Which is the stupider of the two?

[FunkyMonkee]

Author, William S. Burroughs, decided, one day, to play William Tell with his wife. He put an apple on her head and tried to shoot it off with a 38. He missed the apple and shot his wife in the head and killed her! Which of the two is stupider: him for trying this stunt on his wife or her for letting him shoot at her?

[Rosexøxø]

I want to say both and it was equal since they were married and probably influenced each other a lot

BUT

since you say one ☝️

I say the wife because anyone is stupid to just let something be down to them, without SERIOUSLY thinking it over.

For him- he’s like any person who simply wants to try something, challenge themselves, better themselves; etc.

for her she had no goal in it. He had a goal and could’ve practiced on something else, while holding true to the common goal,

but her she was just a bystander, and didn’t value her life much, or show enough concern and cynicism for anyone else who would be performing something on or by her.

I think she was extremely silly.
if the roles were reversed, I’d say the same.

[Rosexøxø]

She just wasn’t in any position of control.

She had not a SINGLE way to ensure she’s be okay.

She didn’t even care if he didn’t have enough practice with something else that resembled a human head, or so.

It’s not like sky diving with professionals.

It was just her husband 🤷‍♀️

[Cassie88]

He was the stupid one for thinking that he was actually skilled enough to succeed. You can't blame his wife for having confidence in his abilities, since he must have been able to talk her into agreeing and thinking that it was a good idea.

[MrOracle]

I've played William Tell, but I was smart enough to use a coffee can as the "head". The apple died a quick death and the coffee can remained unscathed. But I am also not on drugs, or unskilled with handguns, or an idiot. I *was*, however, a competition shooter for 4 years as well as a shooting instructor.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Whats the best way to not lose your hearing when firing?

[TheSpaceGnome]

This is in general for any "generally used for home defense" model.
I've aleays wondered how people who fire them don't go deaf. That shit is loud af.

[MrOracle]

@TheSpaceGnome Believe it or not, but when you have an adrenaline dump, as you almost certainly would in that situation, you're more resistant to that kind of damage, and you probably aren't going to be firing more than a couple of rounds. I also use a.45, which is subsonic with 230gr bullets, so not having that supersonic crack also helps. But in a real home defense situation, which would you rather have: some hearing loss/tinnitus, or to be beaten/raped/maimed/killed? That's not a difficult choice.



Obviously when you are practicing at a range, you use hearing protection. And if you can afford it, you can buy active hearing protection - essentially like sealed headphones with microphones on the outside. They give you quite good hearing, but disengage when a loud noise occurs, becoming regular old shooting earmuffs for a few milliseconds until the sound pressure returns to a normal range. These even give you an advantage in hearing softer sounds - BUT this obviously means you have to keep them handy, and keep the batteries charged. That's what I do, but I know most people won't. I use these Walker's XCEL 500BT - the BT means BlueTooth, so you can even take calls (or listen to music) wearing them, but they are primarily designed to be shooting protection.

In the 90s, I had Peltors version (no BlueTooth, obviously), and I think they cost $250 back then, so they were out of reach of casual shooters. The Walkers are $120 and definitely better than those Peltors - volume sales and cheaper tech certainly helps bring the price down.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Interesting stuff, thank you for the insights.
Does a silencer also help enough to protect the ears as well? I'm a gamer and musician so perfect senses are important to me.

[MrOracle]

@TheSpaceGnome


140 db is where you have the potential (if not certainty) for permanent hearing damage, and you can see that suppressors bring that level down below that for several types of firearms - but it's not true of every weapon/ammo combo. Certainly, a suppressor will help.

There are several countries in Europe that REQUIRE suppressors for this exact reason - for the same reason they require mufflers on cars. The idea that suppressors are for assassinations was largely created by pulp spy novels in the US early in the 20th Century, which led to them being very heavily regulated, but, really, they're just mufflers. They certainly don't make guns completely silent.

[OlderAndWiser]

He was a heroin addict. There is enough stupid here for everyone to get an award.

[Rosexøxø]

Didn’t even know this ☠️

[FunkyMonkee]

@Rosexøxø That he was a heroine addict? I thought that was very well known!

[Rosexøxø]

I actually never read the story 🤧👍

[KittyKat90210]

Him for suggesting it and then failing at it. She's not blameless but I assume she trusted him.

[Rosexøxø]

True

[NamerOfStars]

The FDA (or whoever it was) for not including them in their famous campaign: "My name is William Burroughs, and my anti-drug is drugs."

[LiamJHayden]

He lived for more than 45 years afterwards, so she obviously was.

[TheSpaceGnome]

The wife (though not by much), what kind of idiot lets someone fire at them?

[SnowedIn]

Her. She had the chance to say no.

[AimeeKyle]

They are both equally stupid.

[Rosexøxø]

Agreed

[Grond21]

... are you so sure it was an accident?

[Rockstarrrrr]

Definitely his wife lol

[austinbooth]

It sounds like he was