine guns, civilian ownership of tanks, no background checks whatsoever, etc.
That being said the video was really well done compared to literally any other I’ve seen that’s similar to it. It’s nice to see a non hyper political purely statistical analysis of (Australian) gun law reform. Kudos from a guy with a 3D printer
Kudos to you for being mature enough to acknowledge the quality of somebody’s content even tho it conflicts with your views. Bravo my friend
I mean how you can watch a video like this and then say I'm pro all guns is really odd honestly. That's like watching a video explaining that sugar gives you diabetes and then eating a bag of sugar.
Would you share your rational for civilian ownership of tanks? I can't get my head around why someone would need an assault rifle and you go even further. I can't even come up with a scenario where you'll need / get to fire the six bullets of a simple revolver.
What’s your reasoning behind no background checks before giving people guns? It almost sounds like you want them to end up in the hands of bad people. Why would civilians need tanks? Why would you need a machine gun for self defence?
@@styrax7280 If you can't figure out why someone would need more than 6 rounds it shows that you are severely detached from the reality of how shootouts happen and firearms kill. I would recommend researching heavily into recent military infantry ambushes (those with lots of recordings and explanations), police shootouts, self-defense shootouts, and gang shootouts. Off the top of my head I can remember a case where a woman unloaded her revolver into the head of an intruder and he survived and ran away. Point blank she put 5 rounds into his head and 1 into his neck, that's all 6 and he still could have killed her and her family if he didn't freak out.
Watching the video, I'm glad no connections were made to any other country's politics. One thing however that was glossed over was the fact that violent crime didn't decrease after the ban, only that guns were used less often. Also, there were 9 mass shootings between 1997 and 2018, not two, according to the Australian government.
This needs more Bump.
Sloppy arguments and motivated reasoning are disappointing enough, but getting the most basic facts wrong is hard to understand. Very disappointed in Sam over this one 😢
Violent crime as a whole did decrease after the ban.
@@DEtchells anytime the gun control thing comes up people start glossing over things to prove a point. It's one of those stances that once taken breaks a lot of trust in people.
Depends of the definition of mass shooting. Those can vary. But if you give me a source I'll check.
It's simply different listening to your video now after watching Jet Lag: The Game. Just different, not worst.
Could you explain?
@@kandels3195 I assume from having seen his face / age and kind of removing / changing the veneer of authority he had to an extent.
@@STS-Dreamer 100% this. But I still love the Wendover videos!
same, but I'm honestly impressed someone so young is so articulate and knowledgeable about these things.
@@VelumCaeli Young people everywhere are continuously underestimated and made to jump through a thousand hoops just to prove they are worth something, even if they could do the job far better than their apathetic, incompetent, technologically illiterate superiors. So yes, try not to be *too* impressed.
I think a rather interesting video could be made on the origins of the Student’s t-test. While it’s about something that most people haven’t heard of, it’s one of the most important statistical models and the fact it was created to study beer is just kinda iconic.
Ban kitchen knives and cars and sticks and rocks. Don't forget rocks.
While I agree with the video's premise, and appreciate all of the effort that clearly went into it, I did have a couple of clarifications to make as a social scientist working as a data scientist.
1. More data does not mean it's less likely a relationship is merely correlational. What matters is whether confounding factors are properly adjusted for--either through the study's design or through the application of controls. (Even here, as you say at the end, it's still matter of probabilities rather than certainties).
2. It's not right to say that the study says that there's a 1/200,000 chance that the results are due to chance. I can almost guarantee that this is a translation of a p value and that isn't how they should be interpreted. There is a form of statistics that can compute these kinds of probabilities (Bayesian statistics) but there's a very good chance they weren't applied here. Additionally, it's wrong to imply that the p value suggests that it's a 199,999/200,000 chance that the law caused the decline. Basically, what this articulation is suggesting is that these are the odds of the decrease seen in the data GIVEN the law was past. But it's not. Loosely, it's the opposite: Given the data, here is the likely average difference the law makes. The two can only be equivalent when we have zero prior information about the topic.
