Australia Had a Mass-Shooting Problem. Here’s How it Stopped

[@expandedhistory]

I’m certain this comment section is going to be filled with open minded people with civil discussions in regards to this topic!

[@rams_r_champs]

Definitely no Tanners, Kyles, or Jakes, calling people soyboy commies for participating in the debate of high fire-rate weapons

[@Crusty_Comrad]

@@rams_r_champs automatic weapons have been illegal in america for over 30 years

[@RadTwin]

The comment section is always civil! No need for the sarcasm

[@All_Hail_Chael]

@@rams_r_champs You literally proved him right within 3 minutes of his comment.

[@AragornRespecter]

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

[@tyrannic]

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.

[@jonathanwilson3984]

Reminder that American Democrats are center right from big picture.

[@nickc3657]

Wow, those two facts definitely change the tone of the narrative!

[@dy9955]

Sounds like the US definition of a Libitard.

[@nujuat]

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.

[@rdormer]

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!

[@snowyalice]

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.

[@Lazy_Tim]

There is a reason for that. ;)

[@BatCaveOz]

Unless the new is talking about the best weather in Victoria.

[@Lazy_Tim]

@@BatCaveOz Sale has rain on the way. Best weather. Don't make me laugh.

[@mrrhody7234]

I didn't expect to hear gympie qld which never gets mentioned to haha

[@Lazy_Tim]

@@mrrhody7234 Nor did I. Not two places you usually here of outside Australia.

[@ashtonroles1797]

I’m not even indigenous but I have no idea how you got the history of Australia’s colonisation so terribly wrong

[@zog527]

same here, when pre-colonised australia was called "untamed land" I had to take a breather for a sec 😭

[@callmecharliemusic]

Right? Was literally about to comment within the first few seconds, hearing “through hostile indigenous populations” like mate, what are you on? In most cases, settlers were at worst, tolerated and skirmished with, at best, welcomed and traded with, and some mobs even taught them how to live off the land, because the environment was so different. And then, the British proceeded to commit mass genocide against them in a variety of ways, including obviously mass murder, and right up until the late 20th century, the government literally stealing their children (they’re called the Stolen Generation in Australia, look it up before replying). Also, the idea of westward expansion is hilarious, it was more so coastal expansion as it was cooler and easier to live by. US history isn’t a blueprint, stop viewing other countries through that lens. Not even 16 seconds in.

[@Saxophonin]

@zog527 "terra nullius"

[@jgray2718]

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 KZbin 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. :-)

[@Barwasser]

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

[@CaptainJazz262]

You rock for typing this all out in a way my simple mind can (mostly) comprehend

[@Junniebug]

Wow, this was very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

[@Peizxcv]

Thank you for giving me PTSD from statistics class🫣

[@bravosierra2447]

Thank you Prof 🙏🏼

[@603bricks]

Im 13 minutes in and I haven’t heard about planes yet. This is shocking.

[@cerjmedia]

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)

[@reventon_4442]

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.

[@0605194]

what about red bricks?

[@rasmuspetersen7181]

You were a little quick to write that comment, as planes are mentioned at 15:07

[@handlemonium]

I'm not sure I wanna hear about a mass shooting on a plane where the terrorists use 3D-printed "ghost guns"....... .

[@hypercomms2001]

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?

[@johndottaviano5113]

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

[@HeWhoLaugths]

Cultural issues I think. Also possibly the rise in mental health issues. Hard to say what exactly

[@JonahNelson7]

Political stability leads the virgin psychos to want to cause destruction, whereas their time would otherwise be taken up with war or revolution

[@danycashking]

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.

[@PURENT]

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.

[@potatohype7119]

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

[@djcoopes7569]

wouldnt we all...

[@aggiewoodie]

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.

[@mostlyguesses8385]

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 ..

[@100percentSNAFU]

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.

[@djcoopes7569]

@@100percentSNAFU last paragraph hits hard. As an Australian who is also pro human (firearm) rights, i agree wholeheartedly.

[@whip555]

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.

[@xc8487]

Except you can't put a price on rights, so they did get ripped off.

[@dw2843]

@@xc8487 looool

[@ElementZephyr]

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.

[@archwaldo]

@@xc8487 the results speak for themselves.

[@petrichor3947]

So you must not of handed back any firearms if you think the prices where high.

[@supersmashbrosevil]

"never let a good crisis go to waste" That perfectly describes the way politicians accomplish their goals

[@AdamSmith-gs2dv]

I got chills when he quoted that. True words of an authoritarian dictator wannabe

[@FunkyJeff22]

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.

[@TheVaryox]

@@AdamSmith-gs2dv That, or just a hard core pragmatist.

[@supersmashbrosevil]

@@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

[@themarcusismael13]

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.

[@jaringnelayan3829]

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

[@darksanta4185]

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.

[@AlexanderRM1000]

​@@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.

[@ENCHANTMEN_]

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.

[@jaringnelayan3829]

@@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?

[@jaringnelayan3829]

@@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.

