Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Gun Safety: The Movies

Gun Safety: The Movies (Page 2)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2021, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I’m sorry to say that this incident is all about delegation of responsibility, without ensuring the people who handled guns on the set actually knew their donkey from an excavation.

If anyone is going to have the guilt and nightmares over a “mistake” with a gun on the set, it’s going to be the performer. Let's at least let the performer have an opportunity to avoid being party to such accidents.
While I agree with you in broad strokes, the main responsibility should rest with an expert on set, i. e. not an actor (unless they are named Keanu Reaves). Yes, actors should be proficient with handling guns to some degree, but I don’t think it makes sense to expect of them to know all the ins and outs. At best, they should be the safety check of last resort, but you shouldn’t rely on it.

IMHO the best safety model are aircraft: yes, pilots perform a walkaround before a flight, but they won’t check whether the mechanics have used the right oil or whether the fuel has been contaminated. They have to rely on technicians for that and simply have to trust them. Similarly, to minimize the probability of an accident, you layer safety and when something goes wrong you don’t just conclude “The pilots made a mistake.” You take things like exhaustion and/or long working hours into account, something that seems quite relevant for a movie set. On a movie set, I wouldn’t build a safety model that requires actors to unload the firearm they were handed, check whether the fake bullets are of the right type (dummies? blanks?) and then load the firearm correctly again. It seems to me that this would introduce more pathways for something to go wrong than if they trusted an expert to begin with, especially once exhaustion sets in and stress is high.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2021, 10:02 PM
 
A few more details have emerged.

Cops found more live ammo floating around.

Gun was a replica Colt Single-Action Army. Replicas have a trigger safety. The originals didn’t, and if the hammer was down on a loaded chamber, a good whack was enough to set it off.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2021, 11:05 AM
 
I need to emphasize something Oreo alluded to. In any investigation of “what went wrong,” the emphasis MUST be on finding not “who is to blame,” but “what part of the process failed.”

Finding blame does not fix anything. Finding where a process didn’t work identifies where to start fixing the problem.

It appears that there are a lot of places where standard procedures just weren’t followed, let alone had the chance to fail. I agree that there should be an expert on the set who is ultimately responsible for the safety of all gun handling. There wasn’t one on this set, and there were enough places where the wrong thing was done that it is not out of the question that someone could have sabotaged the production, and in doing so caused death and injury.

However, I firmly believe the performer should proactively interact with the armorer (NOT some assistant director) when being handed a gun. “Show me that this is empty” or “show me that there is only one blank in the gun” would be appropriate for any performer.

Surgery has a thing called a “time out for safety” before the patient goes under anesthetic. EVERYBODY involved in the procedure must review the following: is this the right patient?; are we set up for the right procedure?; are we prepping the correct body part?; is the procedure safe at this time? This process was instituted because of numerous mistakes, including amputating the wrong limb (it’s amazing how many doctors can’t keep their patient’s right and left straight), and so on. In other words, several truly tragic mistakes led to this process. Anybody, including the patient, can stop a procedure until questions are answered and problems are resolved.

I do not understand why on-set firearms safety isn’t handled in a similar way. EVERYBODY on set should be able to stop everything until EVERYBODY is satisfied with the set’s safety.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2021, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
However, I firmly believe the performer should proactively interact with the armorer (NOT some assistant director) when being handed a gun.
This would normally be the case. COVID is being cited for why it didn’t happen here.

From what he said to the police, the AD sounded qualified to check the gun, he just failed to do so. I give him credit for being up-front about that.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2021, 11:48 AM
 
By all appearances, the root cause of this killing was the predatory practices of the production company. They saved money by hiring an inexperienced (and seemingly criminally negligent) armorer, who was likely overworked, and didn’t have an assistant.

A mandate for actors to perform safety checks won’t fix this problem.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2021, 05:40 PM
 
Armorer is denying everything. Gun never left the set. Target practice stories untrue. The previous accidental discharges weren’t her fault. She says she was overworked, didn’t have enough resources, and her complaints about safety went unanswered.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2021, 06:13 PM
 
The armorer isn’t the only one noting that their safety complaints were ignored. I agree that getting Baldwin to participate in checking that gun would not have prevented this from happening.