I think most people familiar with the evidence in Australia would find it convincing that the policy had some positive effect towards reducing mass shootings. But that comes from the multiple, independent analyses using different proxies and measures. In that sense, I'm glad you referred to numerous studies rather than 1. After all, scientific knowledge is not a single paper or study but a literature of papers in communication with each other.
Great video, just wanted to correct the common stats misconceptions.
Not sure what you mean by "It's not right to say that the study says that there's a 1/200,000 chance that the results are due to chance. I can almost guarantee that this is a translation of a p value and that isn't how they should be interpreted."
From wikipedia: "From a Fisherian statistical testing approach to statistical inferences, a low p-value means either that the null hypothesis is true and a highly improbable event has occurred or that the null hypothesis is false."
Correct and consider the USA as a rather extreme control and just plot the % change in both countries since 1990. Add in New Zealand. Then try to claim that there is zero chance that something else was a factor in the massive global drop in homicide in first world economies since 1990. Im not making a judgement call on the policy here, personally I am still listening to people on both sides. But claims about efficacy of these laws are often astoundingly overrated. And lets be honest anyone who bothers to read the Harvard Injury Prevention Centers decades of publication and does not think they have a policy agenda is imo highly likely to have one themselves.
@@williamtell1477 but WHY should we not put these restrictions into place? so what if they don’t do anything? who cares? at least the us can say we tried to save our children. i see ZERO reason any civilian needs an automatic weapon that has literally 1 purpose-to kill people. you don’t use automatic weapons to hunt, you don’t use it to “defend” yourself, you use it to kill people. even in war theyre barbaric, why in the world would any person ever need one? answer is the gun lobby and the fear mongering that “joe biden is trying to take your guns!”. nobody ever said “take all your guns” and the constitution certainly didn’t say “you have the right to have as many weapons of war that you want for literally no reason other than to kill people”. ban them all. it hurts nobody. only gives the potential to avoid killing kids.
@@evanhruskar yes. But it's not a translation into direct probability. As OP said, there's a way to make that work using Bayesian statistics. But that's not what we're using here.
If you wanted the video carefully, what he said was there’s 199999/200000 chance that something other than random chance caused the decline, which is precisely the definition of p value in a intuitive sense. The comment about gun control caused decline was a theory, and a reasonable one, but he never claimed “199999/200000 chance decline was caused by gun law”.
Reads title of video..
*zips up hazmat suit before entering comment section*
So original
@@stabinghobo57 your comment is less original then theirs.
As an Aussie, I wish people wouldn’t make these videos because the Americans go crazy in the comments section
Question,now that the gun crisis is over why the government give the freedom back? Very few deaths means no more crisis. When there is a wildfire, actions are taken to stop its damage. Then the fire is over you don’t continue with those actions. Where actions for the gun crisis for the crisis or something else? History of weapons bans is often for government to gain more control over the population. Like
Its honestly not that bad yet.
They don’t have many basketball people
In the section about insurance you used the term "robbed" but were describing a "burglary." They are not the same thing.
The one big difference is that the Australian Constitution since inception doesn't have a section protecting the rights to bare arms thus creating a culture that isn't as gun passionate as Americans.
Neither did the US Constitution, until Reagan's activist court rewrote the 200 year old interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. :-(
@@HweolRidda and because of that you’re allowed to freely type this comment without backlash in the greatest country on earth. Count your blessings.
@@alilalani9531 What is this have to do with Sweden? ;)
You are trolling, right?
How else could you be wrong in so many things in a single sentence?
You know that there is a difference between the 1st and 2nd amendments, right?
...and none of them protect you against backlash
@@szirsp
what do you think will defend the first amendment in the event of a tyranny? It’s the first and foremost reason the 2nd exists…
@@alilalani9531 A lot of things could. People, hackers... Guns are outdated when the government has drones with missles, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, bio weapons, and algorithms that spy on you and know more things about you than your closest friends, and probably know what you will do before you do it ... your guns will not protect you in a true modern tyranny.
So you could argue that people should have access to the same kind of weapons that the government has, and everyone should be allowed to keep nuclear weapons in case they need to fight tyranny... or you could be sensible and give it up because it cause more harm than good.
There is free speech in a lot of countries that don't have huge gun lobbies... I mean something similar to US 2nd amendment.
Hey Sam
Could you make a video about the logistics of concerts or concert tours?