[@tessa2017]

Untamed is a questionable way to describe pre colonial Australia

[@padwock2294]

Certainly an accurate description in terms of how the English settlers saw first nation people

[@lilacdoe7945]

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.

[@NoName-ds5uq]

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…

[@paulwilliams667]

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.

[@NoName-ds5uq]

@@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.

[@paulwilliams667]

@@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.

[@ledsalesoz]

@@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?

[@mistressofstones]

​@@paulwilliams667as a Tasmanian no thank you, I'm very happy with our current gun laws thanks 😊

[@nbtbn]

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

[@ReaIise]

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!

[@impulse_xs]

Was waiting for him to Segway into an insurance advertisement.

[@summonme917]

the introduction to the colonisation of australia is so skillfully incorrect and so strategically off the mark that i had to go take a shower

[@graydonrobson7471]

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.

[@ghazghkullthraka9714]

I don’t know about murders, but I know gun related suicide dropped

[@warheads9676]

The port Arthur shooting was using a legal gun

[@DimitriFilichkin]

@@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.

[@andreilyas1426]

Most school shootings in the USA are from legal firearms

[@brandonw6139]

@@ItsNom49 Elliot Roger in 2014 and this recent shooting were both using legal guns just off the top of my head

[@TheGrinningViking]

The insurance company charges them $500 and denies payment whenever possible.

[@VirgilOvid]

They have other models to estimate how many times they can deny payment before losing customers. This isn't a joke.

[@BreadAccountant]

Yeah insurance in practice is one of the most predatory and slimy professions on earth

[@samuelnakai1804]

"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.

[@RT804]

@@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.

[@chriskeller676]

A fundamental misunderstanding of insurance runs rampant here. "I don't understand something, so it must be a scam."

[@floydian022]

Came for the Aussie gun reform, stayed for the lesson on Actuarial Science.

[@prestonanonuoso5508]

He should make the same video about Brazil’s gun ban.

[@ronaldpfidze7849]

@floydian022 Same

[@Ahoderasan]

@@prestonanonuoso5508 He's gonna find a huge different scenario than Australia

[@acharyajamesoermannspeaker6563]

Excellent

[@DiegoDelRey1]

@@prestonanonuoso5508 Guns were never banned here in Brazil. 🤷‍♂️

[@ivourivour3377]

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.

[@tammygant4216]

gotta say, I'm not from Australia and yet that wording caught me off guard too.

[@himaro101]

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.

[@lycaonking4250]

​@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)

[@PurpleShift42]

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)

[@zen1647]

​@@tammygant4216The intro was factually wrong. WTF Wendover?

[@Brick-Life]

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

[@IB3MOR3PR0]

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

[@parvizdeamer]

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.

[@xxinsanity2434]

@@parvizdeamer yeh thought the same thing when I heard it. Also the diseases from the Europeans didn’t help at all

[@miaza0973]

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.

[@E579Gaming]

Aborignals were the welcoming one and the british kinda took over their land so they arent really the bad guys here

[@Camtron47]

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.

[@Ratu_Savu]

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.

[@nolanderish]

That was kind of the situation, everywhere the British colonized. North America, Carribean, India etc

[@Ratu_Savu]

@@nolanderish Just wanted to make sure that people who weren't aware of this weren't misinformed :)

[@TheHiralis]

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.

[@cyberpunk.386]

@@Ratu_Savu Agree. I wondered about this Wendover statement too.

[@MichaelNatrin]

I was also surprised by that word being used in the intro.

[@WildNorWester]

"The Queensland state of Gympie" - Gympie is a town, Queensland is the state.

[@Croz89]

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.

[@jhonka]

Hey look real talk instead of all these people who failed high school algebra acting like they're experts on statistical analysis. Good point.

[@tylerwalvoord6785]

@@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.

[@OriginalPiMan]

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.

[@0xszander0]

True. Which really does say something about the public level of education in said country on this topic.

[@AvenEngineer]

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.

[@PiGood]

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.

[@MrBibi86]

I agree. I have serious depression and if I lived somewhere else with easy to access guns I would probably be dead by now.

[@OfTheOverflow]

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.

[@MrBibi86]

@@OfTheOverflow yes! 100% me included

[@Snowshowslow]

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.

[@PiGood]

@@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.

[@alice20001]

What can we do in Brazil? Guns were very strictly regulated and almost prohibited, but we have the largest number of homicides per year.

[@cumman4399]

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.

[@jascrandom9855]

In Latin America it's a problem of culture, crime, inequality and lack of Social Safety Nets.

[@jasonmajere2165]

Thought Colombia was up there also, which also has strict gun control.

[@mechanomics2649]

Better social welfare programs.

[@DarioCastellarin]

Convince the US to implement gun control. That's where most of the firearms used by criminality in Latin America come from.

[@diggo19]

Aus wasn't untamed, nor were indigenous people aggressive. They'd actually been living here very successfully for over 60 thousand years.

[@maxmuscat2550]

yea exactly? like aggressive..? dude they where just living here and next fuckn minute they're getting massacred.

