What Do Guns & Pools Have In Common?

[@AppleBiscuits]

Ban fully automatic swimming pools. It's just common sense.

[@Mordewolt]

can we at least keep semi-automatic ones?

[@unlikelysalmon786]

@@Mordewolt That leaves a possibility for mass water chuters to modify the swimming pools for full-auto firing.

[@RyanHull76]

Fully-Semi-automatic Swimming pools will be the death of all of us.... lol

[@christophervazquez5694]

Fire the water cannon at my next door neighbor Steve!!!!!!!!!!

[@thebeetalls]

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.

[@adler9206]

Instructions unclear. Started drowning in a gun.

[@chrominicus5353]

Deserves top lmao

[@lemonbot4906]

You just save the world. 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@valentinmitterbauer4196]

*> 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*

[@bored_person]

Cannons are guns, and cannons can be pretty big.

[@valentinmitterbauer4196]

@@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.

[@chepelapodgaming4072]

Can you rob someone with a pool *Florida man:* are you challenging me?

[@askaleks1]

Have you ever heard of school drownings? You know kids who steal their parents pool go to school with it and drown everyone.

[@_theactionkid_7572]

O o f

[@thebeetalls]

@@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.

[@Direblade11]

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

[@shamilkey]

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.

[@MarcellusMagnus]

"Can you murder somebody with a pool?" I *have* played the Sims, yes.

[@jpix96]

LOL!!! XD

[@troodon1096]

I mean, you can kill somebody by intentionally drowning them, so there's that I guess.

[@jy61]

@@troodon1096 Well if you can overpower them enough to do that you could just kill them normally with your hands too lol.

[@MoreEvilThanYahweh]

@@jy61 People who can't swim exist. People who panic drown in otherwise shallow water also exist.

[@canofsoda]

@@MoreEvilThanYahweh wait what? people panic drown in shallow water? dude thats fucked

[@llGemini19]

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.

[@kaif-tube1692]

Might I also add that when emptied, the risk of shooting is nonexistent.

[@kaif-tube1692]

@kpunkt Maybe this gun? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav

[@Yipper64]

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.

[@jgunner280]

@@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.

[@kaif-tube1692]

@@jgunner280 We're both being facetious anyway. Good fyi about guns btw.

[@nddragoon]

love that part with john oliver's interview "right" "right" "right" "right" "that's *my* argument"

[@nonoctoro4933]

DiD hE JuSt SaId RiGhT ? NaZi DoG wHiStLes

[@QarthCEO]

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.

[@sarowie]

@@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.

[@kentonkruger8333]

@@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.

[@fretbuzz1979]

Except that its NOT his argument (unless he really does think we should ban pools etc).

[@rushopolis]

They're both fun for the kids.

[@RoryRose_]

One's better though because you can bring it to school to "show" all your friends!

[@anthonylipira9526]

Unironically. My ten-year-old son learned to shoot a pellet gun in Cub Scouts and is taking swimming lessons over the summer.

[@dominickperez2952]

@@anthonylipira9526 Your kids a fucking weirdo Who takes swimming lessons?

[@thedoomofred5174]

Turtlee, the swimming pool?

[@hydara.r.7003]

BEST COMMENT

[@FreedomToons]

We have way more of em down south

[@understandingart9961]

Lol

[@DavidElendu]

Yo freedom toons watches this guy

[@hugosoberanes8309]

Why aren’t you animating >:(

[@connormcgehee9349]

My guy we are wrong there are waaaay less pools in the south (he's talking about guns)

[@Dagrizzb]

Ban high capacity swimming pools.

[@SangoProductions213]

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?

[@justiceforjoggers2897]

No but you have my vote, yee-haw

[@NoNameAtAll2]

@@justiceforjoggers2897 Chin-chaw*

[@bluespellmaster8592]

SangoProductions213 is that a casually explained quote?

[@SangoProductions213]

@@bluespellmaster8592 lol.

[@Talashaoriginal]

@@Cjeska well China was conquered by the northern tribes so....

[@noblackthunder]

I am looking forward to the first robbery where the weapon of choice was a swimming pool

[@obi-wan7852]

Keep your eye on Flordia.

[@orzopasta2511]

it'd have to be either one of those inflatable ones or the small plastic kiddie pools, but it could certainly happen

[@matthewlee8667]

Beware the Wet Bandits

[@ianmason4682]

It’s called a super soaker

[@jgunner280]

Laugh now, but one day when somebody threatens you with a beach ball and a pool noodle...