One of the things that cities like New York, Vancouver, and even Austin have as part of their permitting process for movies, is a comprehensive checklist for safety. Crowd safety, street safety, production crew safety, etc. These checklists take time to complete, and cost production companies a bit of money.

But if the city can say that “all steps were taken to ensure the production was safe” (to cover the city’s butt, at least) then the production should be safe. I’ll bet they weren’t in the Arizona desert only for the authenticity of the location…. I’ll bet they were also cutting corners on permits. Just like they cut corners on safety overall.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2021, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The armorer isn’t the only one noting that their safety complaints were ignored. I agree that getting Baldwin to participate in checking that gun would not have prevented this from happening.
I think we are just disagreeing on the nuances here. But IMHO a realistic safety protocol should not include the actor. The actor’s job is acting, nothing else, i. e. I think we should not assume that the actor does any checking. Would it be nice if he or she did? Yes, sure.

We should also not forget that this was the first deadly accident with a firearm on set in what seems like decades. The last case I remember was Bruce Lee’s son who died in 1993, but even if there were more recent incident, I bet that the number is absolutely dwarfed by incidents on ranges. (Although to be fair, I have not researched the numbers here.)

Overall, I tend to agree with subego, it should suffice if the prop master or some other designated person from the crew hands an actor a gun and calls it safe/cold/whatever, at least and especially for “simpler” scenes with e. g. a single or a few guns. For John Wick-style shootouts, though, I reckon you would need more training and effort.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
One of the things that cities like New York, Vancouver, and even Austin have as part of their permitting process for movies, is a comprehensive checklist for safety. Crowd safety, street safety, production crew safety, etc. These checklists take time to complete, and cost production companies a bit of money.
Don’t forget Toronto. A lot of movies were made there, including Pixels. The bastards from the production crew wouldn’t let me in my office (the entrance was part of the movie set, oops!).
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
But if the city can say that “all steps were taken to ensure the production was safe” (to cover the city’s butt, at least) then the production should be safe. I’ll bet they weren’t in the Arizona desert only for the authenticity of the location….
Land of the free … 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I’ll bet they were also cutting corners on permits. Just like they cut corners on safety overall.
Or Arizona doesn’t have many of the safety rules and regulations in the first place, i. e. the corners were precut.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2021, 09:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
By all appearances, the root cause of this killing was the predatory practices of the production company. They saved money by hiring an inexperienced (and seemingly criminally negligent) armorer, who was likely overworked, and didn’t have an assistant.

A mandate for actors to perform safety checks won’t fix this problem.
I just hope that the public and law enforcement doesn’t just focus on her. Instead, like I wrote before, they should think of this like a plane crash caused by pilot error. If the pilot couldn’t have gotten enough rest due to excessive demands by the airline, the airline is partially at fault. Not sleeping has the same effect as being inebriated. And if you get overridden constantly by higher-ups, that’s a factor, too.

(It reminds me of the 737 Max story where the two test pilots have seemingly become the sacrificial lambs after the executives secured immunity by a deal with the US government. Yes, I am sure the two test pilots were the ones who masterminded all of this …)

To be fair, even trying to figure out how much responsibility or guilt each party has is extremely hard: Baldwin as an actor does not seem to be at fault. Baldwin the producer might share some responsibility, but how much is not clear. The armorer clearly has some responsibility, but we need to account for the fact that she was not acting in a vacuum and her complaints about lax safety seem to have been ignored by the company. The world is not black-and-white.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2021, 09:24 AM
 
She wasn’t the original armorer, was she? I had heard a report that the original union crew had walked off because they weren’t being paid (and other issues in violation of the contract, like housing).
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2021, 10:36 AM
 
She was the original armorer. It was the camera crew who walked.

That crew was union, but props wasn’t.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2021, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The actor’s job is acting, nothing else
This is how I feel.