[@NoovaRB]

They were aggressive towards British settlers according to the diaries of important people aboard the First Fleet such as Captain Cook. It is true that they survived in Australia for 50,000 years. One could argue that Australia itself was untamed, as the land was exploited for the survival of the aboriginal peoples. Exploited isn’t a negative term either, it simply means to use the available resources

[@jobenco5757]

​@NoovaRB Leaving it untamed is what they wanted to do as best as they could. They did not "own" the land, they lived in harmony with it. Regarding their reaction towards the Europeans: How would you react if aliens were to arrive? And could you blame anyone for being scared and reacting in a hostile way? To add to that thought experiment, what if they started killing us in masses, raping us and denying us rights as the Europeans did for a very long time? That is the situation they found themselves in. Vastly technologically superior and ideologically vastly inferior people arriving and destroying their way of life. It took until 2008 to deliver a formal apology.

[@crimewizard]

yeah i just opened this video but hearing the opening lines im lowkey not going to watch it. kinda shows how much research this seppos done

[@expandedhistory]

Reads title of video.. *zips up hazmat suit before entering comment section*

[@stabinghobo57]

So original

[@speedy01247]

@@stabinghobo57 your comment is less original then theirs.

[@TheTheTheTheTheThe]

As an Aussie, I wish people wouldn’t make these videos because the Americans go crazy in the comments section

[@stanhry]

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

[@shawno8253]

Its honestly not that bad yet.

[@godowskygodowsky1155]

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.

[@JinandJuice90]

Hey! An actual statistician! Nobody will listen to us tho.

[@yoloman3607]

@@JinandJuice90 People can listen but still not understand😔, not everything can be made into a helpful visual. Comments also don't have visuals.

[@ndazza]

I listened, but I did not understand...

[@JinandJuice90]

@@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.

[@ZCSilver]

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.

[@paraphiliac]

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.

[@chickenfishhybrid44]

And the fact that there's literally legal requirements for people to have all kinds of insurance.. lmao

[@HweolRidda]

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.

[@rhinothepwn]

@@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

[@biggibbs4678]

Lol right you might as well use the dmv as an example of something working

[@pepsioverlord]

I do remember seeing about the Sydney Cafe Seige, if the automatic guns were legal it would have been significantly worse

[@geoffreydowdle5751]

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.

[@morninglift1253]

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?

[@mukkaar]

Yes, but even if that is true, models they base their decisions on are real and something scientists could get to know easily.

[@Bobis32]

​@@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

[@morninglift1253]

@@Bobis32 Are you talking about insurance companies in Australia?

[@0Clewi0]

"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.

[@AlexanderRM1000]

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.

[@andrasbiro3007]

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.

[@manganvbg90]

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.

[@therocinante3443]

@@andrasbiro3007 ........ read what you said out loud to yourself

[@nSiLEtan]

@@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?

[@Mazigaro]

but shootings are high in America at the moment

[@GalvayraPHX]

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.

[@brianleewaltersjr]

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

[@bzipoli]

@@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.

[@lts1682]

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.

[@MattHatter360]

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.

[@lecoureurdesbois86]

Police will never be effective enough, people should have the means to defend themselves.

[@teopalafox]

@bLackstar You are your own first responder

[@mrcaboosevg6089]

@@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

[@dannyarcher6370]

You forgot to mention that the police sell guns to criminals.

[@llabavi367]

Hey Sam Could you make a video about the logistics of concerts or concert tours?

[@cheesebusiness]

Especially Rammstein which moves a giant stage all over the world

[@nenmaster5218]

@@cheesebusiness Naturally curious? Shootings and Gun-Issues were covered by KZbinr '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.

[@davidty2006]

Ngl would be interesting. Since in europe it tends to be a convoy of trucks and a few modified busses with living quarters.

[@bzipoli]

good idea

[@connorbarthelmie5313]

Seems like you got your wish :D

[@mrcaboosevg6089]

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

[@xerxeskingofking]

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.

[@scottjs5207]

@@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.

[@OGPatriot03]

@@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.

[@thekwoka4707]

The US also had similarly restrictive egun laws during this time period. When they were loosened gun murders didn't go up at all.

[@frostbyte4987]

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.

[@RyanJacobs496]

Thank you for not naming a certain individual. Great piece. Very well done.

[@wolfrickthedesigner4748]

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

[@ThomasLiljeruhm]

It's simply different listening to your video now after watching Jet Lag: The Game. Just different, not worst.

[@kandels3195]

Could you explain?

[@STS-Dreamer]

@@kandels3195 I assume from having seen his face / age and kind of removing / changing the veneer of authority he had to an extent.

[@ThomasLiljeruhm]

@@STS-Dreamer 100% this. But I still love the Wendover videos!

[@SuxxenOkard]

same, but I'm honestly impressed someone so young is so articulate and knowledgeable about these things.

[@Needkey.]

@@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.

[@dondonnysson4973]

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.

[@PAYTONLB999]

How do I like this more than once?

[@MaxHaydenChiz]

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.

[@alilalani9531]

ah yes, a youtube statistician. I assume you have a PhD in economics and pandemic control too?