[@johnredrobin8206]

“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

[@poutineausyropderable7108]

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.

[@Nemesis-lg6zf]

"What Do Guns & Pools Have In Common?" Deadpool?

[@davidfrey08]

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.

[@sas_quatch]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qICzl4l6i6djp6s

[@imacds]

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.

[@badlydrawnturtle8484]

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.

[@jon4139]

@@badlydrawnturtle8484 not necessarily, it is possible to be right but just not embody your own argument.

[@dolphinboi-playmonsterranc9668]

Hypocrites piss me off. I also hate people who complain about people that piss them off.

[@tomtinker8220]

"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.

[@vaskedagame880]

This wouldn't work against a vegan.

[@tomtinker8220]

@@vaskedagame880 that's because vegans have a different moral argument to make, so it's not relevant for them.

[@Robin-jk6wz]

@TheThoughtGuy Should a calf eat liquid baby?

[@Pure11]

@TheThoughtGuy Should a baby calf eat liquid?

[@macmcleod1188]

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.

[@unpaintedcanvas]

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.

[@gemnox]

Many are doing what the video suggests, which is to use the analogy to explain why they believe it supports their POV.

[@squillen]

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.

[@SirWaffleGaming]

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...

[@lopenash]

Unfortunate side effect of the channel

[@williamhoffman8323]

At least it’s not toxic, thankfully that’s a boon of this channel’s comment section

[@ricardoospina5970]

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.

[@TPOTUSOA]

Can we get an f in the chat for all the libs that just died

[@grimtheghastly8878]

Wouldn't it be better if both those numbers were down to *_zero?_*

[@mouseprotector5081]

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.

[@FranqRise13]

Mouse Protector its used for self defense

[@fireflowers5105]

@@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.

[@fisharepeopletoo9653]

"Its better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" works for both as well

[@brittanyambrose1137]

i'd argue that works better for guns than pools, pools are expensive and annoying to upkeep lol.

[@ALJ9000]

That’s works more for guns

[@G.r.e.g.g.l.e.s]

How many dolphins don't work every year in Elon Musk's back yard?

[@Yipper64]

depends on if its hunting season.

[@williamberends7580]

Every season is hunting season in Elon's backyard

[@Dudofall]

Then 700,007.

[@HStorm26]

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.

[@Gekkibi]

@@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.

[@NEETKitten]

@@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.

[@Gekkibi]

@@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...

[@Remixthisgaming]

This was a good job in explaining how people need to form better arguments than just citing numbers

[@Andre-uu5xv]

Also, how's your Interview video doing?

[@sas_quatch]

Actually, in a stream he said the ban will end in a week if Channel 4 doesn't do anything to it. Fingers crossed!

[@chars_78]

@@sas_quatch When and where did he say that?

[@sas_quatch]

@@chars_78 kzbin.info/www/bejne/el7FcmeljbuAaZo

[@tedi2652]

It feels like you took your time with this one, Props on that. I love when you post content like this.

[@Frightdaynightflicks]

When empty they aren’t lethal.

[@hithere7495]

ToryD what if you fall in them tho

[@Frightdaynightflicks]

A A says a lot more about the individual than the empty pool.

[@nddragoon]

you can bludgeon someone to death with them

[@Frightdaynightflicks]

Emersyne that’s just bad gun handling and care.

[@How_To_Drive_a_TARDIS]

@@nddragoon if you're strong enough

[@abuzzedwhaler7949]

I love this channel so friggin much

[@markgordon2660]

Dude why are you so amazing love your stuff must take hours to make these videos

[@BabbleCacophony]

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.

[@stranger6822]

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.

[@stranger6822]

@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.

[@Bright2Shine]

Good point! Just dont forget both clips involve comedians, it doesnt change the argument, but it changes the presentation!

[@jazzabighits4473]

What do guns and pools have in common? Neither should be used while under the influence, for safety reasons.

[@dylanb265]

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.

[@eric4681702]

Asbestos can cause lung cancer.

[@dylanb265]

@@eric4681702 and ergo it's banned. Like many firearms ought to be.

[@eric4681702]

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.

[@trumpwonhereistheevidenced4390]

Before watching: "They are closed due to aids?"

[@inkmaster5480]

Loiuzein Allieran *slowly raises hand*

[@CivilizedWasteland]

You are banned for being black

[@francoisrd]

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?

[@architeuthis3476]

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"

[@InverseAgonist]

What it argues for depends on whether you think "spoil" is a good thing or bad thing

[@charles3840]

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.

