What Do Guns & Pools Have In Common?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 вер 2024
- An argument regarding certain answers to certain questions.
Within the gun control debate, there is a popular analogy which compares firearms to swimming pools. The question is, which side of the debate would benefit the most from this analogy?
Daily Show Segment: • The Daily Show - Gun C...
TWEET: / counterarguing
POST: / counterarguments
BUY: teespring.com/...
DONATE: www.paypal.me/...
EMAIL: countertheargument@gmail.com
Ban fully automatic swimming pools. It's just common sense.
can we at least keep semi-automatic ones?
@@Mordewolt
That leaves a possibility for mass water chuters to modify the swimming pools for full-auto firing.
Fully-Semi-automatic Swimming pools will be the death of all of us.... lol
Fire the water cannon at my next door neighbor Steve!!!!!!!!!!
Won't somebody please think of the children? Even one child drowning death is too many! How much is your fun swimming in your back yard worth? More than a child's life? You monster.
Instructions unclear.
Started drowning in a gun.
Deserves top lmao
You just save the world.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
*> builds a classic 50 inch calibre handgun*
*> fills barrel with water*
*> shoves person into the barrel through the cylinder*
*> person gets stuck in the barrel and drowns*
Cannons are guns, and cannons can be pretty big.
@@bored_person If it comes to that, then milk churns also can be used as cannons (preparing them with carbide, as black powder used to make too much smoke/ blow up the whole thing like a oversized pipe bomb) as some european rites suggest it for easter, new year or weddings.
And i know several people (usually wannabe- Houdinis) who drowned in a milk churn.
Can you rob someone with a pool
*Florida man:* are you challenging me?
Have you ever heard of school drownings? You know kids who steal their parents pool go to school with it and drown everyone.
O o f
@@askaleks1 School drownings are a thing and schools have drained and disabled their pools because of them in the past. More sensible people have advocated for better education on swimming and safety around pools, which is more effective at reducing drownings than outright destruction of nearby pools in the long run; Interestingly, the same is true for firearms.
Invite someone to your pool on a hot summer day, tell them to take off their valuables, then either take their stuff or drown them so they can't call the cops
To be fare the counter argument to this is can you defend yourself from being robbed with a pool ?
Yeah a gun has far more utilities than a pool but that is both a positive and negative going depending on the context.
"Can you murder somebody with a pool?"
I *have* played the Sims, yes.
LOL!!! XD
I mean, you can kill somebody by intentionally drowning them, so there's that I guess.
@@troodon1096 Well if you can overpower them enough to do that you could just kill them normally with your hands too lol.
@@jy61 People who can't swim exist. People who panic drown in otherwise shallow water also exist.
@@MoreEvilThanYahweh wait what? people panic drown in shallow water? dude thats fucked
love that part with john oliver's interview
"right"
"right"
"right"
"right"
"that's *my* argument"
DiD hE JuSt SaId RiGhT ?
NaZi DoG wHiStLes
You realize that was deceptive editing, right? They left the argument out on purpose to make the other side look bad. All TV talk show hosts do this, liberal, conservative, it doesn't matter. This is why alot of people, like Michael Moore, refuse to go on a talk show unless the interview is shown in it's entirety with no edits.
@@QarthCEO It is kind of ironic that Michael Moore would ask for an unedited interview, when he him self produces highly scripted and edited Movies to make his point.
@@QarthCEO Do we know that as a fact with this one? Don't get me wrong, I see a John Olivier or Daily Show interview with multiple cameras and I just assume some editing fuckery is happening, but just curious if this one has been shown to be misleadingly edited.
Except that its NOT his argument (unless he really does think we should ban pools etc).
Ok but might I add that when emptied, the risk of drowning is nonexistent.
However, the chance of being injured due to gnarly skateboard tricks is increased exponentially. So that presents another problem.
Might I also add that when emptied, the risk of shooting is nonexistent.
@kpunkt Maybe this gun? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav
I see analogies as an explanation to one's reasoning. a "well okay let me say it this way;" sort of thing. When the other person doesnt seem to understand your wording. If you just give an analogy then that is literally what you mean, and so then people analyze the analogy and you get stuff like this.
then again sometimes people ignore the argument itself to nitpick the analogy so the strategy doesnt tend to work.
@@kaif-tube1692 I legit thought he was talking about a gun at first until I noted the drowning bit.
...that said, you don't want to fall into a dry pool, and an "empty" gun needs to be truly empty and not a single bullet in the chamber (this misunderstanding has literally killed before), so honestly the analogy kinda sucks even then.
@@jgunner280 We're both being facetious anyway. Good fyi about guns btw.
They're both fun for the kids.
One's better though because you can bring it to school to "show" all your friends!
Unironically. My ten-year-old son learned to shoot a pellet gun in Cub Scouts and is taking swimming lessons over the summer.
@@anthonylipira9526 Your kids a fucking weirdo
Who takes swimming lessons?
Turtlee, the swimming pool?
BEST COMMENT
A border wall would be like the Great Wall of China.
I don't see many Mexicans in China.
Do I win the analogy war?
No but you have my vote, yee-haw
@@justiceforjoggers2897
Chin-chaw*
SangoProductions213 is that a casually explained quote?
@@bluespellmaster8592 lol.
@@Cjeska well China was conquered by the northern tribes so....
We have way more of em down south
Lol
Yo freedom toons watches this guy
Why aren’t you animating >:(
My guy we are wrong there are waaaay less pools in the south (he's talking about guns)
Ban high capacity swimming pools.
I am looking forward to the first robbery where the weapon of choice was a swimming pool
Keep your eye on Flordia.
it'd have to be either one of those inflatable ones or the small plastic kiddie pools, but it could certainly happen
Beware the Wet Bandits
It’s called a super soaker
Laugh now, but one day when somebody threatens you with a beach ball and a pool noodle...
