Comments by "HomerOJSimpson" (@Homer-OJ-Simpson) on "Australia Had a Mass-Shooting Problem. Here’s How it Stopped" video.

Fun fact, leaded gas was not completely phased out of Australia until 2002, serval years after the mass shooting and gun control discussed in this video. Also, you should notice the much larger drop in murders by guns. It’s a proven fact guns are more deadly than knives so considering gun murders dropped far more as a % than overall murders, it suggests the gun control was a major contributor to the overall drop in murders.
26
@DevotedpupaVODs this is why people hate making any videos — people like you get over pedantic Or make your own assumptions just to get angry about anything. The video is about Australian gun culture and gun regulations history, not a history of all of Australia.
9
@jmallinson “ “what you’re saying isn’t necessarily wrong”…it’s completely right and relevant to the actual discussion about guns and gun culture. This isn’t a history of Australia Video, it’s a history of guns and gun control in Australia video
2
Yeah, what do all these data and statistical experts 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!!
2
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!!
2
@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?
2
@DSlyde the research discussed in this video is peer reviewed as well. You say it’s a bad study but it’s peer reviewed and also supported by other research. That’s why I’m asking for you opinion on guns — it’s highly likely you are very bias in favor of guns. Well, that’s more likely than the researchers and experts who reviewed the research are all wrong. And if you won’t reply about your opinion on guns, I think that is a strong indication you have a very pro gun view
2
@GastropodGaming2006 literally studies on Australia holding variables constant and all they show the gun reform did reduce shootings and massacres. They might disagree on how much impact but they all agree it had positive impact
1
@aum1040 the insurance companies are complete id*iots yet they make calculations on risk and stay profitable?
1
@aum1040 no, you argued they are complete id*ots and don’t know how to calculate risks yet they make profits by calculating risks
1
@aum1040 you said “they aren’t complete id*ots” but you describe them as such. You aren’t a complete id*ot but have an IQ under 50. So, how do they made solid profits if they can’t calculate risks?
1
@aum1040 “they often lose money” excerpt they make money. That’s why risks management works. They lose some and win some but they need to win more than they lose and that how they calculate risks. “All they have to do to make money is charge more than they expect to pay out”. Except, the competition exists so you simply cannot just charge more. You need to understand risks well enough to compete. It was also discussed in the video.
1
@aum1040 so you’re saying is they lose consistently but win more consistently to make a profit? Therefore, they are calculating the risk well enough? I’ll give you an example even a 5 yr old can understand. Imagine playing a game where you have 52% chance of winning. You play 100 games and you lose a lot over that stretch — 48 times. But you win 52 times which means I’ve The long run, you win more than you lose. Same with the insurance. They have calculated the risks with enough precision to make a profit over the large number of games they are play…in this analogy, the games are customers. So they are going to lose with some and win with others but over their whole customer base, they are going to win more than they lose.
1
@bobdobsin6216 ok, so clear you an extreme pro gun person like OP. Your original comment suggested you are likely actually MORE bias than even OP. What both of you are suggesting is that researchers on Australia gun issue did terrible work — and so did the experts that were part of the peer review. In addition, you are suggesting it’s completely a coincidence that all other gun research has reached similar findings that stronger gun laws and lower gun ownership rates lead to reduced murders. You are also saying that if there is an occurrence of some incident 12 times in 10 years, major reform, than no such incident in nearly 20 years that it’s a pure coincidence despite everything else also supporting it. But hey, talk about bias — you spend a considerably time in post arguing about how guns are needed then used used misleading data to try a prove a point. For example, the defensive gun usage was a poll in the 90’s were gun owning people were simply asked if they had used their gun in defensive situation which can include going to check out a noise outside or in the barn. They don’t have to pull the gun out, or use it, nor stop a crime, nor even have it confirmed. And then you compare it to what? Imagine how many offensive gun usages there — which includes all crimes committed with a gun on the person, a threat to use a gun, or just having a gun when they went to do something.
1
@bobdobsin6216 - “Using the data compiled by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) of 56,000 families, scholars have estimated that there are, at a minimum, between 65,000 and 80,000 defensive gun uses per year.
1
@bobdobsin6216 - So consider instead the much larger and more reliable NCVS, conducted by the Census Bureau, according to which defensive gun uses in America are not trivial: 65,000 to 80,000 uses each year.” Despite NCVS estimates suffering from false positives and are likely to overestimate the number of DGUs, it is still much closer to the true number of DGUs compared to Lott’s surveys.