An analogy I use is making a movie is like a maypole dance. Everything is fine as long as each dancer focuses on what they need to do. If a dancer starts focusing on someone else’s job, that’s when the ribbons get tangled.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2021, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I just hope that the public and law enforcement doesn’t just focus on her. Instead, like I wrote before, they should think of this like a plane crash caused by pilot error. If the pilot couldn’t have gotten enough rest due to excessive demands by the airline, the airline is partially at fault. Not sleeping has the same effect as being inebriated. And if you get overridden constantly by higher-ups, that’s a factor, too.
The big mystery is how live ammo got on the set. It could have happened because she was overworked, but there’s evidence calling her competency into question. If live ammo got onto the set due to her incompetence, it doesn’t absolve the production company. They have an obligation to hire competent safety officers.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2021, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is how I feel.

An analogy I use is making a movie is like a maypole dance. Everything is fine as long as each dancer focuses on what they need to do. If a dancer starts focusing on someone else’s job, that’s when the ribbons get tangled.
I get that. And as long as EVERYBODY is doing their job correctly and professionally, that can work.

However, if you're acting with a gun, you should be as familiar with it as an actor playing a dancer is familiar with his shoes. It's part of the role, so the actor should be really aware of this particular prop. It's not trivial in this case, the way using most other props is.

As Oreo says, we're probably just talking about the same thing from different directions.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2021, 09:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The big mystery is how live ammo got on the set. It could have happened because she was overworked, but there’s evidence calling her competency into question. If live ammo got onto the set due to her incompetence, it doesn’t absolve the production company. They have an obligation to hire competent safety officers.
Teasing this apart is going to be hard. It’s likely much easier to find a scapegoat. I’m saying that without having an informed opinion on what has transpired. The live ammo bit is really leaving me stumped, though. I would have expected that this is a huge no-no. But who knows who brought the live ammo on the set. Perhaps some incandescent lightbulb other than the armorer wanted to get some rounds off in the Arizonian desert with a replica of a true cowboy gun? This is just speculation, of course, but I’m trying to find reasons.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2021, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
However, if you're acting with a gun, you should be as familiar with it as an actor playing a dancer is familiar with his shoes. It's part of the role, so the actor should be really aware of this particular prop. It's not trivial in this case, the way using most other props is.
Even if an actor spends 3 months learning how to wear ballet slippers and pose convincingly, they will never be as good as someone who has danced all their life and has the toe callouses to prove it.

When a gun is checked into a cart it should be unloaded, and only loaded in front of eyes when the director calls for a real take.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2021, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Even if an actor spends 3 months learning how to wear ballet slippers and pose convincingly, they will never be as good as someone who has danced all their life and has the toe callouses to prove it.

When a gun is checked into a cart it should be unloaded, and only loaded in front of eyes when the director calls for a real take.
I feel that one pair of those eyes should be the actor’s.

Think of The Turning Point, an excellent ballet movie. The actors moved (on camera, anyway) the way dancers move. They didn’t make any visible errors with the shoes, the barre, etc. They did not become ballerinas, but their performances were quite convincing.

Now think of about how that should apply to ANY prop that is central to the story, the character, or both. Uber Programmer Guy should look like he can actually pound out code. Helicopter Pilot Gal should have her hands on the correct controls and move them kinda correctly. (It turns out “pilots” usually fiddle with tons of gadgets on the set that a real pilot wouldn’t touch in flight. Counterpoint to that is Blue Thunder, where both Roy Scheider and Malcom McDowell handled the helicopter controls very authentically.)

And Desperado Guy should be just as convincing (even to nit pickers) in handling a firearm. To me, that should include understanding what it means for a firearm to be loaded or unloaded. I’m not saying the actor needs a certification in gun handling. But if They’re performing with a chainsaw, wouldn’t you want them to know how to stop the thing themselves?

Just having stuff “on the cart”, so an AD, assistant armorer, or gofer could get them - or tamper with them - is just as unsafe as letting just anyone in scrubs into an operating room and letting them fiddle with the instruments and equipment. There must be far better, far stricter control of all firearm props on set, whether they are real or replicas.