Especially Rammstein which moves a giant stage all over the world
@@cheesebusiness Naturally curious?
Shootings and Gun-Issues were covered by CZcamsr 'Some More News', partially also in the Video 'Greens War on Things She Said'. Its good to be updated, so if youre naturally-curious, go for it.
Ngl would be interesting.
Since in europe it tends to be a convoy of trucks and a few modified busses with living quarters.
good idea
Seems like you got your wish :D
Damn you were generous with that “near halfway” description lmao
Just wanted to say I really appreciated this video. It made me a bit proud to be an Australian and the explanation of the effect was excellent and much more nuanced than typical reporting
I'm surprised noone has mentioned how places like Switzerland have a high rate of gun ownership, yet do not suffer similar rates of mass shootings. Which would suggest the mere presence of guns does not predict the likely hood of gun violence.
That doesn't fit the narratiffff they're pushing, so it gets ignored
I suppose there could be additional factors as well: Switzerland has a compulsory military service rule for eligible citizens (which might be the reason for higher, but perhaps more regulated, gun ownership); population differences which makes Australia 3x more likely than Switzerland to have gun-incidents, if all other factors were the same; smaller geographical spread and smaller communities in Switzerland may lead to less alienation of individuals, and so on.
I'm not sure what the reason(s) are: but Switzerland's case could be very different from other countries which allow un-regulated buying of automatic/semi-automatic firearms.
Yeah Switzerland has compulsory military service. If you agree to get educated on how to use your gun responsibly for a few years, makes sense you get to keep it.
The video also ignores the alternative mass killings that persist in Australia in place of gun violence: arson attacks, vehicular attacks, etc. They continue to happen regularly. There is a behavioral component missing in the debate.
@@eggsngritstn Regularly my arse. Not only are those extremely rare, the number of casualties are signicantly less than gun crimes seen in the shithole that is the USA.
I would like to see this "rare event predictive model" that the insurance companies use. Both references 10 and 11 are just essentially poisson distributions. Poisson distributions are somewhat problematic to apply on mass shootings, since some of the assumptions that a poisson distribution requires are that the average rate of mass shootings in a certain time is known, simply taking the average rate from data in Australia is simply as estimate of this parameter, not the true value (that is impossible to know). Also when you add that the "true value" is changing due to the decreasing trend that already exited before the reforms this assumption is already quite questionable. The other assumption is even more problematic, it states that shootings should be independent in time between each other, which can't be the case since its known that media attention to a shooting increases the chances for another shooting shortly after. I'm not saying that gun control did not change the rate of mass shootings. However, talking big about "rare event predictive models that insurance companies use" is misinformative, since the models cited are not without their problems and are actually very simple models for someone who knows this field. This is the problem when a social science professor tries to apply statistical models, their applications of models is not always ideal since they don't fully understand the math. This does not invalidate the results of the models, only make them less credible, since most models are somewhat resilient to moderately small oversimplifications and errors made by the user.
How do I like this more than once?
All the insurance companies and actuaries that I know of use very antiquated backward-looking models. Your premium goes up after you make a claim because that's the most informative statistic. They aren't pulling in crime data and adjusting things in response to public policy changes.
This is how you have an industry that starts with a 40% gross margin and ends up with a 3% operating profit. And how you end up with trial lawyers having better data on the costs of various events than the insurance companies do.
ah yes, a youtube statistician. I assume you have a PhD in economics and pandemic control too?
@@alilalani9531 ?
I like this further breakdown! What stat class you have to take for this?
There are more legal guns in Australia today (since 2019), than before the 1996 buy back.
And yet mass shootings continue a downward trend.
Well done. This is one of the most well reasoned videos I've heard on almost any topic.
The reason State Farm exists is the same reason Las Vegas exists. Sure, they’re not “exactly” one in the same. But the basic mechanisms in play that keep both industries in business are nearly identical. House-edge economics.
State Farm may not be the best example as I believe they are a mutual company, not a traditional insurance company. So no real "profit" motive.
The interesting thing, however, is that neither Australia's violent crime or murder/homicide began decreasing after 1996. They took nearly 6 years after the fact to begin a decline, coinciding with the 2002 Proceeds of Crime Act which dramatically increased law enforcement budgets. Could just be correlation, but it is certainly not a direct result of the 1996 ban.