"What Do Guns & Pools Have In Common?"
Deadpool?
“When every one is super no one will be” -Syndrome The Incredibles, could be used for pro individuality or pro conformity depending on the context you use it
Or just for guns. If everyone has a gun it's just worst then if no one has. It's only an advantage to the few who have it(If there's few ppl with a gun). You probs won't die from a fist fight. BUT it'd say you'd get injure way more from a nife or gun fight.
"just because a baby can't eat steak doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to eat steak."
my favorite for this because it can be used by either side, when they are both likely to miss the point.
This wouldn't work against a vegan.
@@vaskedagame880 that's because vegans have a different moral argument to make, so it's not relevant for them.
@TheThoughtGuy Should a calf eat liquid baby?
@TheThoughtGuy Should a baby calf eat liquid?
And the way it applies to the gun control argument is that toddlers do kill their parents, and their siblings, and their cousins every year with guns that their parents failed to secure properly. Every year. It's like a little over a hundred children every year.
Many gun owners in America do not treat guns like gun owners in Switzerland. They treat them like toys for entertainment.
You should do a vid on hypocrisy(if you haven't already) because it's applied the same way. Pointing out hypocrisy isn't an argument and can also be used by the other side.
Counter Arguments actually had a vid on 12 Angry Men where in one of the points, you can use a contradiction not against the man, but in the argument itself within the context of said argument. I think it may be the video's first point.
ua-cam.com/video/rOPfVDVB0qI/v-deo.html
Hypocrisy should only be used to attack a person's character (ethos), such as when determining if an elected official can be trusted on their word. However, it is often used to argue whether a policy is good, a fact is true, or an idea is morally good. Statements are true/false or good/bad outside of the actions of any specific person, so attacking a prominent politician or leader rather than the statement itself is a red herring. Care should also be taken to make sure that an actual intentional contradiction has been made. It is very common for analogies to be labeled as hypocrisy when, from the point of view of the accused, the situations were not analogous enough to warrant similar behavior.
Hypocrisy is a contradiction in somebody's positions. It isn't an argument, but it is a rebuttal; showing the opponent's position to be invalid due to contradiction. They need to address the hypocrisy and fix the contradiction in order to save their argument.
@@badlydrawnturtle8484 not necessarily, it is possible to be right but just not embody your own argument.
Hypocrites piss me off. I also hate people who complain about people that piss them off.
Ironic how many people in the comments section are using this video for confirmation bias or to push their agenda when that's not the point of the video.
Many are doing what the video suggests, which is to use the analogy to explain why they believe it supports their POV.
About half of the comments ive seen so far are convinced that this video is the definitive proof that they were right all along. Also, I really don't know why this is, but I think it's worth noting most of these people appear to be anti gun control.
Through a bit of reading, I find that it's mostly people addressing an pro gun control argument presented in the video, or finally being able to articulate a point they couldn't quite make themselves. And I don't see much agenda pushing going on, it mostly seems like people just ripping on the idiocy of "most" pro gun control arguments.
Then again, I do have an anti gun control bias so...
Unfortunate side effect of the channel
At least it’s not toxic, thankfully that’s a boon of this channel’s comment section
"Its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" works for both as well
i'd argue that works better for guns than pools, pools are expensive and annoying to upkeep lol.
That’s works more for guns
Drowning (1 in 1,086) vs. Accidental shooting (1 in 8,305). Gun assault (1 in 285) vs. Motor vehicle accidents (1 in 102). Oh yeah there is
Unintentional poisoning (1 in 70). This can be further broken down into death by drug poisoning (1 in 75) and death by legal or illegal opioids (1 in 109). Source, my Googlefu.
Can we get an f in the chat for all the libs that just died
Wouldn't it be better if both those numbers were down to *_zero?_*
The diffrence is that Guns serve no purpose OTHER then killing things. Whether that be other people, Animals, or yourself there are very very few things you can do with a gun other then kill things.
Mouse Protector its used for self defense
@@mouseprotector5081 Sure you have abunch of guns that anyone can use to kill abunch of people but theres also enough guns to stop that person using a gun to kill a bunch of people.
How many dolphins don't work every year in Elon Musk's back yard?
depends on if its hunting season.
Every season is hunting season in Elon's backyard
Then 700,007.
Before watching:
"They are closed due to aids?"
Loiuzein Allieran *slowly raises hand*
You are banned for being black
What do guns and pools have in common? Neither should be used while under the influence, for safety reasons.
if you have a bed, you are more likely to sleep in a bed.
not all of these analogies gotta be about death kids
DerpToni616372 If you have a car, then the chance of you dying in a car related accident is higher
@@SpellbreakWiki I'd go to family B because they don't have gun to protect their ass from being broken in and being killed. likewise I'd hiatus out of Family A because I risk getting lead stuck in my skull.
@@SpellbreakWiki Guns do serve other purposes. Firearms can be used for hunting, for recreational purposes and for maintaining your civil duty to maintain your capability to serve your country in times of war (...or does this pool analogy have an enormous asterisk pointing out that it only works in certain countries? Spoiler: 'merica isn't the only place where this debate is currently on the table).
You can't just brush this aside.
@@SpellbreakWiki >You don't hunt with a handgun nor a shotgun
>You don't hunt with a handgun
Oh, really? I'll keep that in mind the next time a big angry critter is attacking me and it's too close to get a shot in with the rifle!
>nor a shotgun
So turkeys, phesants, ducks, gophers, bears, deer, moose, rabbits, foxes, badgers, etc. don't get hunted? They aren't too big or too fast to accurately and efficiently hunt with a rifle? Well golly gee, why didn't you just say so?! Those other guns serve no purpose other than killing people! You're totally right and NOT just talking out your ass! Yep mm-hm.