[@samanthascott1271]

@@alilalani9531 ?

[@hueydo3522]

I like this further breakdown! What stat class you have to take for this?

[@Swenthorian]

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.

[@callomtm]

vnt

[@fokke17]

Bedankt

[@larsmurdochkalsta8808]

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?

[@snowballeffect7812]

It's probably better explained already on a different channel.

[@larsmurdochkalsta8808]

@@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

[@notn0t]

You want a 20 minute video that covers a degree in actuarial science?

[@larsmurdochkalsta8808]

@@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 KZbin It's obviously not a degree, but it's entertaining and educational.

[@lonestarr1490]

@@larsmurdochkalsta8808 But what kind of stock footage would he use to illustrate 20 minutes of abbreviated, entertaining and informative actuarial science?

[@philipmcniel4908]

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.

[@afrosymphony8207]

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.

[@philipmcniel4908]

​@@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.

[@lorenzovaletti4951]

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.

[@risus3396]

@@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?

[@afrosymphony8207]

@@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.

[@oxjmanxo]

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.

[@mzaite]

Technically the GOVERNMENT is your insurance policy against war. Your annual premium is your Income Taxes.

[@lucasbarcellos8356]

I'm pretty sure the missile part was a joke.

[@oxjmanxo]

@@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.

[@mzaite]

@@oxjmanxo When you have enough money to buy the government, you get to do as you like.

[@hhiippiittyy]

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".

[@OilBaron100]

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.

[@innfos4634]

Thanks oil baron but I struggle to see any value to these corrections in relation to the points presented

[@OilBaron100]

@@innfos4634 how about the interest of presenting correct and accurate information?

[@davtra]

Interesting to learn the Constitution does not directly give the Commonwealth powers to enact gun laws!

[@OilBaron100]

@@davtra that’s what stopped the Commonwealth government enacting strict gun control back in 1987 & 1991 when they wanted to.

[@MartinMartin-bh4ke]

@@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

[@blingbling574]

One thing I learned about politicians and the media. Every tragedy is an opportunity for displaying relevance. Relevance equals power and wealth.

[@dovahkiin3379]

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

[@rafaelvazquez7465]

As a political leader, you would be stupid not to engineer events to advance your agenda. It would be the most efficient means

[@mzaite]

If all your actions aren’t about personal gain, you never become a politician or a news mogul.

[@mzaite]

@@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.

[@Mizar007]

@@rafaelvazquez7465 Are you implying that politicians engineered mass shootings as a means to ban guns in Australia?

[@hypnoticmoai6509]

Buybacks are great. Spend $5 in printer filament, print a frame/receiver, and bam you just turned $5 into $100

[@SamSandford]

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.

[@SvetlinTotev]

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.

[@SF-eo6xf]

They also have back insurance

[@roflchopter11]

Oh shit, "never let a good crisis go to waste" actually made it in! Saying the quiet part out loud.

[@WoWUndad]

Nothing will ever sway you we know there's no hope for the conservative party

[@VirgilOvid]

@@WoWUndad now say the quiet part out lout. “Nothing will ever sway you so….”

[@OGPatriot03]

I mean I think we're within a decade of them openly launching death camps to rid the planet of the no good righties...

[@iridium1118]

@@WoWUndad nothing will sway you either. Verbal vomit.

[@jasonbaylor9865]

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?

[@firestorm517]

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]

[@kamikaze5528]

I far as I understand, the bans did little to prevent mass murderers. The attacks traded the guns for knifes, acid, or even vehicles

[@alanhowitzer]

They take your guns in the UK and you get a more tyrannical government with an invasion from Iraq and Africa

[@roxylius7550]

@@kamikaze5528 so how many mass stabbing in UK school has happened this year?

[@pieface6421]

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.

[@F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w]

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 ...

[@petitio_principii]

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.

[@0Clewi0]

Diferent causalities, specially if you consider in the case of mass shooting how important local media is.

[@enderborn017]

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.

[@Devyno]

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.

[@k.h.6991]

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.

[@matty8944]

@@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?

[@matty8944]

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.

[@kholozondi9904]

@@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

[@mephisto6486]

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?

[@freedomsglory1]

Shhhhhhhhh. Don’t point that out. Also don’t point out that gun violence across the entire world decreased after 2000.

[@juliuszkocinski7478]

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.

[@007kingifrit]

@@juliuszkocinski7478 that's true it's called the media contagion effect, but that doesn't really address his point

[@w-4258]

Because the statistic represents the actions of a single person.

[@SolarMoth]

@@freedomsglory1 Generally, you're safer then you've ever been.... but we gotta get them wedge issues in!

[@22yhjjjj]

Oh boy, yall better get plugins to see like/dislike ratios because things are gonna get SPICY

[@DirtyStinky]

You know the current count?

[@burakm8685]

@@DirtyStinky 1.2k to 372

[@damsel_deere]

@@DirtyStinky 14k to 2.8k

[@maxsmodels]

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.

[@clayton8or]

@@Rosa-lv8yw Technically it is the word of god.

[@MrAB-fo7zk]

@@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 ...

