Australia Had a Mass-Shooting Problem. Here’s How it Stopped
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лис 2024
- Sign up for the stock footage provider that we use: storyblocks.com...
Watch Jet Lag: The Game at / jetlagthegame
Buy a Wendover Productions t-shirt: standard.tv/co...
Subscribe to Half as Interesting (The other channel from Wendover Productions): / halfasinteresting
UA-cam: / 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.co...
[2] www.afr.com/po...
[3] injurypreventi...
[4] www.theguardia...
[5] www.aph.gov.au...
[6] www.anao.gov.a...
[7] www.gunpolicy....
[8] www.gunpolicy....
[9] www.gunpolicy....
[10] www.researchga...
[11] pubmed.ncbi.nl...
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!
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 UA-cam 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 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.
@@100percentSNAFU last paragraph hits hard. As an Australian who is also pro human (firearm) rights, i agree wholeheartedly.
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.
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)
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
I'm not sure I wanna hear about a mass shooting on a plane where the terrorists use 3D-printed "ghost guns"....... .
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.
Something I don't see mentioned, well, ever, is that we STILL have a lot of guns in Australia - roughly 4 million to our population of ~25mil. Getting rid of guns didn't change our mass shooting numbers, because we never actually got rid of them - it was gun control laws alone that achieved all that, namely gun safety laws like mandatory training, licensing, and proper storage.
It's no coincidence that countries without these laws also have elevated numbers of gun deaths involving accidental discharge or stolen firearms. A little bit of safety goes a long way.
Gun laws and the change in gun ownership culture that happened since really helped
"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.
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.
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’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 😊
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 😆🤣🤣🤣
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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?
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. 🤷♂️
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.
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
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'm confused on why he would say "Hostile indigenous people" They were not hostile, THE BRITISH WERE BECAUSE THEY WERE RACISTS.... Sorry for replying with a completely different topic, but I just want people to notice that!
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.
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.
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?
Our strict gun laws were def one of the government's best decisions in the history of Australia. I'm thankful that I can live in a country without worrying so much about being randomly shot.
Ye now u gotta worry about the 👮♀️ state
@@powerToYourself36 Dude, that's just ridiculous fear mongering.
Yeah right mate, because criminals follow laws right? 😂 now you gotta worry about living in a country where law-abiding citizens can’t protect themselves in their own home.
@@nukedude2433 Firstly, it's harder for regular crimminals to get those guns because they can't just walk into a gun store & say, I want a gun for self defence (too many US states don't even need gun liscences). Plus, I don't have to worry about those robberies too much. There are also things called using knives or hard objects are even learning self defence yourself.
@@Rudnaz_127 I genuinely don’t mean this in a rude way, but you are extremely naive. Whether that be because you’re young, or just ignorant of the real world.
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
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
@@brianleewaltersjr 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.
Bondi Junction Westfield stabbing, 2024. Imagine if we didnt have our gun laws, imagine what that guy could've done with a gun instead if a knife.
Come at me all you want, Im a gun owner myself and I am so for our gun laws and strict control. Keeps guns out of the hands of people that shouldnt own them unlike america who would give a gun to anyone (and dont say its for self defence. Some of my cousins live in dodgy areas of LA and Detroit and they have never taken their gun out of its case apart from leisure shooting. Say its a somewhat biased view and sure certain cases, but most of the time you dont need a gun for self defence)
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.
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.
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
Great content as usual from Wendover . I remember all this occurring. I was living in NSW in a rural city where I’d often go shooting in the state forests or on a friends farm . I owned 308’ Mauser and a 22’ . I was trained to use a rifle safely I was in cadets as a teenager and they frequently took us out to the shooting range. Due to a lack of work I moved back to Sydney and my rifle was just a dangerous addition that I didn’t need. It was likely to attract danger or cause harm . I sold my rifles and haven’t had any for 37 years now.
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.
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
You forgot to mention that the police sell guns to criminals.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
@@SuxxenOkard 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.