If I remember correctly though, guns were used a lot less in those violent crimes. Another thing he didn't mention is that suicide with firearms dropped more than just about any other statistic, something like over 80% less, which would cause some reduction in overall suicide rates as guns as a method have one of highest success rates.
@@matthewslavin1498 Piggybacking this, it's extremely common for people who've survived suicide attempts to actually discover that they really DO want to keep living. That doesn't happen much when the method they choose is so reliable, so making guns a less viable option means that there's literally 0 chance that if guns somehow disappeared the suicide number wouldn't drop substantially, purely because the other methods people would use are worse at actually doing the deed.
Or TL:DR, Can't have that second chance you realized you wanted at the "last second" if you die on the first one.
@@Graysett I don't want low lives who can't appreciate the gift of life dictating my right to defend myself from dictatorial government....
@@OGPatriot03 Luckily I already wrote out a comment that lightly touches on why "defending yourself from a dictorial government" is pure fantasy that won't end up going in your favor, so enjoy this copy+paste.
The "we need them to defend ourselves against tyrannical government" argument has been a shit one for decades. I could write a long post breaking it down, but that's too much effort for a youtube comment so you get the TL:DR.
TL:DR, the tech disparity between your average citizen and the literal US government (you know, the one that outspends the next 9 nations COMBINED on its defense budget) is so massive in the modern age that the idea that the people would come out the winners if the gov't went stupid and/or crazy and decided to stop playing nice is pure fantasy. And here's an easy proof.
How many armed citizens does it take to stop 1 room of doods god knows where that're piloting drones?
If you figure that out, there's some people in the middle east that'd love to know. Not quite sure if you should tell them though.
-
(Also, if the government ever did start fucking up enough for a populace as complacent as the US to actually fight back hard, the other nations would be on the country in a hot second and then pretty much everyone is screwed, especially the countries that rely on the US being the world enforcers for defense. The gov't, being not completely braindead, are aware of that and thus the idea of having to ever fight back militarily on any decent scale for any legitimate reason is stupid on its face because they have no reason to piss off that many people inside the country.)
(Also also, this argument very often comes from people who love to bootlick for say, the cops, and are totally fine with the cops overstepping their bounds as long as its done to "the right people", which just so happens to never be them (up until you get a 1/6 and suddenly it is and they're somehow shocked). Not that I'm saying this specific paragraph applies to you, but the point is that a lot of people who say they'd do shit wouldn't, not just out of cowardice, but because they'd be right there alongside the tyrannical government doing its tyranny.)
-
Or TL:DR for the TL:DR,
1: Tech disparity too big.
2: Info disparity too big.
3: Resource disparity too pig.
4: Gov't isn't stupid enough to risk causing the populace to revolt large scale because if that happens, the US's position weakens dramatically globally the US and our allies will get jumped on by everyone we've pissed off, and that's bad for basically everyone.
5: Even if the Gov't did somehow go crazy enough for that to happen, a ton of the people who say they needed the guns to defend themselves from the gov't have shown themselves to be bootlickers who will actually be working right with said tyranny as long as they're convinced that they're oppressing "the right people", and considering how easily these people tend to fall for labels (that the gov't can easily apply at will), that's not an unrealistic reality at all.
And yes, all of that was the SHORT version, because the argument is so fractally wrong that it immediately goes to shit no matter what part of it you look at and just gets dumber the deeper you go.
I did not expect to see my favorite gun's magazine show up in this video. 07:37
America is a great country but it does NOT have the courage to face it’s serious gun violence problem
RS. Canada 😮
Plane mention ✅
I despise the use of the term 'firearm death rate' as this includes suicides, self defense, accidents and murders all together and has the soft implication that without the guns these deaths wouldn't happen.
A lot of then wouldn't. Accidents for example. You wouldn't have gun accidents without guns
@@gravel7614 Do you think people that are suicidal should be placed in prison until they're well enough to be set free?