[@samhouston1288]

@@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.

[@007kingifrit]

and now they are in covid camps without trial....

[@BrumBrumBryn]

@@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?

[@saltedyolk]

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.

[@mastersingleton]

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.

[@HweolRidda]

Neither did the US Constitution, until Reagan's activist court rewrote the 200 year old interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. :-(

[@alilalani9531]

@@HweolRidda and because of that you’re allowed to freely type this comment without backlash in the greatest country on earth. Count your blessings.

[@szirsp]

@@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

[@alilalani9531]

@@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…

[@szirsp]

@@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.

[@billalbenassar7185]

“Worst mass shooting in Australian history” - average Tuesday afternoon in Chicago

[@GavriJ]

Yes, but mostly in Chicago.

[@SmokeyChipOatley]

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.

[@kcgunesq]

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.

[@JohnSmith-mz2zo]

It is historical rewriting to claim that initial colonisers were met with “hostile Indigenous,” as most tribes were amicable and welcoming initially, until mass-land claims of already lived in areas, genocide, alien pestilence brought by colonial vectors (which was also intentionally used as bioweapons) completely spat in the face of this good will.

[@rangersmith4652]

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.

[@nenmaster5218]

Naturally curious? Shootings and Gun-Issues were covered by KZbinr '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.

[@seepaoloap]

I can definitely say this is not your usual comment section 😂

[@Textrosity]

I think the extremity of the control is a point of contention since it's gone on to cover toys too.

[@Stapler42]

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.

[@NORTHERNDICT8R]

​@Stapler42 there are nerf and gel blasters registered as cat A in SA. Same category as .22 rifles and most shotguns

[@Techno-Universal]

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.

[@VirginiaBronson]

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

[@stephenbarrett8000]

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.

[@VirginiaBronson]

@@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.

[@DSlyde]

No model is independent of the data put into it, and the report only used data back to 1979. I.e. it focused on the decade that you just pointed out might be an outlier. It takes 0 measures to counteract that potential bias. Statistical modelling isn't magical. Saying that insurance companies do it isn't a panacea for bad data either. Insurance companies have comparatively massive amounts of data to draw from. House fires might be rare per capita but there are still 350k+/year in the US alone, and numbers have been recorded going back decades, and its all localized. And that's before any extrapolations from foreign data. Even weird events like lightning deaths in the US happen several orders of magnitude more often than Australian shootings. I honestly don't know what the intent of the report was, because it was essentially a forgone conclusion from the data set.

[@bobdobsin6216]

Something something lies and statistics.

[@kalebbruwer]

I agree, I think he just wanted a silver bullet so he saw one where there wasn't. Not to mention that the mass shooting rate pales in comparison to the homicide rate, something that isn't even limited to guns.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

Yeah, what do all these data and statistical exports even know? And sure there numerous studies showing that weaker gun laws and higher gun ownership rates each are associated with higher murder rates. But the video and the analysis from the experts is clearly wrong!!

[@DSlyde]

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson mate, creating statistical models like this is part of my job. It's a poorly done model that could have provided no other outcome. Think of this way - if an event only happened once in a billion years, but the only day of data you provide to a model is the single day that even happened, how is the model supposed to accurately predict the frequency? As far as it can possibly know, it happens every day. You the creater can artificially tweak the parameters of the resutling model to make it guess that it happens every billion years, but then the frequency wasn't derived from the data but from your tweaking. So there very well might be better studies out there, and if that is the case, the video should have used them instead of this one. Because this one is bad. Bad arguments don't convince those on the fence, even when the conclusion is right. They make them sceptical and give ammunition to the other to shoot down your credibility

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@DSlyde ok, so you’re saying all the experts who have looked at Australia and who have also studied gun control In general are all wrong? Or is possible you are highly bias for guns? Which do you think? And there were 12 cases of mass shootings in 10 years going into the year of the new gun control. It would be 20 years before another mass shooting. Are you saying that it still not enough data to determine that the gun regulations lead to a sharp decline in mass shootings and murders? Also, what is your opinions on guns? In summary, are you saying you cannot determine anything if there 12 incidents in the 10 years up to 1997 then major reform to address those incidents, then 20 years without any incidents?

[@Gak237]

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?

[@lucidsamurai4188]

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.

[@FloydTaylor]

@@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

[@seankennedy4284]

But mass shootings are what gets everyone's attention. Hysteria sells.

[@nightwingaven69]

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

[@DaGARCE1]

@@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.

[@uzaiyaro]

I’ve been to the site of the Port Arthur massacre. I’ve set foot on the ruins of the Broad Arrow cafe, where most of 35 people lost their lives. If that doesn’t change your mind on gun control, nothing will.

[@RicardoGaedke]

We did something like that here in Brazil. Didn't worked that well...

[@darkcap2326]

Chad move right here

[@Game_Hero]

Just because you didn't implement it well doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked if it was.

[@RicardoGaedke]

@@Game_Hero It was really well implemented, i've saw just a couple of guns on civil hand during all my life. Our biggest problem here is high crime rate, cartels and criminal organizations in general, they don't care about gun control laws... Guns are becoming a trend again, our active president kind of making easier to buy it...

