They’re not fake guns; they’re real guns with what was supposed to be fake ammo. Because the gun in question was a revolver, the ammo must also look real since you can see the tips of the bullets in the cylinder. Typically, there’s a hole in the side of the casing indicating that it’s a dummy round, but you can no longer see that once it’s been loaded into the gun.
Because the gun in question was a revolver, the ammo must also look real
I have seen so much bad science, like basic physics mistakes, in movies that that’s not really true. The average movie goer isn’t going to know what the difference between a fake and real revolver by sight.
That’s not the point. If you’re swinging around a semi-automatic pistol with an empty magazine, nobody will know. However, with a revolver, you need to load it with real-looking bullets for close-up shots. Of course, at a distance, you can use lesser-quality prop guns.
Or you can create, from scratch, purpose built guns with the same spec, but are made of materials(like aluminum) that the holder will know is fake from the moment they pick it up. For larger pieces, you could include a co2 mechanism to recreate recoil and include an LED to light up with a trigger pull for sfx people to use as a reference. Pretty sure some of these things already exist.
And quite frankly, the audience doesn’t deserve a perfect recreation if it means putting people in harms way. There’s a thing call Suspension of Disbelief that seems to be in short supply these days. Never bring the CinemaSins guy to a traditional Japanese theater. The Kuroko stagehands would give him an hearth attack.
There was a Jason Statham movie, The Mechanic, I think that had some ‘cool guy target practice in the woods moment’ and they were blasting off rounds and did a cool slo-mo so you could clearly see that they were firing crimped blanks. I’m sure next to no one noticed.
Even less so in Dear John when Channing Tatum’s M4 turns into an M249 so you can see the links of the belt flying out when he shoots at someone.
Point being, don’t leave town to dodge safety regulations and be surprised when unsafety happens.
Whether or not you believe what you’re calling “gun culture,” the fact that the gun in question is a revolver is one of the most relevant facts of the case.
A semi-automatic pistol, which is to say a single-hand firearm that is meant to be fired without being steadied against the user’s body where the ammunition is fed up the handle into to back of the barrel after each shot, until the magazine is exhausted, will not load the next round if you fire a blank. It relies on there being a bullet in the barrel to contain pressure long enough to push a mechanism that pops out the old bullet case and slides the next round into the chamber. In order for a semi-auto to use blanks, you have to modify it in such a way that you can no long fire live ammunition without destroying the gun.
Revolvers do not need such modification. Revolvers have a cylinder with boreholes running through it that form the chambers for the rounds. Pulling the trigger or cocking the hammer rotates the cylinder to the chamber, no pressure from the last round needed. This means that idiots on film sets can grab a revolver intended as a prop, put real live ammo in and target shoot in between takes and eventually mix up live and dummy ammo, causing people to be killed.
This means that idiots on film sets can grab a revolver intended as a prop, put real live ammo in and target shoot in between takes and eventually mix up live and dummy ammo, causing people to be killed.
I thought they were arguing that the gun that was supposed to come with fake ammo actually came with real ammo? To me it sounds like the gun supplier should be held liable?
The person who supplied the gun, the armorer, was held responsible. It was her job to make sure the guns were kept safe and she failed. She was found guilty already. Baldwin was on trial because statements he made to police regarding the incident were found to be inconsistent with the facts found through investigation, which were concerning enough to warrant a trial. The prosecution then fucked up so hard he can’t be retried.
I meant I thought the prop supplier should be held liable, since the article I read about it previously, had said that a box of ammo came from the prop supplier, Seth Kenney, and that it matched the ammo that was used that killed Hutchins, and that’s why I was thinking the prop supplier should be held liable.
If that’s the case I agree. Bringing live ammo onto a movie set is a huge no-no, and if it was his round that killed the AD he certainly bears some responsibility.
It is not about you, specifically. One people do not make a culture. But see, what I find baffling is that real guns are taken into movie sets, when they repeatedly have been used to kill cast and crew members since decades ago, and it is still not prohibited. School shootings, attempted assassination of presidential candidates, Wal-Mart shootings with guns sold in place, bar massacres, etc. they all come from this gun culture.
Take a look at user Thorny_Insight higly upvoted comment. While I guess I should be appreciative of its informative content, I just find violent that, without any warning, they link to a photograph of a loaded revolver pointing at the viewer’s face without realizing that is probably kind of fucked up. That’s what baffles me, like, no fucking kidding those guns are real?! A man was killed. Then they show me a photograph of a loaded revolver pointing at my face to demonstrate how real real guns look like. I hope you see my point.