At the very least, any firearm should be fully checked by a qualified armorer as it is being handed to the performer, and the performer should SEE it being checked. So should everybody on the set. I also think that a set with “hot” firearms should have only the most essential people on it. This helps reduce the “background noise” of people just being there, which can help everyone concentrate on making the scene go smoothly and safely.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 1, 2021, 05:18 PM
 
is this cart locked, or just a trolley with shelves where things are tossed?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2021, 12:48 AM
 
It sounds like the latter.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2021, 04:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I feel that one pair of those eyes should be the actor’s. […]

And Desperado Guy should be just as convincing (even to nit pickers) in handling a firearm. To me, that should include understanding what it means for a firearm to be loaded or unloaded. I’m not saying the actor needs a certification in gun handling. But if They’re performing with a chainsaw, wouldn’t you want them to know how to stop the thing themselves?
I would add a few caveats here: movies regularly break with realism if it serves a purpose. For example, many main characters in medieval fight scenes will not wear a helmet, because otherwise the audience likely couldn't follow what is going on. Having the faces of the actors visible at all times simplifies story telling. Yet, the actors will usually train very hard for the fight scenes, but not to get it right, but to have it look cool. Hema nerds don't like many movie fights for that reason.

Similarly, gun fights in most movies are not realistic as e. g. very often no distinction between concealment and cover is made. Cops would hide behind their squad car doors rather than the engine block and the like. Some movies make an effort to be more realistic and the actors train a lot. Another thing are “movie blanks” that produce much more flash than ordinary blanks — precisely so that you are more visible. In a real fire fight, that's probably not what you want.

Weapons training in the way you mention serves a different purpose, more akin to other stunt work: in addition to looking cool, you need to stay safe. Still, thinking about it, probably the safest thing is for experts to prepare the weapon and not have it touched again by even a trained noob. And safety procedures should account for what Baldwin seems like he did: AFAIK he was rehearsing the scene. Compartmentalization of concerns and empowering people in charge of safety is probably the better bet.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2021, 08:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I just hope that the public and law enforcement doesn’t just focus on her.
A woman makes a mistake with a gun that leads to Alec Baldwin killing someone? Yes, I'm sure the conservative media will remain impeccably fair and balanced about this.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2021, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It sounds like the latter.
Then that's an issue also, if they are going with the "tampering" theory. If a licensed gun owner* is supposed to keep the gun locked in the trunk of their car (not in the glovebox, say) then how does a movie set get away with "toss it on the cart"?

(*according to my MA gun safety training class)
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2021, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
A woman makes a mistake with a gun that leads to Alec Baldwin killing someone? Yes, I'm sure the conservative media will remain impeccably fair and balanced about this.
She has a few things in her favor.

1) Conservatives hate, hate, hate Baldwin for his politics.

2) Past that, objectively speaking Baldwin is a colossal prick.

3) Conservatives tend to be gun people, and by civilian gun rules this is Baldwin’s fault because he fired the gun. The type of arguments I’m making here absolving him of direct responsibility would get me called a “Baldwin simp” by conservatives.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2021, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I would add a few caveats here: movies regularly break with realism if it serves a purpose.
My fave is jet fighter pilots who after periods of great stress will catch their breath by tearing off their oxygen mask.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2021, 12:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Then that's an issue also, if they are going with the "tampering" theory. If a licensed gun owner* is supposed to keep the gun locked in the trunk of their car (not in the glovebox, say) then how does a movie set get away with "toss it on the cart"?

(*according to my MA gun safety training class)
My understanding is laws like that are usually intended to deter motorists from shooting at each other due to road rage, so not really applicable here. That said, if there was no attendant there, completely reasonable to ask why. The armorer says the guns were locked up at lunch. What’s the point if they’re left unguarded at other times?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2021, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
She has a few things in her favor.
I'm not talking about trying to assign blame between the two of them, but more on how this scenario is a perfect example of "everything wrong with society today."

1. Women shouldn't do manly things like have jobs and touch guns
2. It's the liberal Hollywood idiots who probably promoted her to that job because of her gender and not her skill
3. Alec Baldwin, one of those awful liberals, obviously has no clue how to handle a gun
4. This scenario is what happens when you put liberals in charge of guns
5. Can you believe these idiots are trying to make gun safety laws to oppress the rest of us??