IMPORTANT CONTEXT for those unfamiliar with Australian politics:
The Australian Government who proposed the National Firearms Agreement at the time were the Liberal and National parties, known as 'The Coalition' or LNP. The Australian LNP are actually 'right-wing' conservatives, NOT 'Liberal' by definition - it's just their party name. For comparison, the Australian LNP are equivalent to the US Republican Party and the UK Conservative (Tory) Party. This makes the enactment of the Australian NFA by a right-wing LNP government particularly interesting, and is important to take into account when contrasted to the ongoing firearms law debates in the US, as this relevant and polarising fact is seldom seen. At the time, the white-papering of the NFA demonstrated that staunch political differences, internal party factional polarities (both state/territory and federal), and vested interests had no place in Australia's domestic security, and were therefore largely ignored. The LNP Government knew it was the right thing to do for Australia, even if it meant political suicide which for some it did. Side note, all of this occurred in the span of only four months after Port Arthur.
I live in a small town in Tasmania, and to this day, the Port Arthur massacre continues to feel heavy in our hearts as a state, and as a country.
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 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.
Buybacks are great. Spend $5 in printer filament, print a frame/receiver, and bam you just turned $5 into $100
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
Great work pullinig all this fotage together and flipping it right side up for us.
I had to turn my TV upside down to make it feel normal.
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 UA-camr '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
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?
3:00
The cafe has since been demolished with only the original Victorian era facades remaining with a large tombstone erected next to it with the names and birthdays of the victims.
“Worst mass shooting in Australian history” - average Tuesday afternoon in Chicago
Yes, but mostly in Chicago.
One thing to note for other people that are outside of Australia. It's much harder to stop the smuggling of illegal firearms when you are not a country with no major land border.
So considering the issue where drug smuggling is already rampant in the Americas, how hard would it be to smuggle a gun? It would reduce the number of legal guns in circulation and make school shootings even rarer, but gun crimes as a whole would not see a significant decrease.
We can also look at the data from the UK, where the gun ban did lead to a decrease in gun crime, only for it to migrate to knife-related crimes.
American guns are smuggled into Mexico.
Smuggled guns are more expensive and hard to acquire, most homocides and suicides with guns are impulse, without cheap easy access they don't occur.
@@HesderOleh Most homicide and suicide are performed with handguns (for now, assuming US statistics). but banning guns don't solve those issues as we can see in UK as they simply transition to knives.
@@akiraawooch Difficult to kill 20 people in 90 seconds with a knife.
@@jamesphillips2285 People still die, just in a different way.
@@akiraawooch Knifes are far less lethal and far few mass casualty events. If I had to fight I sure as hell would pick fighting the guy with the knife than the gun.
as a South Australian citizen, I can go to my local police station pay $1400 for a licence and after a few months of training I can then spend ~$1k for a Rifle, then another $400 every year (the average Australian simply can't afford this, including me). the only difference between this and the American system, is that there is no mandatory Training or secure storage (however these are pretty common practices in American gun culture from the people I have spoken too) and the check is done in the gun shop. on top of that me and a bunch of people I know, could bypass this system if we wanted to, it's just not worth the effort and risk for a hobby. gun control does not work to stop criminals, only to punish the honest (I know this because my biological father was an abuser, drug addict, and criminal, wasn't allowed to own a gun and despite that fact, he still was able to obtain one and threaten my mother several times with one).
South Australians shouldn't be allowed guns, the state of Serial Killers
Be careful, Wendover wants to push a narrative, not give accurate and unbiased information. This video was made to profit off of the hysteria caused by the shooting in Uvalde.
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
I wonder if this model "predicting" a given number of tragic mass-victimizing incidents could be somewhat tested with data from different countries, or states within countries. Using as "input" some data from the region before a given date, and then comparing the "prediction" to the actual events. I don't think anyone really expects it to predict with magical accuracy, but it would be interesting to see how it fares.
Diferent causalities, specially if you consider in the case of mass shooting how important local media is.
I'm for responsible gun ownership. The problem in Canada and the US that politicians that push for gun reform are a) completely uneducated about guns
b) their arguments are not made in good faith. The don't say the quiet part out loud but they simply don't like guns. They believe guns are regressive and unnecessary in "civilized" society. So like in Canada that already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, the Trudeau government basically called for a freeze on the sale of all hand guns. A complete attack on 2.2 million lawful gun owners when the vast majority of gun crime is occuring by gangs in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal with illegal weapons. South East Asian gangs basically smuggle guns into the country in Vancouver and the Hell Angel's has a total Monopoly on gun smuggling in the east coast.
C) they purposely misinterpret gun violence statistics. In the US they want to ban AR-15'S yet the vast majority of gun crime that occurs in the US is caused by hand guns and the US counts suicide in their gun violence stats.