@@gravel7614 The overall rate of suicide in Australia didn't really decrease any faster after the buyback. The almost 23% decrease in gun suicides was almost immediately mirrored with a 11% increase in hangings, a 2% increase in jumpers, a 6% increase in poisoning, etc by the end of 2002. Again, correlation doesn't equal causation but that's not a coincidence.
Most people who shoot themselves own that gun legally. People don't go through the process of legally obtaining a weapon just to off themselves. Most of the victims being farmers who didn't need to turn in their guns anyway. So if they can't get a gun, they'll do it another way regardless.
The same can be said for accidents. The majority of accidental shootings here are from people who legally own/ed the gun. It's not so black and white.
For suicide, studies show 1) gun related suicided has higher success rate; 2)gun related suicide can result in higher suicide rate, as it required less planning ahead.
@@jadsmvs8651 ill take the suicide point although I don't think it's nearly enough to stop more regulations on owning guns.
But your accidents point is making an argument for me. Without guns, gun accidents wouldn't happen. You could then say there are accidents with all kinds of things but guns are pretty lethal, dangerous and can go off pretty easily
The be all end all of statistics wouldn’t be comparing gun control to gun violence, that’s obviously going to prove the point being made as when there are less guns in general there is less gun violence, what would be a useful statistic would be comparing gun control and the amount of guns in circulation to other crimes such as robbery, knife violence, rape, and murder in general
According to a study published by the US State Department:
"Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggeststhat in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."
Numerous studies completed in Australia have not provided any conclusive evidence that the buyback or the new laws made any material difference.
@@frankwoods4179 Many have. Cope harder
@@NoSaysJo No they haven’t. If you think there is one let’s see it.
@@frankwoods4179 dude. Cope.
@@NoSaysJo I am coping just fine. Just do a little reading it won’t hurt, I promise.
I noticed in the graph which mapped the percentage decrease in gun deaths per year, the 3% trend line prior to 1996 started at 1980 while the 4.9% trend line after that extended only until 2005 even though the data continued past that. 1996 was a localized peak - attributing to a lower value in the trend before and a higher value in the trend after - and 2005 was a localized dip - attributing to an even higher value in the trend after 1996. Had you measured the trend from 1997 to 2006, the percentage decrease would be much lower. The increased-trend argument might have been more compelling had you measured the trend for all X-year periods before and after 1996, then showed us that the after group is significantly lower than the before group.
I also think your argument that "insurance companies exist, therefore their predictive model for mass shootings in Australia is accurate" is pretty shaky. Insurance companies use predictive models to help set prices and they certainly are incentivized to create accurate models, but they rely on more than just those models to set prices. They also compete on many other factors (eg coverage, policies, services, bundling, etc), not just price. We are also legally obligated to buy certain types of insurance coverage - ensuring some level of successful business. There are many reasons why insurance companies exist and are successful aside from the accuracy of their predictive models.
Even if their models were as good as this video argues, how can we be sure that their models for events like car accidents, burglary, fire, and natural disasters are just as accurate for events like mass shootings? There's no obvious incentive for an insurance company to develop accurate predictive models for something like that. I'm not an actuary, so maybe I'm missing something, but this video did not convince me that the predictive model proves with 99.9995% certainty that Australia's gun reform policies were effective.
All that said, I'm not arguing that those policies were *ineffective* either, nor am I arguing against their adoption or implementation. I just think the arguments leading to this video's conclusion have some flaws.
I 100% Agree.... Not his best work! And I love his video's too!!
Yeah, and considering that insurance companies seems to make very good profits, I'd wager that their model can take some inaccuracies… Additionally, they would just raise prices when things start going wrong and bad things happen more frequently than predicted, which has certainly happened. I'm in the same position that gun control laws might indeed be needed, but nothing in this video had a strong enough logic chain to "prove" that there is a very strong chance that such law does indeed lead to a lower chance of mass shooting happening…
To add on, authors of the cited study noted that there was an artificial dip in the number of homicides in the 3 years prior to 2006 due to a change in the data collection method.
to add to that more, things such as house fires, robbery, car accidents, etc. occur every day, even in Australia. after a while, insurance companies can really tweak their methodology and calculations to accurately determine their rates of occurrence. compare that to mass shootings in australia, which happened 13 times in 17 years. using one methodology for the other is, to me, dishonest.