@@SpellbreakWiki
a) about hunting: handguns and shotguns can, and are, used for hunting. Handguns mostly for finishing off animals such as smaller game caught in traps, but that's hunting nevertheless.
b) about recreational purpose that goes beyond "I just like to have it": RFP. That's an olympics sport. Skeet shooting. That's an olympics sport.
c) About CONSCRIPTION ARMIES: no need to even add anything, you already lost the argument. It is not my problem if you are incapable of comprehending how conscription armies work and how vital voluntary reservist training is for maintaining the rediness of the army.
Calm yourself and drink another pumpkin latte or something...
Also, how's your Interview video doing?
Actually, in a stream he said the ban will end in a week if Channel 4 doesn't do anything to it. Fingers crossed!
@@sas_quatch When and where did he say that?
@@chars_78 ua-cam.com/video/D-bA4oXVM38/v-deo.html
When empty they aren’t lethal.
ToryD what if you fall in them tho
A A says a lot more about the individual than the empty pool.
you can bludgeon someone to death with them
Emersyne that’s just bad gun handling and care.
@@nddragoon if you're strong enough
This was a good job in explaining how people need to form better arguments than just citing numbers
On an episode of _King of the Hill_ , one character spoke out in favor of not using corporal punishment on children by saying "I say _spare_ the rod and _spoil_ the child." Another character said "But 'spare the rod and spoil the child' means yor _in favor_ of corporal punishment", to which the first replied by scratching his head and saying "I don't think so"
What it argues for depends on whether you think "spoil" is a good thing or bad thing
Channel 4 reads title
Channel 4: So you're saying pools murder people? *copyright claim*
Quick rebuttal to the pro-gun control use of the pool analogy.
All it takes to dramatically reduce deaths by drowning in backyards pools is the institution of rigorous yet simple safety procedures. This is a proven technique as shown by the reduction of pool related deaths in Australia, such simple things as fences with self closing gates and high latches difficult for toddlers to operate becoming the cultural norm did honestly make a massive difference.
Apply this same line of thought to the gun death portion of the pool analogy. The institution of rigorous yet simple safety procedures as a gun ownership cultural norm, as in , the responsibility that comes with such a dangerous possession.
I believe that this 'norm' is already a very large part of legal gun ownership culture in the U.S.
It's not perfect, but then, i am only rebutting an analogy so...
Are you rebutting?
Case it seems like you are going full pro gun control here.
"I believe that this 'norm' is already a very large part of legal gun ownership culture in the U.S."
Ohhhhhhh
I see the problem.
If you have a pool, get a pool fence. It helps prevent small children and animals from falling in. Get a pool drain cover that passes safety regulations because you dont want your child to get their hair caught in the drain. If you have kids swimming in the pool make sure there is an available adult to keep an eye out just in case something happens. No running or horse play around the pool. Keep glass away from the pool. Don't open the tank that holds the filters until it is depressurized. Things like the pool fence and the drain cover might make good laws but the other safety precautions are more in line with being a responsible person. There should be a mixture of regulation and personal responsibility.
Unrelated but it made me think "if you're on an elevator then you have a chance of dying on an elevator." Like no shit, but there are REASONS people die on the elevator i.e. elevator sickness.
Eating makes you more likely to die off food poisining than when you starve yourself.
i didn't know elevator sickness was a thing jesus
Good point! Just dont forget both clips involve comedians, it doesnt change the argument, but it changes the presentation!
Another huge problem with this analogy, and the over-reliance upon it, is that it isn't directly addressing the point of contention (that we shouldn't just ban anything that can be dangerous) and thus has an equal chance of just convincing your opponent that we should ban pools as well.
I wouldn't say an equal chance, because no one really sees pools as dangerous. Suggesting we ban pools would just sound ridiculous. The only reason people want to ban guns is because they're scared of them, not because they're a huge problem in American society.
High capacity pools.
I remember when I got a pool we had a few rules and conditions we had to meet first. We had to reorganize our power outlets so that none were too close to water and we had to have a fence high enough that children couldn't easily walk into our backyard and drown. Aka: pool control. We shouldn't ban all guns just as we shouldn't ban all pools, but if we are going to introduce danger into our lives we should make sure it's done in a controlled manner meant to inhibit that danger so that we can reasonably be allowed to induce it.
That’s a fair point but it’s also worth considering that, at least in the USA, owning a firearm is a right, whereas owning a pool is a privilege, so comparing the two is intellectually inconsistent. That being said, having measures like the current background checks system are important to make sure someone is not a felon before owning a firearm
The argument should be just because there are risks doesn't mean we should avoid those risks. I drive but statistics say I shouldn't drive, but I still do. Should everyone not be allowed to drive because other people say so?
Isnt that why we use driving licences?
@@flerkan2802 I'd like 1 gun license PLOX.
@@flerkan2802 actually that's why you train and practice driving. The license is just a card that states you satisfied the requirements set forth by someone (in this case the govt). But people still get in accidents all the time.
My argument is, that risks and benefits have to weigh out. A car gives your mobility and flexibility. You increase your risk to gain mobility, flexibility, social status, ...
Having a pool has benefits like socializing, outdoor activity, cooling during summer, ... So, the health risk is counterweight by health and other benefits. Which side of the scale tips depends on the person. With a gun I do not see many specific benefits from owning a gun that can outweigh the risk.
@@sarowie ''With a gun I do not see many specific benefits from owning a gun that can outweigh the risk.
''
Well, let's analyze that. What are the risks of you, personally, owning a gun? I'll let you fill this part in, as I don't know your specific life circumstances.