This all leads to the basic facts that politicians don't like guns, procede to attack lawful gun owners and when inevitably their gun control measures don't work, they push for stricter measures.
What you're describing is the UK too. There's a lot of crime in London so they make laws to make it harder for gangs in London to operate all the while completely ignoring that they're fucking the 50 million people that don't live in London... Governments like to focus on one place rather than look at the bigger picture. If you looked at the UKs crime statistics and just removed London it'd be one of the safest countries on the planet
@jeremy ray I agree. In my example in Canada, Trudeau is surrounded by personal security guards 24/7. We have millions of Canadians who live in rural areas of Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. I have been there. Police are an hour away at minimum, these folks have large properties and farms to protect so denying them the right to protect themselves is not right. And again, what's happening in Canada is a continuous attack on gun owners. This new handgun ban was sparked by the Uvalde shooting. So the country that already has the strictest gun laws in the world decided to make them even more restrictive based on something that happened in another country. It proves my point. No gun control measures are ever going to be enough for these people. They want 0 guns. They'll close their eyes to illegal gun crime that is occuring in the big cities but then go attack legal gun owners.
@@ren2871 Yeah, I thought that was kinda weird when Trudeau banned your handguns, because of a mass shooting that happened in the US. He obviously wanted to ban them, but couldn't find a justification, so just used one of our shootings. I think this stems from the trucker protests. The Monarchy and its puppet regime decided to disarm you guys, because they fear an overthrow of their rule. As you know we lived under a Monarchy puppet regime long ago and when people started rising up in protest, the first thing they tried to do was take the guns.
both sides are dishonest and acting in bad faith.
the fact that gun control is automatically conflated with less guns, rather than more rigidly controlled gun purchases, is an immediate offender.
Switzerland has an absolute massive amount of guns amongst its citizenry, yet shootings are rare and far between.
this is because they do in fact practice gun control, but less so of a knee-jerk one.
Countires were Guns are banned (like here in England) report very few gun-related deaths per year. Here in the UK for instance, Between 2000-2020, we had FORTY gun deaths per year on average (with a population of 66 Million) in The USA, The same study shows an average of 40,000 gun deaths per year (population of 330 million) - Therefore Gun ownership = gun deaths.
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 UA-cam 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?
I am in favour of gun control, but I will say that the last study lead by Simon Chapman that you mentioned ended its abstract like this:
"Following enactment of gun law reforms in Australia in 1996, there were no mass firearm killings through May 2016. There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms."
Fluctuations in the occurrence of something that statistically almost never happens cannot be used to draw any conclusions. Predictive modelling in rare events is highly profitable; it's easy to make such a model provide whatever results the people funding the model want to see. Accurate modelling IS NOT essential to insurance company profitability; premium gouging and fine-print exclusions work even better.
Naturally curious?
Shootings and Gun-Issues were covered by UA-camr '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.
15:05 insurance actually doesn’t insure against missile attacks. A major event like a war is excluded in most homeowners policies. A war though unlikely is massively destructive and bankrupt any company that tries to insure against it no matter how much they saved for the event.
A good example as to why not is Ukraine. Any insurance company that tries to cover war in Ukraine will be out of business.
Technically the GOVERNMENT is your insurance policy against war. Your annual premium is your Income Taxes.
I'm pretty sure the missile part was a joke.
@@mzaite same thing with flood insurance. Insurance considers it too risky to do so all flood insurance in the us is through FEMA. But insurance companies made it so you can’t buy directly from FEMA, you must use a insurance company as a middle man so they can get a nice commission from the government.
There is no point in shopping around for floor insurance. Everybody uses the same rates and gets paid the same commission.
@@oxjmanxo When you have enough money to buy the government, you get to do as you like.
I bet you can get insurance for anything that isnt specifically illegal.
If you are willing to pay.
I'll sell you missile insurance.
Let me know I'll write up a "policy".
Plane mention ✅
The west can learn everything from Australia. The way urbanization and nature coexist in Australia is worth learning from.
Guys, stop arguing
He's clearly just using this to stir up engagement for the algorithm.
Idk about that because whenever Real engineering goes back to climate change his viewership tanks. I'm surprised he hasn't learned his lesson yet.
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.
Kinda interested why some countries develop mass-shooting problems while others don't. Finland, Canada, and Switzerland all have a rather large amount of gun owners but, not nearly the same kind of problems you would expect.
