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:
White schools have both
The more knives you have the more likely you are of being cut it's not as likely if ya know you know what you're doing and are using them safely and what they're meant for but still
Using an analogy in place of an argument is an indication that you have no argument. Is that what you're saying?
I think the point is that everyone will die of something. Whatever you interact with in your life is more likely to kill you. I'm unlikely to die by falling from a crane, but a construction worker is. The fact that being in proximity to something increases your risk of dying to that thing doesn't mean that it should be banned.
Robbing someone at poolpoint is truly a scary thing
That feeling when you agree when you disagree.
A gun's s purpose is to kill or atleast do damage to a living thing's body.
A swimming pools is for people to get a bath, swim, and enjoy.
The bad apples argument in terms of police corruption can be used in both ways.
The argument for reform is that the bad cops spoil the bunch and therefore it requires reform. (To take it completely litterally it means to remove all police).
The argument against is that these bad apples are are spoiling the bunch in terms of public opinion. And that most officers help the public.
This episode reeks of false equivalency… I mean, good point made I guess, but comparing a comedian presenting his point vs a comedian's target's blunder being made fun of, it fails to point out that John Olivar also didn't make a point. It's 1 point pro-gun vs zero points pro-control, so the swimming pool analogy sits comfortably on the pro-gun side. Any argument it could seeming make for pro-control is a trap, ban swimming pools, you lose.
Possibly worth noting that you don't compare guns to pools when the debate topic is armed robbery, it's specifically designed to counter the "accidental gun deaths" argument. Personally, I consider it as going without saying that the argument you make at any point in time should be contextually relevant.
There is a lot of regulation around the construction of swimming pools. Your odds of electrocution increase when you have a swimming pool as well.
Just an observation, observing the first law where a tool or device should not hurt it's user. Some people need a cork on their fork.
John Oliver’s hair ?
this analogy would work better if you replaced a pool with food and drowning with choking
The more Human we have, the more dangerous it is for everybody to get shot, rob, domestic violence, suicide, war, total annihilation, Etc…Therefore Human is dangerous for human. Let's ban human.
Accidents happen with all sort of things around a house. Pools, knifes, walls. What happens when a human is involved as the "target" of the accident? Knifes cut, hurt and cause bleeding. Killing yourself or others by accident is rather hard. Also walls — they hurt when run against, but usually don't kill. Pools? People can swim normally or someone is nearby to rescue them. Guns? I wanna see you rescue me from a bullet rushing towards me. Also if I do not die from it, how are the chances of the injury to be harmless?
I feel this is an argument pretty much, but I can spot an analogy, too.
wait yoi can drown in a backyard without a pool …….. tsunami
this title sounds reaaalllyyyy wrong…………
Directions unclear, my girlfriend drowned on my gun…
I've always seen the "having a gun in your home makes you more likely be shot with a gun" stat countered by pointing out that a vast majority of that statistic is made up of suicides and domestic violence that would have happened by some other means .
In other words, it's not that having more guns makes people more likely to be shot, it's that having more guns makes people more likely to be shot (as opposed to being stabbed, clubbed, hanged, et cetera.)
I see a common theme of people denying that the exchange occurred as was portrayed. I think in this day and age, everyone should have a body cam on them going into an interview like that.
Of course, we couldn't trust anything they published either unless it was the full interview without edits from beginning to end.
I think this is a good argument that the John Oliver show should start posting the full interviews on a secondary website.
Even with swimming pools, you are liable if someone dies and you knew there was a risk and failed to guard against that risk. And once someone dies, if you fail to a fence around your pool oh, your life is over when someone else dies in that same pool. And your pool will not be insurable either.
They both make me wet
Uranium 235 in the home increases death by radiation poisoning, toaster in the home increases death by toaster fire. I think there’s a spectrum of dangerous.
John Oliver? Does he.. have hair..?
Give me all your money! I've got a pool and I'm not afraid to use it!
You're assuming I fill up my pool with water.
Can't drown in a pool of M&M's, amirite?!?!
That's why Bill Burr did it right: the context was that "if you know how to prevent the stupid dangerous shit from happening, society won't screw with you". But even if you use the same analogy for the opposite argument ("reduce the dangerous shit altogether"), you have to put your analogy in a nice little sack of context.
Having a border wall is like locking your house is an analogy that can be used by both sides of that debate
People who want it could say that it keeps intruders who don't want the best for the country or it's citizens out, while people who are against it could say that it would be like locking out everyone.
Blacks are can die from them
The likelihood of being killed in a home invasion is also increased by having a gun while the likelihood of drowning during a pool party is decreased.
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.
Ammount of deaths by drowning vs. ammount of deaths by getting shot. I’m sure the “getting shot” number is much higher.
To be truthful, having a laugh track after every statement dulls any point you make.
3rd video I've watched on your channel, i'm convinced your content is brillant. Your lack of political bias in either direction is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO refreshing
You should do a video on the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. 🙂
The Lesson: keep your gun away from pools to prevent it from drowning
I think one of the bag differences is no one walks around saying “let’s get more swimming pools to decrease drowning” but people do say “more good people with guns means more people are protected.”
John Oliver is the bomb!
I like turtles.
I want more videos 🙂
This analogy is fine as long as it is confined to guns being kept in a house and never leave that house. If people could carry their pools around and endanger others with it, then the analogy would be perfect.
They're both things I use when I'm in a bad mood.
My analogy: "If you're stupid or don't know how to swim, then yeah. Ergo everyone should learn how to use a gun even if they don't own one."
Here's an example: Youtube is private company, and private company analogy.
Youtube is a private company, so they should not be regulated or broken up or controlled by the government, even if they're acting in a way that is not consumer friendly.
Youtube is a private company, so the fact that they're a monopoly on online video sharing needs to be addressed with the existing laws that are meant to prevent monopolies from existing.
This pool analogy just seems like a cheap equivalency which oversimplifies the complexities of the actual problems.
The title just made me think The Great Gatsby
cars kill 30 THOUSAND people every year. Lets talk about that for a second
Uhhhhhhhhhhh…….. they both have vowels
I see shit like this from both side about every issue. I am just there confused like “doesn’t that support the other argument”