But the benefits are fairly universal. Essentially, it makes for the same benefits as a fire extinguisher or a first aid kit, something you'd rather have and never need, instead of need and never have. You can use a gun to save a life, yours or a loved one, should you ever be attacked. It can also be used for martial arts, as seen in 3 Gun and IDPA competitions. Furthermore, guns are much like vehicles. Certain models and styles retain and even grow in value over time. They can be an investment. My dad is still kicking himself for not having picked up some M-16 rifles back in the 80s and registering them. They're worth tens of thousands of dollars now.
I love this channel so friggin much
I'm just glad you added the bit from Bill Burr. He's a complete savage and he's hilarious
What was the name of the show/special? For sure want to check it out, it'll be the first time I watch him
@@skywirefan "You People Are All The Same"
@@Sfpsycho415 Thank ya
"Pull your self up by the bootstraps"
Conservatives tend to use it a lot, but I've heard many people point out that pulling your self up from your boot straps is literally a physically impossible task, just like how metaphorical it can be nearly impossible it is for some people to do.
How and where did this statement even come from within this video.
@@You-fools At the end when he asked people to think of analogies that can support both sides of an argument.
Oh man, that pool seems real tempting to stick a body in now. By "accident", of course. Who'd ever think to do that on purpose.
It feels like you took your time with this one,
Props on that.
I love when you post content like this.
It's not "Anti gun control", it's "Pro 2nd Amendment". Smh people trying to vilify the other side by putting anti in front of everything.
Naw, I am anti gun control.
Man that sucked when that kid shot up a school with a swimming pool 🙏🏻😔 Thoughts and prayers
The problem with all the gun to something else comparisons is that they never look at the primary function of said objects. For a gun that is killing. For a pool that is swimming. There are ways to make pools saver without taking that primary purpose away. For guns at most you can make them less efficient.
Bullshit. There are guns that are specifically designed for target shooting and would be ridiculous to use for killing. Likewise, I can fill a bathtub in 5 minutes and drown someone in it. Technically, I'm making a "pool" to kill someone with. Oh and you seem to be forgetting that humans only exist because for thousands of years we killed and ate other living things. Death is required for life.
When someone drowns in a pool, it's (usually) an accident.
When someone is shot and killed, the gun has performed its intended function..
@Quackers O'Brian Yeah that's a lot of stupid, I was talking about in reality, where guns are for killing and pools are for swimming.
Look up the dictionary definition of "weapon" and then "swimming pool" and you might realise the difference, at least in reality.
@Quackers O'Brian Are you implying that the loss of human life is an undesirable fault in the gun's design? What other purpose does a gun serve?
@Quackers O'Brian ua-cam.com/video/mFYiD8NfrMI/v-deo.html
2/3 of gun deaths are just suicides tho. Also, more people die every year from falling than non-suicide from gun (wording is bad IK).
Also, not all guns are intended as weapons (designed to kill). It depends on the gun itself.
Guns can be designed to hunt, sport shoot, defend, and of course to kill. And of course, most guns can perform any of these purposes.
Dude why are you so amazing love your stuff must take hours to make these videos
The better question is: does the number of murders or suicides increase, decrease, or remain the same as legal gun ownership increases? That information could be used to make a case.
@Austin Martín Hernández while that's true, the crime rate in general has been going down. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with guns. If it truly has nothing to do with guns, then the whole debate is a waste of time.
A dead homeowner and a dead home invader are not morally equivalent.
Define "home invader".
That's a very limited view on all the possibilities a gun and Pool provide.
there are many things these 2 have in common.here is a list in no particular order:
1)they are both nouns
2)they cannot be eaten
3)they don't explode when they come in contact with a video game console
4)the fairy tale of the 3 little piggies does not mention any of them
5)you can put water to both of them
6)they are innanimate objects
7)if they fall to your head from a great height you will die
8)they cannot escape the gravity of a black hole
9)jesus didn't own any of them
10)you can't buy any of them from a grocery store
On a point made in the stream:
Yes, we do have a lot of guns in switzerland, but that is because we have mandatory militairy service for men. Those are militairy weapons, and people do not have ammo for them. Private weapons are very strictly regulated. It is actually a pretty common sight to see people in uniform carrying rifles on trains for this reason.
And other countries allow you to have both and there's no issues Americans just seems to kill with them more
They also have a much more serious and sober attitude about their guns.
And they don't mix loaded ammunition with drunken argument over sporting games with their relatives.
Mandatory military service?!?!? Fuck that authoritarian bullshit!! You should be out protesting that shit!!!
Great thing about pools is that you can't just take them to the mall with you and start drowning people in it...
Here's an analogy:
If you own a dog, the chances of getting teeth marks in your skin increase tenfold, especially if you've never handled a dog before, or it's a little... unstable. However, some people are naturally just really good at managing their dog, and some people are so bad with dogs they could look at one and get someone hurt. With proper training, most people can handle a dog just fine. If the dog is kept healthy. If someone abuses their dog or gets someone hurt with their dog, the dog is taken away quickly. Welfare checks are made for pets regularly, either in the home or at a vet. You must have a home that is suitable for the dog. Some dogs can't be around children. Many dogs are good for hunting. Most can be excellent protectors of your home, your family, and yourself. But the risk of teeth in your flesh is always there, and you need make sure you're not being careless with the dog.
My point is that some people aren't meant to have guns, just like some aren't meant to have dogs. Just like we have laws in place so bad owners can't have dogs (either by getting it taken away, or being banned from having one), we need laws in place so bad handlers can't have guns. If you're mentally unstable or disabled, you shouldn't have a gun (this includes depression and autism. I would not trust myself with a gun). If you've never had one before, or haven't had one in many years, you should be required to go through training before owning one. Your living situation should be checked, and the inspector and you should be able to discuss changes that need to be made, if any. They should be kept away from children at all times. Etc etc.