First off, mass shootings are defined as incidents where 4 or more individuals are involved. By that classification, most mass shootings in places like the US are gang on gang crime. I would imagine the root of those incidents largely surrounds socioeconomic issues of those involved.
As for the mass shootings the news typically reports on, it's tough to say definitively. I generally tend to think the common denominator is a strong desire for attention with no regard for the lives of others.
@@rs.wright I also would like to raise the fact that many of the mass shooters are deranged and mentally unwell, and our health care system definitely isn't helping them get the support they need. Yes, some shooters are 100% malicious. But a lot of them probably could have been prevented had they had access to mental healthcare professionals
One word ;regulation.
Finland Canada and Switzerland are also mostly homogenous societies.
The gun:people ratio in the US is nearly double that on Canada, Switzerland and Finland, there’s also regulations in said countries. Not in the US, even when a city has strong gun policies, the state doesn’t (Chicago with Illinois). Or when the state has “good” gun control, the state borders are still open for other states, with less control over guns (eg. California with Arizona).
Yet the control that these places in the US have, are a joke compared to other developed countries.
It is really deeper than that, at least in the US, a lot of things have to change at the same time to have a good outcome.
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
you forget to add that the tool just changed, because between 96 and 2018, Australia had 25 Mass Killings, just not with guns, yet Canada and New Zealand, both with semi Autos still legal, had just 5 between them..
What were the weapons then, in those "mass killings"? Because the answer is always guns! and by the way, here in the UK for instance, Between 2000-2020, we had FORTY gun deaths per year on average (with a population of 66 Million) in The USA, The same study shows an average of 40,000 gun deaths per year (population of 330 million) - Therefore Gun ownership = gun deaths. It's really pretty obvious.
instead of looking at the gun murder rate to see whether the plan was effective, shouldn't the overall murder rate be looked at to determine whether it was effective?
Yeah mass shootings went down, but Australia never really had that many to begin with.
Murder rates dropped a little, but not massively like some would like you to believe.
Shootings still happen and hear about them in the news all the time, but the overwhelming majority of them are gang/ drug related these days.
@@lucidsamurai4188 there's fuck all shootings. wendover said two mass shootings since. there has been once since. ONE in 2018. and that was 22 years after port arthur. you don't hear about them all the time. because they don't exist
But mass shootings are what gets everyone's attention. Hysteria sells.
This is what the people "people on the right" have been asking in America for a long time...and it is what should be asked. The proponents of gun control can't seem to have any type of logical conversation to find both short and long term solutions. When trying to find a long term solution, you have just asked the first question. We need more of this and less emotional REEEEEEEEEEEEE
@@lucidsamurai4188 just a note: most of the "mass shootings" that are counted in the US statistics are gang related like the one that happened in Philly recently.
as someone who never owned a gun, massacres are a cultural problem, not a gun one.
narcissism, bullying etc are the reasons why good people snap and turn in to the same monsters as the others.
the difference is just time.
bullying is a long process, which will destroy people over years.
a massshooting is damage wise similar, just quicker.
You're right. And there's definitely work to do, in many many regards.
But until narcissism and bullying are gone for good, I prefer my massshooters to have as hard a time getting their hands on guns as feasible, thank you.
Look up the link with SSRIs, they are far over represented
Did you watch this video? There will always be nutcases but the ease of access to guns is the variable that changes .
@@jholotanbest2688 look at the trend of mass shootings before the 80s something funder mentally changed. That era was an outlier, maybe we need to look at other explanations like a very disproportionate number were on antidepressants...
Here in the UK, between 2000-2020, we had FORTY gun deaths per year on average, in the USA, The same study shows an average of 40,000 gun deaths per year.
Australia has one big advantage in gun control that many/most other countries don't have - an ocean entirely around our borders. Getting rid of guns is one thing, keeping them away is another and our border has made it easy. I don't know if it would be possible in other countries, where people can smuggle guns in cheaply.
Yes! Which is why I really contemplate if gun control would work anywhere in North America or South America. Doesn’t matter where you go in the Americas firearms will be around you whether you see them or not, legal and illegal.
smugglers still try. Albeit, not really with guns, but *drugs*.
Did you hear the one where some drug smugglers got stopped by a seal on an island off the coast of WA?
There is a massive illigal gun problem in Australia all you have to do is talk to the police....