[@kyle8204]

Channel 4 reads title Channel 4: So you're saying pools murder people? *copyright claim*

[@JamarfromAfar]

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

[@leerman22]

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?

[@flerkan2802]

Isnt that why we use driving licences?

[@leerman22]

@@flerkan2802 I'd like 1 gun license PLOX.

[@medic8377]

@@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.

[@sarowie]

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.

[@nickdahl203]

@@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.

[@biostemm]

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...

[@eric4681702]

You smart person. I like your comment. Looking fwd to more.

[@landonhagan450]

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.

[@TheRedHaze3]

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.

[@jamrenzee]

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.

[@xenomorphbiologist-xx1214]

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

[@matthewschlessman9786]

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.

[@xXxXboxROXxX]

Naw, I am anti gun control.

[@josephzelinka414]

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.

[@rafisanders]

I'm just glad you added the bit from Bill Burr. He's a complete savage and he's hilarious

[@skywirefan]

What was the name of the show/special? For sure want to check it out, it'll be the first time I watch him

[@Sfpsycho415]

@@skywirefan "You People Are All The Same"

[@skywirefan]

@@Sfpsycho415 Thank ya

[@Saidriak]

"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.

[@You-fools]

How and where did this statement even come from within this video.

[@drumer960]

@@You-fools At the end when he asked people to think of analogies that can support both sides of an argument.

[@lolmaker777]

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.

[@benbelt5849]

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.

[@FrozenSpector]

Great video. As requested, an example analogy as argument: “You wouldn’t download a car, would you?!”

[@worsethanjoerogan8061]

Yes I would

[@PressA2Die]

"Fuck you, I would if I could"

[@nicksteiner8250]

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.

[@CivilizedWasteland]

And other countries allow you to have both and there's no issues Americans just seems to kill with them more

[@macmcleod1188]

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.

[@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770]

Mandatory military service?!?!? Fuck that authoritarian bullshit!! You should be out protesting that shit!!!

[@jevansturner]

Another great one. THANKS!

[@MizukiUkitake]

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.

[@Ancor3]

Seriously underappreciated comment. Unfortunately, the pro-gun side wants easy access to guns, not just access.

[@gooble2761]

Man, someone's finally answering the hard hitting questions

[@James-ud3ns]

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.

[@korvo3427]

Eating makes you more likely to die off food poisining than when you starve yourself.

[@GIFT1FROM1THE1GODZ]

i didn't know elevator sickness was a thing jesus

[@BrendanBeckett]

I'd say the main difference is one is designed for killing and the other is designed for swimming. You take the accidental deaths along with pools because we judge it to be worth the risk for a totally separate purpose, but with guns the purpose is to cause death (or threaten to).

[@WWIflyingace62]

An argument can be made that not all firearms are designed for killing. An example of this is a custom .22 target pistol; they are somewhat impractical with regards to defense, yet excel at their design goal of being an accurate competition gun. Similarly, it is entirely possible for a pool to be designed for the express purpose of drowning.

[@cindypurina2327]

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.

[@gentlemangaga4019]

Tfw you're making fun of the quiet kid and suddenly he takes a pool out of his backpack

[@NEETKitten]

Everybody gangsta till the white boy busts out the garden hose.

[@Dawn-wv8st]

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.

[@cravo1975]

Imagine if that person had a gun

[@Dawn-wv8st]

@@cravo1975 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.

[@medic8377]

@@cravo1975 imagine if just 1 or 2 other people on those planes had guns. An armed society is a polite society.

[@cravo1975]

@@Dawn-wv8st so your argument is that an box cutter is more dangerous than a gun?

[@cravo1975]

@@medic8377 what planes?

[@Hashtagcris]

Beautifully done.

[@Daniel-vg5ld]

Man that sucked when that kid shot up a school with a swimming pool 🙏🏻😔 Thoughts and prayers

[@johndoe1089]

Sort and sweet. Loved it!

[@JazzJackrabbit]

A dead homeowner and a dead home invader are not morally equivalent.

[@someretard7030]

Define "home invader".

[@KuchiKaeschtliTV]

That's a very limited view on all the possibilities a gun and Pool provide.

[@jeoffvader]

Well done on another great video

[@ElectrusBoom]

High capacity pools.

[@zoisantonopoulos7999]

The probability of you drowning in a pool that you have it always great than the probability of you not drowning but guns are not swimming pools. How can someone know how many lives have been saved by games? Can we determine the value of a gun if we look at lives saved and deaths caused?

[@flamesphere3144]

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.

[@benbelt5849]

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.