[@Game_Hero]

@@RicardoGaedke So there is a correlation between easy access and firearm violence. Never said it was a causality.

[@RicardoGaedke]

@@Game_Hero well, murder rate has decreased last years since the new president facilitated acces to guns to civil... Could just be because of the pandemics, but not sure about the correlation... let's wait and see if it rises again...

[@prolapsedpam7380]

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

[@Trofog]

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

[@JonnyBefull]

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.

[@styrax7280]

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.

[@hurri6339]

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?

[@Lukyan]

@@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.

[@BoardingPassRO]

Plane mention ✅

[@mikhailv67tv]

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.

[@autisticgod3338]

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.

[@mehere8038]

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

[@huwfrancis9437]

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.

[@sionsoschwalts2762]

sure... it isn't full of lies and misinformation at all...

[@sionsoschwalts2762]

@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

[@adelalmohtaseb5261]

@@sionsoschwalts2762 if you make it harder for bad people to get guns yea

[@adelalmohtaseb5261]

@anguschandler4482 fr

[@hellishcyberdemon7112]

@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

[@aidan7099]

i didn’t even know australia was real

[@idanthyrsus6887]

It's not. Everyone knows Godzilla destroyed it in 63.

[@Sedonapass]

the US will just be like, ok whats for dinner?

[@RyanEglitis]

Great work pullinig all this fotage together and flipping it right side up for us.

[@Robert-cu9bm]

I had to turn my TV upside down to make it feel normal.

[@FrznFury27]

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.

[@gabrieltomete4751]

I hink this video diminish the extremely radical steps that were taken for this to work out. The government decided that to combat gun crime, they would forcefully take away all the guns and would put people in prison if they refused. There are plenty of other extreme measures that you could take to reduce various crimes, but when the pros are weighed against the cons its still decided that it's too much. For example electronic search warrant without probable cause. It's not like police entering your home and making a mess. You wouldn't even knew that were listening in, and reading through your phone. But despite solving less crimes, we still don't do it. Another one is expanding the DNA criminal database and force anyone (convicted or not) to submit their DNA.

[@ozozozozoz4589]

What's etremely radical to the rest of the world is to do nothing while children die at school.

[@jaredneaves7007]

You are wrong. In no way were all guns taken or bought back. There are more firearms in Australia today than ever before in world history

[@DuringDark]

USA passed the PATRIOT act entirely orthogonal to gun crime, nowadays we have FAANG to ensure _no one_ has privacy.

[@noonecares379]

The west can learn everything from Australia. The way urbanization and nature coexist in Australia is worth learning from.

[@duck8dodgers]

The mass murder that happened closest to be was in 2017 when the murder drove a truck down a bike lane I use frequently, and I know there was one incident in Melbourn where a murder drove through a mall after these gun control measures were put into place. My question is have there been similar analysises that take into account vehicular mass killings? Are we just fighting the symptoms without looking at the underlying causes of mass murder? I know the bladed indiscriminate killers, like the Satan Island Ferry swordman are less deadly, but are the vehicular ones? I don't know the answers to these questions, but ever since I saw the aftermath of a mass murder blocks away from my work, with no firearms used to murder the victims I have been sceptical of responding to mass murder with gun control.

[@TadsPlayhouse]

Im no data expert, but I'd venture to guess guns are the extremely more common method in mass killings than vehicles.

[@andrewmalone8035]

Germany banned gun ownership and went from having a gun problem to a knife problem as well. In the US we have Chicago as a shining example that gun control does not work. They have the strictest gun control laws and is one of the deadliest cities

[@jaycoleslaw9854]

@@andrewmalone8035 Any stats on that. All I can find is Germanys murder rate is significantly lower than the US

[@jpe1]

@@andrewmalone8035 Chicago only proves that gun control measures must extend beyond the immediate geographical area. The vast majority of gun violence committed in Chicago is done with guns brought in from surrounding states. California also has very strict gun control, but across the entire state, and a much larger state, with major cities far from land borders with other states, and California has seen much success with reducing the murders via gun control laws. If measures adopted in California were to be adopted nationwide the rates of gun violence will likely drop as much as, if not more than, what has happened in California.

[@andrewmalone8035]

@@jpe1 I live in California and would travel nowhere without a gun. I also happen to live in a county that supports all of it's citizens getting a concealed weapons permit. Just look at the crime statistics. It's horrible right now and guns are never the problem, the people using them are. Instead of looking at gun violence, look at overall crime statistics. Bad people will use any means necessary to obtain their goal whether it be a gun, knife, vehicle, or any other object to inflict harm on innocent people.

[@crosslegluke4506]

if your looking at Mass shootings... okay cool fine. seems pretty obvious: Less guns exist therefore less guns are used therefore less people die by gun. BUT. is your concerne soley about stopping mass shootings or is it to lessen death? Just because Mass Shootings cease to exist is still ignoring the underlying issues which caused the mass shootings. But it doesn't stop the death. You have to look at the rates of violence/ murder to gauge that. And Australian Murder rates stayed roughly the same until a sudden drop in 2003-- 7 years after the buy back. If you want to stop people killing people using guns, then ofcourse gun laws work... (At least they did prior to the advent of 3D priniting, that still remains to be seen) but do they really do anything to violence?