An average hunting rifle will cost between $1000-1500 (AUD) if bought in the United States. Here on the black market one will cost about $16,000 (at least that's what the internet tells me). That price is largely due to the costs of importing them into the country illegally because..... there's an ocean entirely around our border. @@kearenfoster1784
Yes and they also banned about 1 million guns. The US has about 400 million firearms. I say GOOD LUCK to those who actually think that it will happen here.
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.
Minor detail, dear writers "Queensland state of Gympie" isn't accurate, Gympie is a town/region in the state of Queensland
the US will just be like, ok whats for dinner?
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
Wrong, wrong, wrong! There is a very clear correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths! The EXACT opposite of what you stated is true! In anutshell, Countires were Guns are banned (like here in England) report very few gun-related deaths per year. Here in the UK for instance, Between 2000-2020, we had FORTY gun deaths per year on average (with a population of 66 Million) in The USA, The same study shows an average of 40,000 gun deaths per year (population of 330 million). This correlation tracks for ALL countries.
@@stephenbarrett8000 I wonder if you realize the vast majority of the U.S. gun deaths you just cited are s*icides? Guess what that’s driven by… poverty and income inequality.
The Australians never had a second ammendment ergo there was never a constitutional aspect. That made this much easier for the Australian government and gun confiscation supporters to accomplish.
@@Rosa-lv8yw Technically it is the word of god.
@@Rosa-lv8yw it's the second amendment which is in this thing called the Bill of Rights and, no, it shouldn't be modified ... Yes, we've amended our constitution and even repealed amendments but never touched the first ten for a reason ... They are the most important ...
@@Rosa-lv8yw The first ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were never intended to be changed or removed. In fact, they don't grant even any rights. They only acknowledge what our inalienable rights are. They cannot be removed as they are in fact considered God given.
Attempting to do so is a surefire way to provoke a civil war.
and now they are in covid camps without trial....
@@Rosa-lv8yw lmao I'm sorry, did you just you can simply remove an item on the Bill of Rights, something that has never happened before, ever?
You made a point of comparing gun deaths to UK, but didn't bother to note murder rates.
It was noted just a few years back (iirc '19 ) that the murder rate in London was greater than that of NYC or Chicago. 2 US cities with the strictest gun laws had murder rates below London. This is when London decided to try to ban knives. Not just pocket knives and pen knives, but in total. I don't remember if it passed and frankly don't care. The point is humans are just hairless apes and when they feel the need to kill, they kill. In the US automobiles and obesity kills far more than guns... perhaps we should outlaw Snickers and Coke?
It Is The Societal Rot That Must Be Addressed. Across the world gun deaths were falling in the 90s. Prosperity was Rising across the world. Happy people feel less 'need' to kill.
This is just false. NYC is 2.7 murders per 100k. London is 1.5
Someone else's obesity doesn't kill my child going to a primary school. A car doesn't drive through a grocery store and kill 50 people within a minute.
Isn't it always the case anyway? Any violence happens with a gun and people jump to banning guns all together? Most people die to road accidents than do with guns, does that mean we just stop using roads altogether?
I am not here to argue against fewer guns = fewer deaths. But it is a necessary evil people just don't seem to get behind. Everyone hates monopiles except for when it is a monopoly over gun violence.
@@SR-cm2my aparently you've been asleep for some time... remember the black man that drove thu the christmas parade last yr or the '17 NYC uhaul truck that ran down runners and bikers on a bike path? And there are many more like this, then you add in all the actual accidents...
As to someone else's obesity, yes it does. Its psychology. If you are surrounded by healthy people you are more likely to adopt healthy behavior. If you are surrounded by unhealthy people you adopt unhealthy behaviors. So put down the cigarette and twinkie and blunt for your kid's sake. Outlaw them all! Everyone gets water and breadworms to save the planet!
And you can stab about the same number of people in a store as fast as you can shoot them. And you are likely to get away with it to boot. Because there is no loud bang when you slip a sharp blade between the ribs.
@@RohanTej And this is partly what I was trying to get at in my drunken post. In US states with highest gun ownership have lowest gun crime and crime in general.
I also find it hilarious that the same people will demand gun bans and defund police. Either you have an authorian govt that overrides your freedom at a whim or you have an anarchistic govt with those 2 choices which leads to the mighty rule.
I prefer a republic where everyone is armed and everyone gives a measure of respect, or at least tolerance, out of knowledge that if you go TOO far another group will own your lunch.
Until we have infinite energy, zero scarcity, and teleporters we will have these problems. Gene Roddenbury was a bit of an optimistic socialist but he had a few points.
