I suppose that you oppose high wire acts, automobile racing, knife juggling, and other forms of entertainment in which the performer may be injured or killed. What is being shown here is an art form. It's not recommended for the untrained, I agree, if those are real guns.
Folks, the world isn't safe, nor is it meant to be.
Greg Camp wrote: "What is being shown here is an art form."
Now that is an art form of sorts - stand up comedy-style humor.
If gun juggling is an art form, you and the guy juggling are the poster boys for philistinism.
Philistine:
World English Dictionary Philistine (ˈfɪlɪˌstaɪn) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide] —n 1. a person who is unreceptive to or hostile towards culture, the arts, etc; a smug boorish person
The person in the video is continuing the tradition of entertainment from the Old West days. It's the kind of thing that one might have seen in a Buffalo Bill show--Annie Oakley and the like.
Would you feel better if he were juggling flaming torches?
The person in the video is continuing the tradition of entertainment from the Old West days. It's the kind of thing that one might have seen in a Buffalo Bill show--Annie Oakley and the like.
Would you feel better if he were juggling flaming torches? "
Flaming torches? Yes, that would come closer to an art, more of a skill than an art.
As to Buffalo Bill 'juggling guns', the only citation for that which I could find was the 'Uncyclopedia' (the content-free encyclopedia.) which represents itself as.... well - here - let them explain themselves.
The poor, meme-ridden "comedy" website Uncyclopedia is the stuff of Internet legend and infamy. The site, which is thought to have originated in 1860 as an American imperialist tool for global domination, is now a multi-national effort and is viewed as the best of its kind by some.[1] Uncyclopedia currently specializes in tedious mockery of perceived competitors and petty in-fighting, with much of the content seen as mass-produced junk. Yet, there remains a peculiar fondness for some of the articles by fanatics. The site has, however, been perceived as a waste of server space by its host, the evil Wikia Empire.
"In 1873 Buffalo Bill invited Hickok to join him in his Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. Wild Bill's contribution to the show was a comedy act in which he told Wild West-related jokes,[12] performed a bit of slapstick, and juggled his guns."
Uncyclopedia is to facts as the Madison 'Onion' is to news media.
Yes, I would feel better. At least juggling torches isn't likely to give him more than a burn if he has a mistake, and won't kill innocents across the room or the wall.
What he's doing (and the video game, for that matter) is just empty glorification of violence (via the instruments of that violence).
To be fair, the flying karamazov brothers are hilarious, and they DO juggle dangerous things - like chain saws.
More a danger to themselves though, and less to others, although they once took a chunk out of the hardwood floor of the thrust stage at the Guthrie in Minneapolis with one of those chain saws, which btw was, intentionally, operating, not turned off.
The problem with juggling guns is that we have heard all too often of guns firing that were thought to be unloaded; and when one glamorizes juggling guns, for example by praising it as 'art', you increase the chances that some Darwing award wanna-be who is NOT a professional juggler is going to be an ass and do that with disastrous results.
If you have a law that will eliminate stupidity, I'd like to read it. I doubt that it would work without imposing too heavy a burden on those of us who aren't its target.
That being said, I don't see that man as stupid. He obviously has a skill. Have you never seen that kind of display in a film? He could be training to be a stunt performer.
But the real question here is what kind of society you want. I don't want to live in a world in which nothing is dangerous. I don't worship safety. I follow safety rules, but to me, the world is much more interesting because of its dangers. Note that danger used to mean powerful.
Mikeb302000,
I'm not turning into anything. I believe that we are responsible for our own actions.
To everyone,
Is it possible that he's playing with stage guns? Those could be props.
But the real question here is what kind of society you want. I don't want to live in a world in which nothing is dangerous. I don't worship safety. I follow safety rules, but to me, the world is much more interesting because of its dangers. Note that danger used to mean powerful.
I don't particularly wish to live in a society totally without danger. In point of fact, I have done many dangerous things in my life, and still do. What is different about that is two things; 1. I make it a point that the only person at risk when I do something dangerous is myself, that I am choosing only for me, not forcing my choice on other people. So, when I tell Laci that I think it would be fun to sky dive, after talking about his parachute training in the military, I'm considering something very specific and limited to myself, not endangering others.