[@stephenbarrett8000]

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.

[@crosslegluke4506]

@@stephenbarrett8000 this has nothing to do with the comment I made 2 years ago

[@mzuggy]

This is an interesting and thoughtful video. I will say, it does paint only one portion of this larger discussion of gun control. It may be true that disarming a population will lessen the rate of mass shootings, but what I would want to know is what are the other side effects of this action.

[@jakejanssen4319]

law abiding citizens will be left vulnerable to criminals, and the government will become more invasive as years and decades go on. that is usually the path of gun control and confiscation in western countries

[@macgobhann8712]

Nothing. The side effects are nothing. If you're trying to imply violent crime rose because people couldn't defend themselves, you'd be flat out wrong, as violent crime, especially gun crime, decreased significantly after reform.

[@mzuggy]

@@macgobhann8712 Not trying to imply anything! Mainly just asking a question. 🙂 Good to know overall violent crime decreased following the reform. I'd love to see a video going into that with greater detail as well!

[@G_moneyy]

@@macgobhann8712 Violent crime in Australia was already on the decline before the restrictions, and recently it has risen. Also, an unarmed population is a weak one. Without the possession of firearms by the masses, the government can in theory exert whichever form of overarching control of basic liberties they wish without fear of the public doing anything about it. Take China for example. The people are constantly monitored and watched in whatever they do to make sure they comply with the party’s every command. If they don’t comply, or they say something out of line, their family mysteriously disappears, and they have a nice chat with some kind officials. They tried to do something about it in 1989 (as I’m sure you are aware) but due to the masses being unarmed and unable to do anything once they brought in the military, they ultimately failed and are controlled to this day. While I’m not saying that Australia is a communist dictatorship that has no civil liberties for citizens, it wouldn’t take much to herd the population like sheep.

[@ozozozozoz4589]

@@G_moneyy the pandemic would have been a good opportunity. But here we are.

[@akiraawooch]

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.

[@HesderOleh]

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.

[@akiraawooch]

@@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.

[@economicprisoner]

@@akiraawooch Difficult to kill 20 people in 90 seconds with a knife.

[@Raiders1917]

@@economicprisoner People still die, just in a different way.

[@oohhboy-funhouse]

@@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.

[@arcaneminded]

0:13 You make it sound like they had no right to be hostile.

[@Tarkov.]

Guys, stop arguing He's clearly just using this to stir up engagement for the algorithm.

[@shawno8253]

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.

[@alexmorse6484]

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.

[@stephenbarrett8000]

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.

[@LiborTinka]

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.

[@dannyarcher6370]

Democracy is dumb. Change my mind.

[@LiborTinka]

@@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%.

[@dannyarcher6370]

@@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.

[@LiborTinka]

@@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

[@dannyarcher6370]

@@LiborTinka Nice idea!

[@petermiddo]

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.

[@djinn666]

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.

[@gunner4life568]

@@djinn666 there countries with higher population to USA but with very low mass shootings

[@dogbot55]

@@gunner4life568 literally only china and India have higher populations than the United States

[@djinn666]

@@gunner4life568 There's only 2 countries worth a larger population than the US, China and India. Neither allow civilian gun ownership.

[@gunner4life568]

@@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

[@MrHeavy466]

Interesting points. Comparing countries like the US and Australia feels like an apples to oranges comparison to me. But while you're at it, maybe do a video about the mass shooting problem in Brazil in the same format.

[@dearyvettetn4489]

Comparing two countries with similar European origins and cultures, that had to deal with the same…issues to defend the land that they…procured doesn’t sound like an apples and oranges comparison. ‘More like a gala 🍎 and Granny Smith 🍏 comparison. Now Brazil vs. the US, that’s more apples and oranges from an origin and cultural standpoint.

[@ST3ADYxKICKS]

@@dearyvettetn4489 one is an island with no land borders and the other is bordered by one of the the most corrupt countries in the world with little security for smuggling in guns.

[@bodhionultimateride2660]

@@dearyvettetn4489 USA Europeans are committing the most gun violence in America? I thought it was a different demographic group but I guess I don’t know my facts.

[@_chipchip]

US and Aus are quite similar, especially compared to Brazil.

[@bodhionultimateride2660]

@@_chipchip in the 90s they were? They had super predators like the ones the Clinton’s were after in the 90s? Wow didn’t know that.

[@datsuzei1669]

I think ‘untamed’ is a poor description of pre-settlement Australia and ‘hostile’ is a somewhat inaccurate description of the First Nations population. Other than that, great video!