I think most people are capable of having a gun safely. But we NEED to take steps to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of people who CAN'T handle a gun without getting someone hurt.
Even if we ban all guns (which won't happen, anyone who tries to make that argument is a fool), the bad guys who are determined to kill will still get them from other bad guys, or use other methods. But we shouldn't make it easy for them. If you love your guns, you should be willing to jump through the hoops to prove you can handle them.
Seriously underappreciated comment. Unfortunately, the pro-gun side wants easy access to guns, not just access.
Not following proper safety procedures may result in death or severe injury.
Edit:
Yes, you can murder someone with a pool, or commit robbery, by attaching a heavy object to to a person in a pool, while you rob their house. You could also make the same argument with box openers, a few years back a person with a box cutter sent 11 people to a hospital.
Imagine if that person had a gun
@@pinto1193 There was a shooting nearby and only 1 person went to the hospital, be consistent if we should ban guns we should also ban knives and corn syrup.
@@pinto1193 imagine if just 1 or 2 other people on those planes had guns. An armed society is a polite society.
@@Dawn-wv8st so your argument is that an box cutter is more dangerous than a gun?
@@medic8377 what planes?
Bill burrs point I think is miss characterized in your video. I think his real argument is that: In order to drown in a pool, some one has to be swimming in it. Whats the equivalent point to the gun? In order to shoot someone you have to be using the gun or have it out.
Any person who should own a legal firearm ought to store it in a safe or safely and only use it when you need to, obviously. Thats the joke with the gun in the shower...
No that's not Bill Burr's point. His point is that having an object that poses a danger when not taken care of and properly applied should not be illegal to own because of a couple irresponsible people. He isn't stupid, he knows it's dangerous, he'll still own it.
@@justiceforjoggers2897 let's be honest, the real focus here should be on illegalizing pools #PoolsKill
@@MrGfgtgr2
Illegalize my love for you because I'll tickle your taint
Beautifully done.
No, Van Cleaf’s use of the analogy was this; It stands to reason that having a pool in the backyard increases risk of drowning, and therefore having a gun increases risk of people in the house getting shot. He was arguing against, perhaps strawmen, but against people who argue having a gun is safe and doesn’t pose a risk to people in your family.
A gun is an inanimate object that is incapable of doing anything to a human on its own. If you actually practice gun safety and don't just leave loaded firearms around, the risk of being shot is not increased, because a gun isn't going to take itself out of a fucking safe and load itself, then shoot someone by itself. This entire argument is retarded.
@@benbelt5849 thats a true scotsman fallacy. If you practice gun safety no accidents will happen. If an accident does happen, you clearly didnt practice gun safety.
Gets even worse when you consider that there's a lot of rules involved with having a pool in order to avoid children drowning in them. And it still happens, but at least people try.
Plus it's kinda hard to bring a pool to a school and drown entire classrooms at once with them.
This analogy seems to get worse the more you think about it.
We need common sense pool control.
The pool should be fenced so that it is harder for people, especially kids, to accidentally fall in or to use it unsupervised.
Oh wait...
But how likely is it for kids to say climb over the fence, or maybe open the lock from the outside if there's no key. It seems that if a kid REALLY wants to swim, he'll find a way to swim.
@@alternateending4841 It's clever of you to have thaught of a counter argument. But in this case, pool safety measures have proven to be very effective. Of course the death toll's never gonna reach zero but countless lives are saved for a minimal cost. Your analogy is actually in favor of gun control.
@@Jimba93 you realize anyone with even basic tools and internet access can make a fully automatic gun right? It already happens. You aren't going to stop people who intend on breaking laws from getting guns by just adding another arbitrary law. They've already decided to break it. You've surely heard about the prohibition, and the failure of the war on drugs. Why would trying to strictly regulate/ban guns be any different?
@@benbelt5849 so we should let Iran make nuclear weapons?
@@alternateending4841 Very much like a trigger lock, a fence around a pool is about minimizing accidents... Not being all that difficult to defeat.
You might also consider the the lock on your door. It is almost certainly trivial to pick, and you probably also have windows. Yet, locking the door is actually pretty effective at keeping random people from walking in.
My favorite analogy is a car. Cars kill more people than guns, everyone's got one, they can be used to intentionally kill people, rob people, kidnap people, and defend yourself. They're in everybody's home, and kids could theoretically get in them and put themselves in harm's way. Why aren't cars banned? Because we have state-issued driver's licences that require a certain age, amount of experience, safety tests (both paper and in the field), background checks, a waiting period, and entire government departments dedicated to teaching even the most inexperienced and incompetent people to be safe drivers. The same approach is necessary with firearms! Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
"Your dog has a higher carbon footprint than your 4-wheel drive"
I'm now imagining a government-run program in which large older dogs can be exchanged for smaller new dogs in addition to a $200.= check: "Cash for Basterds".
I have big dog to guard my sheep. Small dog no good, cannot stop foxes. Okay?
I guess we should start killing dogs and feeding the dog meat to the still living dogs. Repeat until there are no more dogs. GLOBAL WARMING SOLVED!!!
I would also add, for the pro gun-control side, that when we observe there are more pool related drownings, we install pool fences. To decrease these deaths. This is so we can maybe live with pools in our lives, but without the danger (or as much of the danger).
Pool control, if you will.
When you feel enlightened watching the video but go to the comment section only for the feeling to go away
I feel you
If you want a pool, you need to follow certain regulations. For example, you can't have a pool if your backyard doesn't have a fence (at least where I live this is true). So pool regulation is already a thing. The question is: are pools regulated too much, too little, or just enough? Similarly, gun regulation is already a thing (most places already have at least some laws regarding guns). The question is: are guns regulated too much, too little, or just enough?
