Do you dream of Trump?

MnSpring wrote on 01/18/22 at 11:04:09:

Innumerable.  
1/6 riot, maskless rallies, drone strikes in Syria,...

"One thing I was always taught about guns is never point a gun at anything you don't want dead"

 This is good gun handling safety but rarely applies on film.  People point guns at others constantly on film sets.  Can you imagine trying to make a war film and nobody points a gun at another person?  It could be done through creative camera angles and dummy guns but why make all that extra work for yourself.

 Money.

 I have a cousin that has worked in film production for years and like most things she indicates cost is why certain, especially antique weapons are used instead of "prop" guns.  It's more efficient in some cases, and only the word "some" with the exemption off all other words, that in some cases it is more efficient to double-use a weapon.  The same weapon purchase can be used to fire blanks, and up close for acting shots.

 I also know an armorer that worked on larger war film sets and he said it's easier/cost effective to get historical functioning guns than to have props made at the scale he needed and then having post-production CGI every action and firing effect.  The availability was mostly due to reenactment groups by his assessment.

 I wouldn't be surprised if there was an eventual prop-only requirement in Hollywood considering the alternatives available at this time.

A person, is totally irresponsible, and a Lier,
and simply because, he is the Darling of the,
Liberal, Fairy Dust Sprinkling, gun hating Socialists.
He will get off with a ‘hand slap’.

It is all those, ‘other people’ who were in the chain.
(Including the Manufacture of the Ammunition) fault.

And the result is:
“…  how long its aloud to continue …”

WOW, Like someone having a RED car,
driving over someone.
And that someone Sued the Supplier of the paint, tires, gas, oil, etc, etc, etc, on that car.
Instead of the DRIVER, who was the One, Final, Last, person who drove that car and ran over someone.

Eegore, have your students, do the math,
and figure the % of firearms used in Movies/TV,
that there was NO Indent, and ones that were.

Would be interesting to know how many “0’s”, in front of the number.
My guess would be 6.
0.0000001 %

It is clear, the answer is, to BAN, firearms from use in movie/TV making,
when a tiny, tiny, minuscule, % of people are killed by a firearm in movie/TV making.

Makes absolutely perfect sense to ban the thing, then punish the person who did it.

yeah not what I was meaning, I think the last person in the chain is just as responsible as the first. my apologies if i didn't make that clear

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 01/20/22 at 14:28:22:


I 100% agree that responsibility is on the person holding the weapon. but I don't believe that removes responsibility from the person whose job it is to make sure the weapon is safe, IMO both are to blame for what happened.


Yes sorry, the wrong phrase on my part, "fired unexpectedly" is better