They’re not fake guns; they’re real guns with what was supposed to be fake ammo. Because the gun in question was a revolver, the ammo must also look real since you can see the tips of the bullets in the cylinder. Typically, there’s a hole in the side of the casing indicating that it’s a dummy round, but you can no longer see that once it’s been loaded into the gun.
I have seen so much bad science, like basic physics mistakes, in movies that that’s not really true. The average movie goer isn’t going to know what the difference between a fake and real revolver by sight.
Americans may not know our basic physics, but we know our guns you know.
That’s not the point. If you’re swinging around a semi-automatic pistol with an empty magazine, nobody will know. However, with a revolver, you need to load it with real-looking bullets for close-up shots. Of course, at a distance, you can use lesser-quality prop guns.
Or you can create, from scratch, purpose built guns with the same spec, but are made of materials(like aluminum) that the holder will know is fake from the moment they pick it up. For larger pieces, you could include a co2 mechanism to recreate recoil and include an LED to light up with a trigger pull for sfx people to use as a reference. Pretty sure some of these things already exist.
And quite frankly, the audience doesn’t deserve a perfect recreation if it means putting people in harms way. There’s a thing call Suspension of Disbelief that seems to be in short supply these days. Never bring the CinemaSins guy to a traditional Japanese theater. The Kuroko stagehands would give him an hearth attack.
There was a Jason Statham movie, The Mechanic, I think that had some ‘cool guy target practice in the woods moment’ and they were blasting off rounds and did a cool slo-mo so you could clearly see that they were firing crimped blanks. I’m sure next to no one noticed.
Even less so in Dear John when Channing Tatum’s M4 turns into an M249 so you can see the links of the belt flying out when he shoots at someone.
Point being, don’t leave town to dodge safety regulations and be surprised when unsafety happens.
Your comment baffles me further more. I just can’t believe your gun “culture”.
Whether or not you believe what you’re calling “gun culture,” the fact that the gun in question is a revolver is one of the most relevant facts of the case.
A semi-automatic pistol, which is to say a
single-handfirearm that is meant to be fired without being steadied against the user’s body where the ammunition is fed up the handle into to back of the barrel after each shot, until the magazine is exhausted, will not load the next round if you fire a blank. It relies on there being a bullet in the barrel to contain pressure long enough to push a mechanism that pops out the old bullet case and slides the next round into the chamber. In order for a semi-auto to use blanks, you have to modify it in such a way that you can no long fire live ammunition without destroying the gun.Revolvers do not need such modification. Revolvers have a cylinder with boreholes running through it that form the chambers for the rounds. Pulling the trigger or cocking the hammer rotates the cylinder to the chamber, no pressure from the last round needed. This means that idiots on film sets can grab a revolver intended as a prop, put real live ammo in and target shoot in between takes and eventually mix up live and dummy ammo, causing people to be killed.
I thought they were arguing that the gun that was supposed to come with fake ammo actually came with real ammo? To me it sounds like the gun supplier should be held liable?
The person who supplied the gun, the armorer, was held responsible. It was her job to make sure the guns were kept safe and she failed. She was found guilty already. Baldwin was on trial because statements he made to police regarding the incident were found to be inconsistent with the facts found through investigation, which were concerning enough to warrant a trial. The prosecution then fucked up so hard he can’t be retried.
I meant I thought the prop supplier should be held liable, since the article I read about it previously, had said that a box of ammo came from the prop supplier, Seth Kenney, and that it matched the ammo that was used that killed Hutchins, and that’s why I was thinking the prop supplier should be held liable.
That was my understanding of it anyway.
If that’s the case I agree. Bringing live ammo onto a movie set is a huge no-no, and if it was his round that killed the AD he certainly bears some responsibility.
My gun culture? What’s so baffling about it?
It is not about you, specifically. One people do not make a culture. But see, what I find baffling is that real guns are taken into movie sets, when they repeatedly have been used to kill cast and crew members since decades ago, and it is still not prohibited. School shootings, attempted assassination of presidential candidates, Wal-Mart shootings with guns sold in place, bar massacres, etc. they all come from this gun culture.
Take a look at user Thorny_Insight higly upvoted comment. While I guess I should be appreciative of its informative content, I just find violent that, without any warning, they link to a photograph of a loaded revolver pointing at the viewer’s face without realizing that is probably kind of fucked up. That’s what baffles me, like, no fucking kidding those guns are real?! A man was killed. Then they show me a photograph of a loaded revolver pointing at my face to demonstrate how real real guns look like. I hope you see my point.