Lol this was great. Gonna throw in, 'does your pool defend your home' and 'kitchen knives increase the number of stabbings, hand injuries, and slit wrists.'
@@porjadeek7297 hehe
But can you swim in a gun?
The pool part of the analogy could be replaced with kitchen knives to make it a little deeper.
Also, I think attacking someone with a pool is called waterboarding.
Pro choice person: You say abortions are murder? Well some vegans say meat is murder. Should I just not eat meat?
Pro life person: Sure.
It is the human that gives the object purpose. While something can be associated with a specific act or activity, that object isn't solely for said act or activity once one applies it for a different purpose. For example, something as simple as a rock. A rock, to the average person in the west, has no use at all other than perhaps for decoration. However, depending upon the individual, said rock can be a paperweight, drawing utensil, fire starter, hammer, cutting utensil, shank, etc. It's the person that gives the object purpose and just because an object is often used in few ways, doesn't nor shouldn't classify every object of that category as having a sole purpose in those few ways. An object has no purpose without a person to use said object.
Which can be both an argument for gun control by saying that we need to control what type of person gets a gun, or could be an argument against gun control by saying something like guns do not kill people, people kill people, and people will kill with knives or rocks if they don't have guns
Haha, great point. When arguing a point you should... make arguments... and not go for some sort of "ah-ha" moment. It's also even funnier that Bill Burr makes a better argument in a stand up routine than a damn antigun advocate.
... Are you serious? They made the same argument, which was kind of the point of this video. And unless you missed it, the anti gun advocate was also doing a bit, it was not a sincere debate. It's like you didn't even watch the episode, god damn...
Actually Philip Van Cleave is a pro gun advocate. He's the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
John Oliver is the one who may be considered an anti-gun advocate. Counter Argument didn't make that very clear in this video. (Generally speaking, I think his content is getting sloppier)
Robbing someone at poolpoint is truly a scary thing
It's more than likely that Van cleave did say that, it was just edited out and replaced with shots of him being silent.
The absence of audio, as well as the cut hidden by fake laughing.
Right. Far more likely than him just not thinking to make the full argument. Def some weird conspiratorial shenanigans instead of just a mistake. Remember to always attribute malice where ineptitude explains the situation better. That makes it much easier to ignore anyone's point.
Yup, everyone knows by now that these talk show hosts have very deceptive editing. You can't trust them.
@@bigdread3894 you don't just forget to talk during an interview, especially if you are a professional activist. It's his entire job to be convincing with his rhetoric, I highly doubt in the full uncut interview you would you would see such a blunder.
But hey maybe I'm wrong what do I know
They both need to be highly regulated by law in order to avoid dangerous accidents and their misuse. Seems like a good analogy to me!
The problem is that the focus is off regulation is on the flashy stuff, while most gun deaths in reality are caused by easily concealable handguns. Kinda like banning jacuzzis instead of making liferings mandatory or something like that.
We have laws regulating the use of pools, securing of access, and where they are permitted.
As do firearms.
Bottom line, if you purchase or install something that you are well aware be risky then you are the only one with full responsibility to it.
OP: what do you think?
Me: I think John Oliver uses deceptive editing to get a laugh and promote his agenda.
Tfw you're making fun of the quiet kid and suddenly he takes a pool out of his backpack
Everybody gangsta till the white boy busts out the garden hose.
Wonder how a comparison of guns and knives would go down.
A lot of people are murdered by knives that can from their own kitchens, but I'm guessing accidental stabbing deaths are lower than accidental shooting deaths.
Why would you bring a knife to a gun debate?
That's called a Tueller drill. At 21' separation, an assailant armed with a knife could take down a police officer before they could draw and fire their gun.
Great video. As requested, an example analogy as argument:
“You wouldn’t download a car, would you?!”
Yes I would
"Fuck you, I would if I could"
You do know that the Daily Show heavily edits their interviews to make their guests look at stupid as possible, right?
You know that everyone does that, right.?
The John Oliver clip is bad because his show likely picked an opponent who couldn't present a strong argument and we'll never know if he actually did, since Oliver's staff are the ones editing the segment. A better argument would be how many deaths/rapes/assaults/etc are prevented with firearms vs the deaths they cause. We also need to be cautious not to conflate "gun deaths" with murders - you get inflated stats, similar to how including someone trying to kiss you without your consent in sexual assault statistics leads to the inflated "1 in 5" claim...
You smart person. I like your comment. Looking fwd to more.
eating nourishes u but it also makes u choke which do u do eat or no eat ?? ?? ?
Eat, otherwise me get hungry.
Like pools aren’t meant for people to drown in, guns, and more transcendently, the second amendment, aren’t meant for people to kill others in criminal acts. It’s just a side affect of its existence. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to defend ourselves from all threats both foreign and domestic that may seek to hurt or take rights away from you and your family
Both guns and pools are manageable hazards that generally make life better.
What do I win?
7
@@xrphoenix7194 beat me to it
@Laughing Gravy they make life last
@Laughing Gravy Heck yeah they do. It makes criminals think twice from invading someone's property. It buys you peace of mind.
@Austin Martín Hernández It's rather the opposite case. Each year, arround 40.000 people die because of firearms. For comparison: In Germany, there are stricter gun laws and only 70 people die because of them.
And before you respond: I want to protect my home with a gun, just think about it: If every burglar who just wants to steal your TV or something has to fear being shot, he will rather bring a gun to the burglary, so if you catch him you have a 50% chance of getting shot. I´d prefer to have an insurance an not risk my life.