The Fox News headlines write themselves.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 2, 2021, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
A woman makes a mistake with a gun that leads to Alec Baldwin killing someone? Yes, I'm sure the conservative media will remain impeccably fair and balanced about this.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
She has a few things in her favor.

1) Conservatives hate, hate, hate Baldwin for his politics.

2) Past that, objectively speaking Baldwin is a colossal prick.

3) Conservatives tend to be gun people, and by civilian gun rules this is Baldwin’s fault because he fired the gun. The type of arguments I’m making here absolving him of direct responsibility would get me called a “Baldwin simp” by conservatives.
You can already buy t-shirts saying Guns don't kill people. Alec Baldwin kills people.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2021, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
1. Women shouldn't do manly things like have jobs and touch guns
Women with guns are like porn for conservatives, though. They’re not going to want to disturb that fantasy.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2021, 06:47 PM
 
She could probably run for office and do great.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2021, 07:17 PM
 
Oh… I mean, she’s still going on the enemies list, but they’re going to leverage things specific to her, like her manner of dress.

“We like women with guns, just not this particular woman.”
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 4, 2021, 08:34 PM
 
Oh, she's a prochoice vegan lesbian? never mind then.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2021, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Women with guns are like porn for conservatives, though. They’re not going to want to disturb that fantasy.
Just like with any masculine hobby, men love to drool over women doing it well, but are the absolute quickest to denigrate them for the tiniest of errors. Driving, wrenching, drinking, guns, sports.



It was pretty apparent in the case of Amber Guyger the way no one backed her up like you'd expect. The best I saw was some half-hearted excuse about how the dude probably smoked weed. Nothing like we've seen in the defense of Floyd's killers or Zimmerman or any of those dudes inventing and vehemently sticking to entire narratives justifying the killing.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2021, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Just like with any masculine hobby, men love to drool over women doing it well, but are the absolute quickest to denigrate them for the tiniest of errors. Driving, wrenching, drinking, guns, sports.
Maybe I’m being pedantic, but I see this as distinct from “women shouldn’t do manly things like touch guns”.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2021, 06:03 PM
 
You’re not being pedantic. You’re “thinking”. You see this as a contradiction because it is.

But I’ll bet you aren’t likely to buy a ton-and-a-half pickup truck “to turn on chicks” either.

My wife’s dad earned four jump stars i the 82nd Airborne in WWII. He taught all of his kids about guns, gun safety, and gun etiquette. Like in everything else, she puts safety first.

She is also likely to (quite vocally) shoot down adolescent male imagery around, well, everything. Video game heroines wearing 400 grams (total) of “armor”? Nope.

The issue is really how media focuses on the stereotypes, instead of on how often those stereotypes are extremely rare. “The media has a strong influence on the weak minded.” And if one’s peers are just as clueless, that just perpetuates and spreads these rarities as a norm.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 5, 2021, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maybe I’m being pedantic, but I see this as distinct from “women shouldn’t do manly things like touch guns”.
I don’t think this is distinct. The attraction is precisely because these women do something well that they “shouldn’t be able to do well”. I guess it has to do with a phantasy of being dominated by a woman at something you think you are good at.

But the atmosphere is really toxic for those women who are into it. There is no space between being excellent (and hopefully good-looking) at something and sucking. You can be Brianna Wu and own your own game studio as well as being very, very good at some games, and still not be accepted as a gamer by many.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 6, 2021, 02:50 PM
 
I’ve lost count of how many criticisms I’ve heard lodged against Brianna, but I’ve never heard that one.

Anita is the one I hear getting consistently accused of not being a gamer.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2021, 04:12 PM
 
Baldwin did an interview and claims he didn’t pull the trigger.

X
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2021, 06:31 PM
 
It's established Baldwin was holding the gun, and therefore pointing it. Unless he's disputing that too. Not sure what to make of this claim.