That has sadly NOT been the case with firearms, as evidenced by the statistics.
And 2. I am a very good estimator of risk, but practical experience has shown me that others are not all equally so skilled. Therefore, even if I am convinced that I might be able to do something, I acknowledge that the standard for doing so, in setting law, is what a prudent person would do, not a reckless person.
Firearms, as indicated by statistics are inherently dangerous, because they are weapons. That people with firearms make a lot of bad decisions with them is evidenced by the numbers of people killed, or injured, or who commit suicide with firearms. Those numbers are not specific only to criminals.
So, if I go skydiving, I'm not going to do it in an area where, while I might land safely, there are a lot of people who could be endangered by my choice.
I don't particularly choose to trust your decisions with a dangerous weapon either. And I certainly do not trust the flawed logic, fact-base, or judgment of someone like Anonymous who is an admitted scofflaw, advocating 17 year olds carry firearms and shoot them in crowded conditions without knowing where the bullets would go or who they might hit, or advocating committing the crime of trespassing.
I do not accept your justification that you have to carry that firearm for your personal safety, because there appears to be no level of crime reduction which will ever make you safe; it is a straw argument. I distrust the unreasonably fearful mentality as inherently more likely to misjudge a situation and as being far less likely to be capable of finding a non-violent or non-lethal solution to them.
Accident waiting to happen.
ReplyDeleteHe is at least shooting himself at home - we can only hope his own home - rather than a public place where his firearms are unwelcome.
ReplyDeleteThat saves others from being at risk for his behavior with weapons.
If the guns are not loaded, he's a poseur. If they're loaded he's a Darwin Award contestant.
ReplyDeleteThis is responsible behavior? It violates the Four Rules in any of several ways.
Is there a subsequent video of Emergency First-Aid for GSW?
I suppose that you oppose high wire acts, automobile racing, knife juggling, and other forms of entertainment in which the performer may be injured or killed. What is being shown here is an art form. It's not recommended for the untrained, I agree, if those are real guns.
ReplyDeleteFolks, the world isn't safe, nor is it meant to be.
Greg Camp wrote:
ReplyDelete"What is being shown here is an art form."
Now that is an art form of sorts - stand up comedy-style humor.
If gun juggling is an art form, you and the guy juggling are the poster boys for philistinism.
Philistine:
World English Dictionary
Philistine (ˈfɪlɪˌstaɪn) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—n
1. a person who is unreceptive to or hostile towards culture, the arts, etc; a smug boorish person
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThe person in the video is continuing the tradition of entertainment from the Old West days. It's the kind of thing that one might have seen in a Buffalo Bill show--Annie Oakley and the like.
Would you feel better if he were juggling flaming torches?
GC wrote:
ReplyDelete"Dog Gone,
The person in the video is continuing the tradition of entertainment from the Old West days. It's the kind of thing that one might have seen in a Buffalo Bill show--Annie Oakley and the like.
Would you feel better if he were juggling flaming torches? "
Flaming torches? Yes, that would come closer to an art, more of a skill than an art.
As to Buffalo Bill 'juggling guns', the only citation for that which I could find was the 'Uncyclopedia' (the content-free encyclopedia.) which represents itself as.... well - here - let them explain themselves.
The poor, meme-ridden "comedy" website Uncyclopedia is the stuff of Internet legend and infamy. The site, which is thought to have originated in 1860 as an American imperialist tool for global domination, is now a multi-national effort and is viewed as the best of its kind by some.[1] Uncyclopedia currently specializes in tedious mockery of perceived competitors and petty in-fighting, with much of the content seen as mass-produced junk. Yet, there remains a peculiar fondness for some of the articles by fanatics. The site has, however, been perceived as a waste of server space by its host, the evil Wikia Empire.
"In 1873 Buffalo Bill invited Hickok to join him in his Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. Wild Bill's contribution to the show was a comedy act in which he told Wild West-related jokes,[12] performed a bit of slapstick, and juggled his guns."