1
@bobdobsin6216 OP is clearly bias but you are beyond bias. Regarding the DGU. vs OGU, it’s trying to keep apples to apples comparison. I’m arguing if you use DGU stat to includes people reporting having a gun on or near them to check out a noise, for OGU you would need something like that. DGU stats are of often a joke — does having a gun on you when checking out a noise that turned out to be a raccoon saved one crime from happening? What we do know is that offensive gun use include some 15k murders by gun, nearly 100k shot by a gun, like several hundred thousand people in total shot at (100k who where hit plus thus that weren’t), hundreds of thousands of crimes committed with gun, and an even larger number of total crimes committed while the criminal had a gun on or near them (this would include the several hundred thousand crimes where it’s know they criminal had or used a gun plus many crimes where the criminal had guns but the police don’t know).
1
@bobdobsin6216 and while I don’t have a major on statistics, I’ve read plenty of studies on guns. That’s why I knew about your weak DGU argument. Research after after research has shown the following: 1. Weaker gun laws are associated with increase risks of murders 2. Higher gun ownership rates are associated with increase risk of murders 3. Higher gun ownership rates are associated with increase risk of suicide deaths 4. Higher gun ownership rates are associated with increase risk of mass shootings So, OP might be a statistical major but he can also be heavily biased and might twist this research to favor his narrative. But the fact is that there have been at least two major studies in Australia guns that found the same results and it’s backed up by Similar findings in numerous other research studies on guns that aren’t directly related to Australia — either US research or global research.
1
@DSlyde ok, so now your argument is that ONE study isn’t enough. That I agree with you. That is one reason I brought up the numerous other studies on the this topic that mostly reach the same conclusions: 1. Weaker gun laws are associated with increase risk of murders 2. Higher gun ownership rates are associated with increase risk murders 3. Higher gun ownership rates are associated with increase risk of mass shootings 4. Higher gun ownership rates are associated with increase risk of suicide deaths In addition, there is at least one other study on Australia which also support the findings in this video. As someone who has spent a large number of time reading gun research Over the past decade or so, I can tell you that whatever problems you with the study, numerous other studies have supported the same findings — a reduction in gun ownership rates and stronger gun laws each are associated with reduction in murder rates and mass shootings.
1
@DSlyde “peer review is also not the panacea either”. I hope you can also recognized that you as individual who claims to work statices is also not the panacea either. There are also numerous “experts” With such huge bias they are dishonest in their work. All of this is why I brought up the fact that numerous other studies found the same conclusion.
1
@bobdobsin6216 I don’t see your reply or OP either, only in my notification
1
@bobdobsin6216 I’m saying that the DGU asked a very vague question and for some, they are answering honestly but it doesn’t mean much (does checking out a noise that turns out to be a raccoon actually save a crime?) and for others, they are lying or exaggerating. That’s why when men are asked how big their Willy is, it’s often 1 inch biggest in their answer than in reality. As for the “if we are going to count incident where a criminal felt empowered to act because he has a gun (but never used in the commission of a crime)”…I’m starting to think you don’t have the intelligence to understand the argument here. This will be the 3rd time I’ve had to say this — I’m ONLY counting such an example if you are going to use DGU stats that include similar situations but for DGU, such as the raccoon example. I’n fact, it would be like having a gun on you in a fight that breaks out but you never pull the gun out. And to emphasize my point about how these surveys are heavily flawed, if there is a group of 4 people that get into a confrontation and all 4 are carrying a gun, all 4 are likely to answer they had a DGU in that situation and not one will say they were guilty of offensive gun use. People saying they used a gun IN DGU May have actually been the offensive gun use.
1
@bobdobsin6216 “The US is pretty much the only country with high rates of gun ownership and anything like the 2nd Amendment. “ 100% of Crime guns in the US came from the US and were not smuggled in. That’s why the studies show more guns a an weaker gun laws increase murders “If you subtract the crime from gang violence, US crime rates drop down to European levels.” No, per the FBI, 13% of murders are gang related. Another false piece of information from you. As you can tell, I’ve heard all your fake talking points before. You gun 🥜 always use the same falsee arguments
1
@bobdobsin6216 murder is not gun crimes but 70% of murders are by guns. And guns are the most effective way of killing so why did you bring it up? What is the relevance? I seriously think you don’t have the mental ability to have this discussion/debate.
1
@bobdobsin6216 you bring up pools and talked about banning pools as a comparison? You are literally repeating the same gun nut arguments I’ve seen a thousand times. First, no one mentioned a ban on all guns so why not say honest here? Second, when did someone take a pool and commit a crime with it or use it kill people who didn’t want to enter the pool? Regarding cars, I love you brought in up. So you agree it should be treated like a car? Everyone has a license and REGISTERED car? And we constantly added new regulations since about 1970 that made automobile related fatalities drop to about 1/6 what they were at their peak? I’m glad you agree we should treat guns like cars and driving!
1