I think there’s a problem here: which is that the proportions are all wrong. Like we can also say that pencils increase the risk of stabbing yourself in the brain with a pencil. Which is probably true. But the utility of pencils compared to the risk is very different than the utility/risk ratio of firearms. Same for something like asbestos. But we agree at some point that we should ban things that present too much risk for too little utility.
Asbestos can cause lung cancer.
@@eric4681702 and ergo it's banned. Like many firearms ought to be.
But asbestos is only dangerous when you destroy it, like tearing it down or in a fire. When nothing happens to it the dust doesnt come free and there are no risks of it getting in your lungs.
F***!!! Now I'm gonna spend the morning watching Bill Burr videos. I can't help it. Determinism.
Sort and sweet. Loved it!
Cars kill way more people than guns do and nobody's talking about banning/restricting cars.
When was the last time your drove a gun to your daily work area?
@@Cris_Blu what relevance does this have to with his argument? Also some people do get permits to bring a gun to their job for protection
well, to be fair, cars have enormous utility and when used properly for their intended purpose, they're pretty safe. According to NPR, in 2016 "drivers in cars, trucks, minivans and SUVs put a record 3.22 trillion miles on the nation's roads last year, up 2.8 percent from 3.1 trillion miles in 2015." That's over half a light-year! So from a utility stand point, I don't think it's a good comparison. But I think we'd have to agree on what the utility of a gun is first before we could analyze the comparison.
Also, you have to have a license and insurance to operate a vehicle, so they are restricted and pretty heavily regulated.
@@xrphoenix7194 a car as the purpose to drive you from place to place, the gun as the purpose to kill
XR-Phoenix my point is that cars are used everyday by everyone *of course the number of car deaths is gonna be greater than gun deaths*
I hate to bring this one up because of how long and large it is, but I remember this literal quote, but not like an analogy, "If it exists, then why should we in believe it and if it doesn't what changes?"
holy shit did this get recommended to me the second it went up?
how are there 17 likes yet only 1 view
also "first"
You’re not the first if you took the time to write a comment that has substance.
the numbers are likely cached and are only updated periodically.
Another great one. THANKS!
That guy probably did ask the "should we ban swimming pools?" part of the analogy but was edited out because that's what "comedy" political talk shows do.
Then Oliver’s response wouldn’t have made sense.
In order to solve the gun control problem we first have to agree on if there even is a problem at all.
This is an oddly biased video for this channel, but ok. You're not saying it could support either side, you've just picked a poor answer from a gun control advocate and pitted it against a better one (albeit a lazy one) from an anti gun-control advocate. It's all well and good distinguishing betweeen an analogy and an argument on pure dictionary terms, but you've somewhat brushed over how they're being employed (poorly) and it kind of renders this whole thing as not really a discussion but, well... it basically just feels a bit like propaganda. Disappointing.
There's an absolutely crucial bit of context missing from the analogy (and argument) as well:
'Just because something can be dangerous, doesn't mean you cannot, or should not own it' highlights the error in the thinking going on here, and I'm sure it's something pro gun control advocates have said time and time (and time... and time) again, but guns are *designed* to be dangerous, wheras swimming pools aren't. It's not 'can or can't' it's 'is'. A gun killing people - even accidentally - is performing it's function (after all 'people kill people' amiright?). A swimming pool killing someone *isn't*. Furthermore if an accident with a gun can look a hell of a lot like a gun doing exactly what it's supposed to do, that makes the analogy (and to be honest by extension the argument) woefully incomplete and presents a whole new challenge to have to overcome with widespread gun ownership.
Every person I know who owns a gun did not purchase it with the intention of killing someone with it. It was purchased for recreation. It was purchased at a sporting goods store next to kayaks, mountain bikes, camping tents, etc. And not one of these people has ever used their gun to kill anyone. They have only ever been used at a range, skeet shooting, or hunting. So to say that a gun's primary function is to kill people is simply not true. For sure a gun can be dangerous, but most people who use guns use them for fun, not for violence.
@@brentknudson311 Is that why guns were created then? Sport?
I hope you can read the mammoth raised eyebrow in my response.
Your point isn't invalid, it's just not the point anyone's making. A tool has a function. It can have other functions, but all of the functions it's been designed for - including killing - and yes, Sport, should be considered when appraising it's place in society.
@@sjtaylor7950 for sure orginally guns were created as a killing weapon. But the principle use of nearly every gun is not for killing, it's for recreation.
Your general point about an analogy not inherently supporting either side is valid, but there is something missing there. Kinda missing, you do it later in this case but you don't point it as a feature of analogies, you just seemingly use it to derive the pro control possible counter arguments.
Basically, following an analysis can reveal flaws in the argument and logic, or reinforce it, by means of abstraction. For instance, the backyard pool vs guns comparison only works on a very superficial level. The moment you start factoring in any differences between how can you die in a pool, how can your pool injury others, wetjer or not pools are regulated already or not like some building code, you quickly realize that a) the two things are comparable in the most vague nonspecific sort of way and b) every single of the differences between guns and pools only puts a question to the anti control side. And in this particular case, their similarity doesn't actually addressed the control side since it is not calling for a ban on all gun ownership, so the argument "just because it may have a risk is no reason to forbid it" is only an argument against a strawman, the actual sides generally both agree on that, mouth breathers of either kind aside, and c) if going deeper didn't exclusively question one side or question no side at all, then the analogy is still only superficial and would only support a general vague statement such as "danger doesn't mean it should be prohibited!" I.e. an argument no one sanedisagreesd with, an it still tells you nothing about how regulated it should or shouldn't be, it's just some people without a real argument saying technically correctbut irrelevant things to try to gather sympathy and seem like they made an argument.