[@robertkb64]

While you did a great job in covering a major hole that’s often ignored (the continuation in trend over time - the decrease in rate per 100k was substantially the same before and after the law) you did miss a related issue - economic substitution. Not having any expertise in Australia I don’t know the answer, but the question amounts to: did the drop in firearm death rates result in substitution of the firearm with another tool (ex: UK’s various gun bans correlate very well with an increase in knife homicide - essentially when criminals can’t get guns they get the next best alternative for their purpose, knives in this case)? Or was the drop in gun deaths an effect of something else entirely (Freakanomics covered this about who years ago, hypothesizing that in the US a part of the drop in crime was because of the increased access to abortion)? You didn’t cover this next part, but it may not have mattered: was there a change in definitions, or a mixture of definitions? For example in some countries babies born before a particular gestational age, or who die within a short period after birth (most often 24 hours) are recorded as stillbirths rather than neonatal mortality, leading them to be ranked higher than other countries who record these events differently. Does this pattern impact these statistics?

[@Xel_Naga]

Yeah we saw an increase in knife related violence (I'd need citation to be exact but CBF) but it doesn't matter, because we countered the Knives with Milk crates 👍

[@ThePoodlenoodler]

Not covered in the video, but the last source linked in the description states that they were unable to find evidence of substitution.

[@adrianwelton1870]

Well the homicide rate did not decrease significantly for 10 years after the gun ban, and when it did decrease, it was in line with what one could expect based on averages from similar nations, which is strong evidence for substitution

[@robertkb64]

@@ThePoodlenoodler That’s an accurate description of their summary, but appears to be self-refuting. From the summary the non-firearms death rate was higher after the ban than before, which is exactly what you’d expect if substitution was occurring, while they simultaneously claim that they found no evidence of substitution. This seems to be a self-refuting sentence, quoting here (and omitting the errata: “From 1979-1996, the mean annual rate of total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths was 10.6 … per 100,000 population … whereas from 1997-2013, the mean annual rate was 11.8 … per 100,000 ... There was no evidence of substitution of other lethal methods for suicides or homicides.” Not included in this of course is a breakdown of homicides vs suicides (many people think that ending your own suffering is a human right, and so suicides must be legally protected - for these people including suicides with homicides is the same as others view including abortions with homicides), nor is there a breakdown of mass killings vs individual killings, nor a breakdown of organized crime with others. In the US the vast majority of gun homicides are driven by organized crime, typically due to the so-called “war on drugs,” but I don’t know if that holds true in Australia. If it does we’d expect to see a substitution effect, possibly to more targeted bombings (though my view on this I’m sure reflects how Uncle Sam taught me how to do things in the Sandbox).

[@ThePoodlenoodler]

@@robertkb64 it's counterintuitively phrased, but the period of 1979-1996 saw an average increase of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths of 2.1% per year, while the period of 1996-2013 saw an average decrease of 1.4% per year. The mean from 1996-2013 is higher because it did not decrease as quickly in that period as it increased in 1979-1996, but this is actually a reversal of an upward trend, and imo they should include a graph to make this more obvious. As for suicides vs homicides, they make that distinction in the results section because they found that firearm suicides decreased significantly after the 1996 gun control, but the acceleration of the decrease in firearm homicides was not enough to be statistically significant.

[@Phonixrmf]

The Betoota Advocate once said: Australia Enjoys Yet Another Peaceful Day Under Oppressive Gun Control Regime

[@maximemeis2867]

Are we talking about the same country that placed its whole population under house of arrest for more than a year ?

[@LikeAF0x]

My first thought when I saw the title was "Oh no, the comment section..."

[@mervinhocsonart1921]

My first thought was "Oh no, the like-to-dislike ratio..." (I have a browser extension to make it visible again.)

[@julianhong143]

@@mervinhocsonart1921 what’s the extension?

[@mervinhocsonart1921]

@@julianhong143 "Return KZbin Dislike"

[@a.jherbert5436]

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?

[@Eric-gw1uo]

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.

[@SirBigzalot]

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.

[@davidlp3019]

@@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.

[@halogod0298]

@@davidlp3019 here in America you weren’t allowed to label someone a nut case without being a bigot or a racist unfortunately

[@RonSafreed]

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!!

[@jobenco5757]

I really enjoy your videos, in fact, I also support you on Nebula. But the statement "hostile indigenous populations" at the beginning of the video ist deeply disappointing me as an Australian with indigenous ancestry and as a subscriber to your channel. Maybe you should do some research on the atrocities the Europeans commited in Australia. When googling "How did the Europeans treat the indigenous people of Australia?" the very first results go along the lines of "Aboriginal peoples were murdered, executed, massacred and violated while defending their land and cultures.", "Cultural practices were denied, and subsequently many were lost.", "Indigenous peoples struggled to survive, and a large number died from starvation and malnourishment." or "Since the European invasion of Australia in 1788, the Aboriginal people have been oppressed into a world unnatural to their existence, a way of life that had continued for thousands of years." That was not hard and I am truly disappointed in this disrespectful statement.

[@f1y7rap]

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.

[@jagslab]

This is just false. NYC is 2.7 murders per 100k. London is 1.5

[@SR-cm2my]

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.

[@RohanTej]

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.

[@f1y7rap]

@@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.

[@f1y7rap]

@@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.