It felt like one of those court cases where they bring a mathematician on board to convict someone innocent with 99.7% certainty
The thing about that 1 in 200,000 chance is it assumes that the rate from 80-96 was the definitive baseline rate of shootings when it was clearly a significant increase from previous decades. Conduct exactly the same analysis from 1900 or 1950 to today and that rate will change significantly. Cherry picking your data always makes it possible to massage the outcomes.
Whataboutism
@@vjsoeifi Your application of whataboutism is perverted. This is a valid counter argument that demonstrates a gap in the statistics used to argue for gun control. Whataboutism is if you change topics entirely within a topic. Whataboutism would be if he had said “well what about the second amendment…”.
Yep, the whole video is whataboutism with political motivations.
yes exactly. I have yet to see one anti-gun argument analyzing gun control that doesn't do this. If you look at trend lines of violence or death over time, then almost always gun laws do very little or for each downward movement there is an upward movement because gun violence mostly has to do with illegal activity like drug trafficking. Also, deaths from gun violence have gone down a lot for reasons such as cell phones allow people to call for medical help quickly and that prevent a death that would have occured prior to cell phones.
@@vjsoeifi How is this whataboutism? This is a legitimate critique of the data analysis technique used.
"Shall not be infringed"
The mass murder that happened closest to be was in 2017 when the murder drove a truck down a bike lane I use frequently, and I know there was one incident in Melbourn where a murder drove through a mall after these gun control measures were put into place. My question is have there been similar analysises that take into account vehicular mass killings? Are we just fighting the symptoms without looking at the underlying causes of mass murder? I know the bladed indiscriminate killers, like the Satan Island Ferry swordman are less deadly, but are the vehicular ones? I don't know the answers to these questions, but ever since I saw the aftermath of a mass murder blocks away from my work, with no firearms used to murder the victims I have been sceptical of responding to mass murder with gun control.
Im no data expert, but I'd venture to guess guns are the extremely more common method in mass killings than vehicles.
Germany banned gun ownership and went from having a gun problem to a knife problem as well. In the US we have Chicago as a shining example that gun control does not work. They have the strictest gun control laws and is one of the deadliest cities
@@andrewmalone8035 Any stats on that. All I can find is Germanys murder rate is significantly lower than the US
@@andrewmalone8035 Chicago only proves that gun control measures must extend beyond the immediate geographical area. The vast majority of gun violence committed in Chicago is done with guns brought in from surrounding states. California also has very strict gun control, but across the entire state, and a much larger state, with major cities far from land borders with other states, and California has seen much success with reducing the murders via gun control laws. If measures adopted in California were to be adopted nationwide the rates of gun violence will likely drop as much as, if not more than, what has happened in California.
@@jpe1 I live in California and would travel nowhere without a gun. I also happen to live in a county that supports all of it's citizens getting a concealed weapons permit. Just look at the crime statistics. It's horrible right now and guns are never the problem, the people using them are. Instead of looking at gun violence, look at overall crime statistics.
Bad people will use any means necessary to obtain their goal whether it be a gun, knife, vehicle, or any other object to inflict harm on innocent people.
I have genuine question: What if the gun deaths decreased because Australia got richer and more urban ins the 00s? more education, more tecnology and acess to mental health would mean less lunatics or accidents. Maybe an Aussie could give me some thought.
(by the way i'm brazillian and have 0 acess to guns because it's almost impossible here and still our stats are of war zones regarding gun deaths)
The level of violence actually went down elsewhere with no ban sooo
Yes, this ^^
Also, going purely off the studies listed in this video, you can't draw this conclusion.
What about general trends in violent crime within AUS? What about peer countries? What about other forms of violent crime? etc.
So let's pass universal healthcare with an emphasis on mental health instead of a gun ban. Deal?
@@mr.stargazer9835 Of course, surely there can be another reason apart from the stronger regulations.
Chance is 1/200.000 as described in the video... Do what you want with the info.
@@xntumrfo9ivrnwf yea do we know if other crimes changed when this was done? Looking at one stat isn't looking at the actual result of this.
“Worst mass shooting in Australian history” - average Tuesday afternoon in Chicago
Yes, but mostly in Chicago.