It is my understanding that modern gun designs cannot go off without pulling the trigger. Even tapping the hammer with a solid object would not cause the gun to fire. Old models lacked those safety interlocks - but we're talking models from half a century ago or earlier.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2021, 07:34 PM
 
unless they were being VERY authentic with an old gun...

He was rehearsing a draw, right? He didn't need to pull it.

however we've already discussed that even if the cameras were rolling and he pulled the trigger for real, he was not expecting a live round in there.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2021, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Baldwin did an interview and claims he didn’t pull the trigger.
Looks like trauma and dissociation to me. I wouldn’t put too much stock in it in the factual sense. Although if I were advising Baldwin, I’d advise him to not do any interviews.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2021, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Although if I were advising Baldwin, I’d advise him to not do any interviews.
Ditto. When in legal trouble ... let your lawyer do all the talking. Keep your mouth shut.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
It is my understanding that modern gun designs cannot go off without pulling the trigger. Even tapping the hammer with a solid object would not cause the gun to fire. Old models lacked those safety interlocks - but we're talking models from half a century ago or earlier.
When it was introduced, this model of gun had no trigger safety, exactly like you’re talking about. Baldwin’s replica did have one. It can’t fire unless the trigger is pulled.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 09:31 AM
 
If only there were any professional-quality cameras around, possibly pointed directly at him.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2021, 11:03 AM
 
The deal with these single-action revolvers, trigger safety or not, is that the hammer must be manually cocked. If your thumb slips off of the hammer, it could be both not far enough back to catch the trigger (depending on what form of trigger safety was employed, the safety mechanism could be ineffective here) and back enough that the hammer had enough energy to fire the round.

An educated analysis here points out that these kinds of revolvers are tricky to handle. And, since Baldwin apparently knew nothing about proper gun handling or safety, he (more than likely) didn’t “pull” the trigger so much as have his finger on it - it would be in a “pulled” position until the hammer was cocked - when his thumb came off the hammer.

In general, pop culture, especially movie culture, contends that everybody knows everything about firearms without a second’s worth of instruction. Clearly that is not the case, either with actors or the general public.

I own a similar model of revolver. It’s big, heavy, and awkward. And firing it is different from any revolver of modern design, even accounting for it being single action. These revolvers have a very narrow trigger that’s smooth - and in the case of the classic “Single Action Army” pistol, the trigger is offset to the left from center.

That offset means an experienced shooter has to intentionally position his or her finger in a different way than they’re used to. Somebody without good instruction, even if just for a specific scene, could easily violate one of the cardinal rules of gun safety, and have their finger on the trigger without intending to do so.

Anyone remember the Westerns of the 1960s? Where the hero gets off a bunch of shots by “fanning” the hammer? The actor is holding the trigger back while slapping the hammer back with his other hand, and without the trigger free to catch it, the hammer just flies forward and fires the round. This method is also entirely an artifact of the movies, incredibly inaccurate, and oh-by-the-way unsafe AF.

The difference between “I didn’t pull the trigger” and “I had my finger outside the trigger guard the whole time” is not subtle. But, again without even a tiny bit of instruction, how was Baldwin to know better?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2021, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Looks like trauma and dissociation to me. I wouldn’t put too much stock in it in the factual sense. Although if I were advising Baldwin, I’d advise him to not do any interviews.
Oh… I don’t think he’s lying. Just like you said, disassociation.

And yes, he needs to STFU.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2022, 05:31 PM
 
Wrongful death suit has started. Here’s a CG reenactment submitted by the plaintiff:



This is poorly crafted on numerous levels.
     
MacNNFamous
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2020
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2022, 08:03 PM
 
Why does anybody care about this...
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2022, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Why does anybody care about this...
I get put in charge of on-set safety at times, so for me it hits close to home. Beyond that, the only worthwhile reason I can think of to care is as a cautionary tale on the importance of gun safety.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2022, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacNNFamous View Post
Why does anybody care about this...
I think it is also used by a segment of the 2A crowd to “stick it to the libs”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2022, 10:48 PM
 
To be fair, if Baldwin stands behind his ridiculous claim the gun went off without him pulling the trigger, he’s sticking it to himself.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:46 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,