Uncyclopedia is to facts as the Madison 'Onion' is to news media.
@ Greg: There's a reason those days are gone.
ReplyDeleteYes, I would feel better. At least juggling torches isn't likely to give him more than a burn if he has a mistake, and won't kill innocents across the room or the wall.
What he's doing (and the video game, for that matter) is just empty glorification of violence (via the instruments of that violence).
If the guns are empty, he's just juggling chunks of iron. Check out the Flying Karamazov Brothers or Michael Davis--that is art.
ReplyDeleteIf the guns are loaded he's an idiot.
People doing stupid things with loaded weapons is, unfortunately, not always done where it won't hurt others--not that the Type 2A's give a shit.
Greg, it seems to me you're quickly turning into one of these pro-gun guys who supports all things gun and opposes all things anti-gun.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the flying karamazov brothers are hilarious, and they DO juggle dangerous things - like chain saws.
ReplyDeleteMore a danger to themselves though, and less to others, although they once took a chunk out of the hardwood floor of the thrust stage at the Guthrie in Minneapolis with one of those chain saws, which btw was, intentionally, operating, not turned off.
The problem with juggling guns is that we have heard all too often of guns firing that were thought to be unloaded; and when one glamorizes juggling guns, for example by praising it as 'art', you increase the chances that some Darwing award wanna-be who is NOT a professional juggler is going to be an ass and do that with disastrous results.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteIf you have a law that will eliminate stupidity, I'd like to read it. I doubt that it would work without imposing too heavy a burden on those of us who aren't its target.
That being said, I don't see that man as stupid. He obviously has a skill. Have you never seen that kind of display in a film? He could be training to be a stunt performer.
But the real question here is what kind of society you want. I don't want to live in a world in which nothing is dangerous. I don't worship safety. I follow safety rules, but to me, the world is much more interesting because of its dangers. Note that danger used to mean powerful.
Mikeb302000,
I'm not turning into anything. I believe that we are responsible for our own actions.
To everyone,
Is it possible that he's playing with stage guns? Those could be props.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDeleteBut the real question here is what kind of society you want. I don't want to live in a world in which nothing is dangerous. I don't worship safety. I follow safety rules, but to me, the world is much more interesting because of its dangers. Note that danger used to mean powerful.
I don't particularly wish to live in a society totally without danger. In point of fact, I have done many dangerous things in my life, and still do. What is different about that is two things; 1. I make it a point that the only person at risk when I do something dangerous is myself, that I am choosing only for me, not forcing my choice on other people. So, when I tell Laci that I think it would be fun to sky dive, after talking about his parachute training in the military, I'm considering something very specific and limited to myself, not endangering others.
That has sadly NOT been the case with firearms, as evidenced by the statistics.
And 2. I am a very good estimator of risk, but practical experience has shown me that others are not all equally so skilled. Therefore, even if I am convinced that I might be able to do something, I acknowledge that the standard for doing so, in setting law, is what a prudent person would do, not a reckless person.
Firearms, as indicated by statistics are inherently dangerous, because they are weapons. That people with firearms make a lot of bad decisions with them is evidenced by the numbers of people killed, or injured, or who commit suicide with firearms. Those numbers are not specific only to criminals.
So, if I go skydiving, I'm not going to do it in an area where, while I might land safely, there are a lot of people who could be endangered by my choice.
I don't particularly choose to trust your decisions with a dangerous weapon either. And I certainly do not trust the flawed logic, fact-base, or judgment of someone like Anonymous who is an admitted scofflaw, advocating 17 year olds carry firearms and shoot them in crowded conditions without knowing where the bullets would go or who they might hit, or advocating committing the crime of trespassing.
I do not accept your justification that you have to carry that firearm for your personal safety, because there appears to be no level of crime reduction which will ever make you safe; it is a straw argument. I distrust the unreasonably fearful mentality as inherently more likely to misjudge a situation and as being far less likely to be capable of finding a non-violent or non-lethal solution to them.