[@eric4681702]

@@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.

[@kerstonkirtallen3063]

I would love to hear your thought on the MBTI debate.

[@bg6b7bft]

"Your dog has a higher carbon footprint than your 4-wheel drive"

[@TheGreatIndoors1979]

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".

[@eric4681702]

I have big dog to guard my sheep. Small dog no good, cannot stop foxes. Okay?

[@LividImp]

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!!!

[@devilfireking]

I instantly thought of bill burr when i saw the title, then i got happy when you used the clip ty

[@SnugglesPrime]

Charlie Kirk just posted this on Twitter: "Liberals say ' if confiscating all guns saves just one life it will be worth it' By that logic, if deporting all illegal aliens saves just one life wouldn’t that be worth it? 🤔" Wtf 😂😂

[@hunteradcock8023]

Ya ever heard of a strawman?

[@fcoomega7734]

Also, "someone can be killed" is not a really strong point, because I can answer "what if that someone is trying to hurt or kill somebody?"

[@jonasstrzyz2469]

That is not sole reason why that argument is stupid. It is stupid because no one (very few) have actually answered the question of "How many people that were murdered would not have been murdered if all firearms or firearms of a certain type were banned and/or did not exist? I have never heard anyone on the gun-control side bring up any numbers about that and what these numbers are based on.

[@sambolt8659]

@@jonasstrzyz2469 because your question is impossible to answer without pulling a number out of one's ass. This question is stupid. Pro gun by the waY

[@jonasstrzyz2469]

@@sambolt8659 I am pro gun two. 2nd Amendment Absolutist. Give that the gun-control argument is always that "we need to ban and/or restric this specific type of firearm or all firearms or ammunition or limit magazine capicity and if we do not do so many more children will be murdered with the use of it" then I find the question of "how many, what are the numbers and were did you get them from" to be completly reasonable. Afterall this is the reason for a proposed ban and/or restriction.

[@sambolt8659]

@@jonasstrzyz2469 ok so what be a reasonable number for you to consider gun restrictions? I think you do not look for an actual answer. I think you are looking for that gotcha moment when the asked person cant respond to your question. Please be aware that not being able to answer your question does not mean you are winning the argument. Have a nice day

[@jonasstrzyz2469]

@@sambolt8659 Gun-controll Advocate "I am in favor for common sense gun controll because it will save lives" Interviewer "How many lives will it save? Speaking of hypotheticall 100% efficiency? What level of efficiency do you expect and where did you get those number from? Gun-controll Advocate "I do not know, have no such information that I can present you with." Tell me again how I am not winning argument here? The burden of proof is always on the person seeking to restrict freedom. Unless you want to opposite, where the burdon of proof is on the one proposing freedom, but that sound like authoritarianism. "ok so what be a reasonable number for you to consider gun restrictions?" I have not thought a number. If you are in favour of restricting the freedoms of innocent citizens? What are your numbers in percentage? A palce to start would be crimes commited with firearms vs crimes prevented with a firearm? "I think you do not look for an actual answer." 1. Whether or not I look for an answer does not invalidate the question posed. 2. If someone proposes a piece of legislation with the intent of changing a statistic then then they better have an estimate and hypothetical of maximum efficiency. 3. I do actually want to know. I am curious as to the cost benefit perspective regarding assault weapons bans and differnt pieces of gun legislation. 4. I do believe in the second amendment and as such I stand on priciple. You think that this means no numbers will matter to me. Does not matter, a you or a gun-control advocate believe that such numbers do matter and can be used to convince people. So why do you not have any? Idk, maybe I am wrong to assume that you are in favour of gun controll. Either way, my point still stand. TL;DR A person proposing legislation because they will believe that their legislation will have an impact should have a hypothetical estimate of 100% efficiency and then a reasonable estiamte and data to back both things up.

[@AgeingBoyPsychic]

When someone drowns in a pool, it's (usually) an accident. When someone is shot and killed, the gun has performed its intended function..

[@AgeingBoyPsychic]

@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.

[@AgeingBoyPsychic]

@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?

[@AgeingBoyPsychic]

@Quackers O'Brian kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3e8mndug8ulg6s

[@henreyeraser3402]

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.

[@goast_cuard]

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.

[@iambob6590]

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...

[@Psy_Ro]

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.

[@EdwardHowton]

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.

[@StickNik]

Wonder how a comparison of guns and knives would go down.

[@collinhennessy1521]

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.

[@flerkan2802]

Why would you bring a knife to a gun debate?