As I said, you did point out those specific points for this case, but my critic here is that most if not all analogies do that, hence it feels missing. If they're good analogies, going down the rabbit hole points out actually similar elements already resolved on some other area (or, alternatively, if its an intentionally accusative analogy it points things already accepted as problems, and since its a legit similarity, it shouldbe seen a problem in what is bein compared). In short, more often than not, analogies only do both sides when the comparison is a poor one in the first place, either by disingenuousness or dishonestly. If it's well made, it doesn' go so easily to both sides.
Deadpool
Ha.
Yes
g
The problem with that analogy is that it deals with accidental deaths, but the focus of pro-gun control is to stop purposeful shootings
@Jinxed Swashbuckler Why not ban automatic guns aswell? There's no need for the separation of the two in law. If anything while there are objectively fewer instances of using automatic rifles in shootings the number of deaths per crime is often much larger. An AR15 objectively doesn't even meet the needs of the idea that everyone having a gun makes for a "polite society" (lol, what a fucking stupid idea) as they are bulky and would get in the way of a day to day life. The only times anyone would want (not need) an automatic rifle would be either; they have penis envy and need a bigger gun to compensate, or they need the gun to kill lots of people quickly and easily.
@@CrysJaL There has not been a single recorded instance of an automatic weapon being used in a crime in the US at any point in the last 50 years.
@@88fibonaccisequence The Las Vegas Rampage might aswell have been one though. There is still objectively no practical reason not to ban automatics if you intend to ban semi automatics.
@Jinxed Swashbuckler So what you're saying is that automatic rifles are banned, yet semi automatic weapons also need to be banned.
Good point.
Fundamentally, in this scenario, the choice to own a gun is a calculated risk that helps mitigate a different risk. Not having a gun available during a burglary, etc, means you don't have a reliable means to protect yourself if they choose to attack you. Buying a gun is like buying insurance. Hopefully you'll never need to cash it in, but it's there for you if you do. If the anti-gun control side is right in this aspect, then the relative increase in the chance of surviving a break-in should be greater than the chance of accidental death from gun ownership.
(Arguing over this is actually a red herring as far as gun control is concerned. The true purpose of the 2nd Amendment is so that the people are capable of violently revolting against a tyrannical government. The government needs to be held responsible commensurate to the authority they are granted, and so it's good to occasionally remind them with the collective business ends of all our rifles that the government serves The People and not the other way around.
The Bill of Rights enshrines the Enlightenment ideals upon which the nation was founded. Each are important facets that ensure the government remains incapable of usurping the Will of the People. Each and every right is a means by which the citizens can protect themselves against their own government. if the 2nd Amendment was only about the ability to own weapons for personal self-defense between law-abiding citizens and criminals, I think it would've been quite out of place as an amendment. Ergo, by the Tenth Amendment, it would've fallen under the jurisdiction of the individual states. The fact that it isn't subject to the Tenth Amendment proves that the 2nd Amendment is indeed about the people protecting themselves against their potentially tyrannical government. Although pretty important itself, personal self-defense is merely a nice bonus to go along with it.)
1) Guns do not change the game, they simply up the ante. A break-in to your home might suck, but it's not inherently lethal. If you have no gun, the burglars have no reason to escalate the event beyond simple robbery. If you have a gun, then someone is going to the morgue.
You can see this play out in countries like the UK, where guns are not (generally) legal. Just because the people have no guns doesn't mean they are all killed by bloodthirsty burglars; instead there is hardly any chance that even the burglar has a gun either, and the lives of all concerned at not at so high a risk.
Introducing a gun into the situation doesn't prevent the burglary, it just makes it more likely that someone will die from it.
2) That's not the actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms is not intended to keep a citizenry free from the tyranny of their government, it is to protect the nation from foreign, external tyranny, such as the UK, who disagreed that the Americans should be independent, or the French, who might have wanted to take over that territory themselves.
This is why the 2nd Amendment details the provision of a well-regulated militia, specifically. What kind of rebels form a state-sanctioned, orderly fighting force subject to regulatory oversight? The idea is silly. However, the fledgling nation of the US owed its freedom to having won a war of independence, and do to hang on to that freedom, they needed to be able fend off any threats to their new government. It's the complete opposite of what the NRA has convinced you the 2nd Amendment is about.
It also is completely obsolete now since we have the National Guard and the US military to protect our national interests.
In a society where you can purchase a gun, it is easier for a burglar to get a gun, because there are simply more guns available. If you have a gun in your own, the burglar can use your gun against you. handling a gun in an intense situation increases the risk of escalation. A normal burglar wants to make quick money without putting his life on the line. So, a normal burglar will not attack, as long as he can flee. Showing him a gun means that getting distance between him and you does not really increase his safety - so the fight or flight instict can tip towards fight. (fleeing from an unarmed house owner may mean gaining nothing, but also loosing nothing. Fleeing from an armed houser owner risks getting shot it the back, making attacking the house owner to temporarily disable him a sensible option)
*walks into bank*
*pulls out pool*
"Alright everybody, hands in the air or I'll fucking drown you."
I was sincerely worried at one point that you were going to end the video on the 'pro-gun control' side not having made an argument...
...Then I re-realized who I was watching.
@@scaryk6175 And you don't, that's a good one.
Haven't watched too manu of his vids... But I've only seen him pick a side once- stating Video Games *don't* cause violence... Which was a situation in which there is just literally no evidence that could support the other side.
Owning a swimming pool isn't dangerous if you know how to swim. Owning a firearm isn't dangerous if you know how handle and operate it.
If the government becomes tyrannical, I'll be sure to use my swimming pool to protect my rights.
Why is “What the hell just happened?” so funny
Of Course! Mass Shootings are just like Mass drownings!
BRUH
LMAO!