Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Kyle Debates Conservative YouTuber Razorfist On Drunken Peasants" video.
-
3
-
"The guy in Las Vegas wouldn't have killed nearly as many people if he had used knives instead of guns" - the problem is that knives are not a proper mass casualty event weapon. Compare it to a truck bomb or something. Either way, the attackers in France also got their hands on guns so... when someone has money you can't easily stop them because funding gets weapons.
"would have been as dramatic without the policies Australia put in place." - that's actually very debatable.
De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[47] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[48]
Baker, Jeanine; McPhedran, Samara (18 October 2006). “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?”. British Journal of Criminology. 47 (3): 455–469.doi:10.1093/bjc/azl084.
Suicide reduction from firearm regulation is disputed by Richard Harding in his book “Firearms and Violence in Australian Life”[49] where, after reviewing Australian statistics, he said that “whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them” Harding quoted international analysis by Newton and Zimring[50] of twenty developed countries which concluded at page 36 of their report; “cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available.“
Harding, Richard (1981). Firearms and Violence in Australian Life. Perth: University of Western Australia Press. p. 119. ISBN 0 85564 190 8
Newton, George; Zimring, Franklin (1968). "Firearms and Violence in American Life” (PDF). Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes & Prevention of Violence. Retrieved 8 February 2016.
In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[51] said that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former coconvenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words “will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives”.[52] Weatherburn responded, “The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice.”[53]
Weatherburn, Don. “Statistics and gun laws”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 November 2005. Accessed 10 August 2010
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran, researchers with the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting (WiSH), found little evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide, but did for suicide.[54]
Baker, Jeanine; McPhedran, Samara (18 October 2006). “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?”. British Journal of Criminology. 47 (3): 455–469.doi:10.1093/bjc/azl084.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[58]
McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). “Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence”. Justice Policy Journal. 8 (1).
A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, “Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.”[60]
Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). “The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths”. Contemporary Economic Policy. 28(1): 65–79. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.2009.00165.x.
"The reality is that stricter gun laws usually result in fewer gun deaths." - not really. Plenty of country with strict gun control laws like Brazil or Mexico have strict gun control laws and gun homicide is rampant.
https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/does-strict-gun-legislation-reduce-violent-crime-in-latam/
"In short, a regulated approach may reduce gun ownership and have an impact on petty crime and casual violence, but gun legislation alone will do little to reign in the criminal groups responsible for the rampant violence in the region’s most murderous areas."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperSupermanX1999 I said you can create a fucking bloodbath with bladed weapons, not that it is "more effective". You either don't bother to read or you don't bother to tweak your pre-written arguments.
"why do we send soldiers to Afghanistan armed with rifles rather than machetes?" - that is completely nonsensical considering the argument at hand. We're talking about going to a place like an office building or a school and attacking people who have no means of self-defense. The Taliban have means of self-defense not limited to rifles and machine guns but also mortars, rockets, etc.
"“if we take away guns then criminals will have to use less effective tools” which, in the grand scheme of things, is a trade off I’m perfectly happy to accept if it means fewer people dying" - there's several problems with that argument:
1) You cannot guarantee less people dying. The Sagamihara massacre in 2016 left 19 dead and 23 injured which is very comparable to the American shootings in terms of casualties. You mentioned machetes a whole ago and I can't stop thinking about the Rwandan genocide, in which not only government-armed groups were killing people but civilians took bladed weapons and committed atrocities without needing access to a gun. Hell, one of the worst mass killings in the US was the Happy Land fire, which killed 87 people and only took a can of petrol and a lit match.
2) Not only are the "less effective" methods pretty fucking effective, you also can't disarm criminals. By definition they do not obey the law, not even gun laws. But even assuming that wasn't true your "trade off" is pretty disgusting because you're essentially giving the power to the criminals as long as they don't hurt us as much. It's the "peaceful slavery" over "dangerous freedom" argument, who cares about criminals still doing whatever they want to us as long as they do it at a lower rate. Mind that it's not going to happen at a lower rate. But in terms of principle it's completely wrong. It's the innocent self-punishing hoping that criminals will lower their crime rate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WaxNumen "The government wouldn't decide who gets healthcare, everyone would get it." - that's just false, if (say) the government has a budget for 100 people to get healthcare (small country) and 101 people show up what happens? The government will have to decide who doesn't get it. This is what happens when resources are allocated, when the government purchases X amount of a certain treatment or gives a budget to run machines for Y tests they are essentially making the decision of who lives or dies.
This shit happens, a bunch of people died because the government in my country didn't have the budget for enough colonoscopies, there was a controversy and they pledged to increase the budget for that test next year. Since their budget is not infinite I am sure you realize they had to get that money by cutting costs elsewhere.
"because doctors would not be forced to do their occupation" - okay, what happens when we take that to the extreme and doctors start quitting? Does the state keep its promise? If the state is going to guarantee healthcare nonetheless, someone will have to be forced to work. You might cry "hyperbole!" but it happened in my city, doctors from a hospital quit en masse because the conditions were so poor they felt like quitting was the only way to get the hospital to shut down. And the state has trouble convincing doctors to go an work in the countryside because nobody wants to move out of the city.
You might think you have all the answers but doctors are humans and they cannot be pushed around for too long. Also, nurses have been dealt a pretty bad hand and they constantly protest for better conditions. Their only tool is strikes, if it gets to a point what do you think is going to happen? The state will either have to drop their promise of guaranteeing healthcare or simply change the law so that they can force people back into their shitty jobs and keep the healthcare system running.
1
-
1
-
1