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
I'd be interested in a similar look the UK. All I remember is The Dunblane massacre happened then gun control got tighter. I'd love to learn more with your excellent structure and story telling. [Edit: I remember my uncle giving up his Shotgun I guess not long after Dunblane, would have been late 90's because he couldn't be arsed going through everything. I still remember it. I'm not that far from Dunblane]
I far as I understand, the bans did little to prevent mass murderers. The attacks traded the guns for knifes, acid, or even vehicles
They take your guns in the UK and you get a more tyrannical government with an invasion from Iraq and Africa
@@kamikaze5528 so how many mass stabbing in UK school has happened this year?
while the restrictions did in fact have a slight impact on the amount of mass shootings, it didn't eliminate them. they still happen every now and then.
they wont, UK wont prove their point its why they don't mention japan either or the plethora of other country examples for pro guns ...
Le Bon already wrote back in 1895 that political decisions don't come from reason, but from crowd opinion, which is inherently emotional, irrational and short lived.
There is very little rational debate actually - especially about such emotional topics - what matters here is what the crowd wants.
Democracy is dumb. Change my mind.
@@dannyarcher6370 It is because everyone has a vote but not the proportional skin in the game - there are better models of democracies (e.g. concensus democracy) but the simplest model is really dumb and prone to "mob rule" mentality where 51% can give a f*# about the 49%.
@@LiborTinka A good way to ensure skin in the game is taxpayer-based. If you pay tax, you can vote. If not, find a way to be productive so you can vote.
@@dannyarcher6370 yes - or you may purchase state tokens in the areas of your interest - then you are staked in wherever you want an improvement in -- for example some people are very interested in gun laws but don't care about railway - we have limited resources so cooperating this way in parallel is much more productive (real-time parallel voting instead of serial voting every couple of years) - after all, this is how people cooperate naturally - I work in chemical engineering and don't have to care where to get my food every day - which is other people's job
@@LiborTinka Nice idea!
There are more legal guns in Australia today (since 2019), than before the 1996 buy back.
And yet mass shootings continue a downward trend.
So what are the odds of a tyrannical government unconstitutionally locking up unarmed citizens on a whim?
No one was arguing against “less guns = less mass murders” hypothesis - They’re arguing if the statistical insignificance of a mass homicide event warrants completely disarming a citizenry.
University of Chicago Professor and Freakonomics author Stephen Levitt would argue that the birth control pill, access to abortion, and outlawing lead in gasoline and paint have an even greater statistically decreasing effect on homicide in general - Not just with firearms.
Of course if you exterminate the undesirables, especially before they are born, you will result in less negative outcomes. This is the argument made by freakanomics.
There are some people still alive today who were rounded up in the US and put in camps just for being of Japanese decent. And I remember just a couple years ago the left side of this country screaming how Trump was going to do the same thing
@real pedroppp the 2nd amendment was written exactly for that purpose. The government rounded up people and threw them into camps, if that doesn’t concern you then you need to learn history
@real pedroppp my response was to the OP who said what are the chances of a tyrannical government locking up civilians on a whim.
Heres a statistic for you. Here in the UK, between 2000-2020, we had FORTY gun deaths per year on average (with a population of 66 Million) in The USA, The same study shows an average of 40,000 gun deaths per year (population of 330 million)
That was probably the best overarching description of insurance I've heard in a while
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.
Australia's rate of violence was low and already declining before that shooting
did you watch the entire thing. Be pro gun who cares, it's selfish but so is your entire country, but you can't deny that gun control doesn't work without denying blatant facts.
@@Nedddo It works for you serfs, it doesn't work for a free citizenry.
Enjoy your internment camps, and bans on protest. You've earned it.
Yep, and our government is to stupid to see its not farmers doing the shootings, it's people that get them illegally, yet we continue to take away police funding and cracking down on law abiding citizens
@@AshGreen359 And you enjoy the continuous onslaught of flying bullets against your citizens that takes place on a daily basis.
@@AshGreen359 except it does work in developed countries.
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!!
"Australia is a nation"
Wendover productions
We live in a society.
Australia is a lie
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
but why did mass shootings happen so frequently especially in this time period?
10:23 before that it looked way better. Why did it change so drasticly in a time of wealth?
Shhhhhhhhh.
Don’t point that out.
Also don’t point out that gun violence across the entire world decreased after 2000.