[@nickdahl203]

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.

[@m1g4s]

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!

[@Olav471]

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.

[@iamthemr321]

eating nourishes u but it also makes u choke which do u do eat or no eat ?? ?? ?

[@eric4681702]

Eat, otherwise me get hungry.

[@notusingmyname4791]

ooooh please tackle the bit about Stats that you played at the end of this video!

[@poutineausyropderable7108]

It's true. Stats can be often missread. Simpson paradox is an exemple. But also, just any bad scientific articles would also provide bad stat.

[@imacds]

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...

[@alternateending4841]

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.

[@Jimba93]

@@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.

[@benbelt5849]

@@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?

[@karsakasdasfa6474]

@@benbelt5849 so we should let Iran make nuclear weapons?

[@travcollier]

@@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.

[@louisvictor3473]

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.

[@cannonfodder8907]

holy shit did this get recommended to me the second it went up? how are there 17 likes yet only 1 view also "first"

[@gemnox]

You’re not the first if you took the time to write a comment that has substance.

[@pipertripp]

the numbers are likely cached and are only updated periodically.

[@trulymrword]

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.

[@pkz420]

We have laws regulating the use of pools, securing of access, and where they are permitted.

[@thebrainnugget]

As do firearms.

[@videakias3000]

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

[@leonemaledetto1500]

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.

[@bigdread3894]

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.

[@QarthCEO]

Yup, everyone knows by now that these talk show hosts have very deceptive editing. You can't trust them.

[@leonemaledetto1500]

@@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

[@issa3789]

Eating food increases your risk of choking to death

[@MrGfgtgr2]

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...

[@justiceforjoggers2897]

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.

[@MrGfgtgr2]

@@justiceforjoggers2897 let's be honest, the real focus here should be on illegalizing pools #PoolsKill

[@justiceforjoggers2897]

@@MrGfgtgr2 Illegalize my love for you because I'll tickle your taint

[@Lamnom]

Great thing about pools is that you can't just take them to the mall with you and start drowning people in it...

[@subsonic9854]

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.'

[@subsonic9854]

@@porjadeek7297 hehe

[@bluebison5173]

But can you swim in a gun?

[@FranzFartinand]

The pool analogy shouldn't be used for gun control, because a burglar can't bring a pool to my home.

[@OngehoordMusic]

Though, you can get a pool in your backyard for safety reasons. If you have a pool, the burglar is more likely to drown in your pool than when you don't have a pool.

[@williamberends7580]

Well let's say the burglar didn't bring a gun but got the gun in the house. They could also drown someone in the backyard if they intend to kill or knock someone out and they fall in

[@FranzFartinand]

@@williamberends7580 if a burglar gets your gun before you do, you're a bad gun owner.

[@stop.juststop]

OP: what do you think? Me: I think John Oliver uses deceptive editing to get a laugh and promote his agenda.

[@DementedPrankster]

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.

[@doubleirishdutchsandwich4740]

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

[@BaresarkSlayne]

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.

[@Slotigork]

... 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...

[@Jimba93]

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)

[@thane_snipes]

Subtle nod to the late João Gilberto. And great video as always. Keep it up.

[@smokert5555]

Cars kill way more people than guns do and nobody's talking about banning/restricting cars.

[@blueyoshi4211]

When was the last time your drove a gun to your daily work area?

[@xrphoenix7194]

@@blueyoshi4211 what relevance does this have to with his argument? Also some people do get permits to bring a gun to their job for protection

[@pipertripp]

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.

[@cravo1975]

@@xrphoenix7194 a car as the purpose to drive you from place to place, the gun as the purpose to kill

[@blueyoshi4211]

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*

[@freedomdividendnews5042]

Pools suck too though lol. They're unnecessary.

[@david21686]

You do know that the Daily Show heavily edits their interviews to make their guests look at stupid as possible, right?

[@lanzhimself]

You know that everyone does that, right.?

[@HyperLuigi37]

Why is “What the hell just happened?” so funny

[@caesar1700]

When you feel enlightened watching the video but go to the comment section only for the feeling to go away

[@sambolt8659]

I feel you

[@Thesupperals]

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?"

[@arilist5987]

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.

[@ahmed85021]

Funny enough a lot of countries have rules requiring that pools are gated as such a child can't enter alone. They have rules requiring trained supervisors be present (lifeguards). They even have in school programs to teach kids to swim and about the dangers of pools and beaches. As well as ad campaigns to the same end. It's almost like something dangerous can be regulated to minimise risks while not taking away from freedoms.