Literally sentence after if - "...where mass shooters inspire mass shooters who inspire mass shooters" Violence of all kind usually happens in waves because of that.
@@juliuszkocinski7478 that's true it's called the media contagion effect, but that doesn't really address his point
Because the statistic represents the actions of a single person.
@@freedomsglory1 Generally, you're safer then you've ever been.... but we gotta get them wedge issues in!
Good watch wasn't what i expected but very informative
Oh boy, yall better get plugins to see like/dislike ratios because things are gonna get SPICY
You know the current count?
@@DirtyStinky 1.2k to 372
@@DirtyStinky 14k to 2.8k
One thing that wasn't mentioned was that the Port Arthur Massacre (35 killed, 28-29 April 1996) held the highest number of deaths for a single mass shooting FOR TWENTY YEARS until the Pulse NIghtclub shooting happened. (49 killed, 12 June 2016)
THAT'S 20 YEARS.
In those 20 years, Australia had 3 mass shootings, two of which where Familicide, where one member of the family murdered everyone else and turned the weapon on themselves, committing suicide.
In the same time, the US, by comparison, had 107 shootings where 4 or more deaths occurred and 56 mass shootings since the June 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting, with 1, being in Darwin in 2019, in Australia.
You should not compare the 2 countries directly. Australia is a country of only 26 million people, the US has 330 million people. More than 90% of the difference can be explained by population size alone.
@@djinn666 there countries with higher population to USA but with very low mass shootings
@@gunner4life568 literally only china and India have higher populations than the United States
@@gunner4life568 There's only 2 countries worth a larger population than the US, China and India. Neither allow civilian gun ownership.
@@djinn666 that is true but there a lot of countries with population close to that of usa with no mass shooting take Indonesia for example or even japan
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.
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.
Here in the UK, between 2000-2020, we had FORTY gun deaths per year on average (with a population of 66 Million) in The USA, The same study shows an average of 40,000 gun deaths per year (population of 330 million) - Therefore Gun ownership = gun deaths. We don't CARE why people with guns shoot other people, we just realise that they DO.
0:13 You make it sound like they had no right to be hostile.
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.
@Stapler42 there are nerf and gel blasters registered as cat A in SA. Same category as .22 rifles and most shotguns
A critical thing left out of the argument is "Mass Murder as a whole". Do gun control laws prevent mass murder, or do they result in changing how mass murders occur. There have been 12 mass murders of 4 or more since the gun control laws but the method has changed from mass shootings to arson, mass stabbing, and vehicular.
Fair. But it's also a lot harder to kill 30 people with a knife versus a (semi) automatic gun.
You can make ways unpassable for cars, you can run a way from a guy with a knife etc. A gun is just the most effective murder weapon and getting them into as few hands as possible you'll prevent victims. Easy as that.
Alcohol by far kills more innocent people and ruins more lives / families. Time to ban it? How about tobacco? Those two things at a basic level have no purpose (other than making people feel better). Comparing the laws, traditions, cultures of one country vs. another is fruitless. Zero bearing of comparing Australia guns laws vs. the US.
@@cyan_oxy6734 very true. but then the counterpoint of that is that a gun is equally the most effective tool for self-defense since it vastly outclasses any other option both in terms of deterrence and stopping power. Gun control arguments go around in circles and eventually people just have to make a decision about whether the negative effects of change are acceptable to avoid the negative effects of maintaining the status quo.
It's a lot easier to kill 30 people with a gun than it is to stab them with a knife. If it's a knife attack it's a lot easier for the person to be subdued and caught by police than it is if they used a gun.
I’ve been to Port Arthur and the memorial there for the victims. It’s really peaceful.
The Betoota Advocate once said: Australia Enjoys Yet Another Peaceful Day Under Oppressive Gun Control Regime
Are we talking about the same country that placed its whole population under house of arrest for more than a year ?
In Australia this went very well because the public was unified in support for it. In nations where the public is divided on legislation of this scale, the cultural damage may outweigh any damage mitigated.
I'll turn in my guns after the gang bangers and commie state tyrants turn in theirs.
True. The US is too far gone in public opinion where it honestly feels like the mass shootings are treated like an inconvenience given the automatic reactions to them.
Just go state by state… start with the younger demographics
@@MrBigboy135 Agreed. Teach the young ones about proper firearm safety and carry.
Damage wasn't mitigated though, damage was materially caused and the Australian people are now worse off for it.