My idea on preventing another Alec Baldwin-style tragedy

a reply to: RussianTroll

Hey, I asked for opinions... and I assume Russians have opinions too, right?

I agree with you on the negligence. I really doubt, after listening to everything I can find and using my own knowledge of ballistics to figure out what went wrong, that Baldwin did anything more than make a bad decision... but the fact that the reason for the bad decision was such gross negligence is enough to justify some regulation IMO.

TheRedneck

a reply to: network dude

Those who are so vehemently against guns should be the first to learn about them, so they have understanding in which they speak.

That's the real heart of the problem IMO: lack of education. We live in a world where things can hurt a person. Not just guns, but saws, cars, electrical items, lawn mowers, household chemicals... we are surrounded by potentially dangerous objects all day long! Why does anyone think "child-proofing" a house is a thing?

Strangely enough, back when we actually had parents who cared to teach their kids and more general knowledge among the population, child-proofing wasn't a big deal. We taught children how to survive in this world we have built, and that worked pretty well while not stopping people from accomplishing things. Heck, I was a headstrong little redneck back then and somehow I survived.

We've moved from a society which taught kids about the dangers around them to one which tries to eliminate every danger and refuses to teach. That's not working, and not going to work. Danger cannot be eliminated from society. Worse, by not teaching kids early about those dangers, the dangers become taboos, and we all know taboos attract young folks. Anything seen as dangerous is a way to demonstrate bravery and adulthood to a young uneducated mind.

Anything seen as a tool becomes a passage to manhood via proper use. I remember when I was finally deemed old enough to use Dad's little .410. I wouldn't dream of misusing it... he had taught me to respect guns, and let me know in no uncertain terms the consequences of misusing it. When I bought my first gun, it was a rite of passage; it meant that I was finally man enough to handle a gun safely, and I made damn sure to handle it safely.

Education, education, education... and if that doesn't work, try education.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

We've moved from a society which taught kids about the dangers around them to one which tries to eliminate every danger and refuses to teach. That's not working, and not going to work. Danger cannot be eliminated from society. Worse, by not teaching kids early about those dangers, the dangers become taboos, and we all know taboos attract young folks. Anything seen as dangerous is a way to demonstrate bravery and adulthood to a young uneducated mind.

It's funny you mention this because when discussing gun safety I often bring up sex education. The Left tends to think sex education is a good thing, because antiquated attitudes like "well my child just isn't going to have sex" aren't realistic and don't work. And you know what, they're right.

So why do they think "well my child is never gonna be around guns" is likely to work?

Education is the answer, of course. But try using that logic on a gun control freak. I've tried. The result isn't usually positive.

a reply to: Fatboy527

There is definitely hypocrisy in what you say. Millions of people use firearms safely every year... I did some calcs once. There are roughly 10 billion bullets made in the USA every year. At the same time, there were less than 40,000 firearm-related deaths in the USA in 2019. That works out to it requiring more than 250,000 rounds to kill one person. That's not what I call "efficient."

Of course, a single round can kill; the Rush incident proves that. So instead of a testament to inefficiency, those crazy numbers above are a testament to safety... safety practiced by ordinary Americans every hour of every day of every week of every year for year after year. If ordinary Americans can handle guns safely so often, why is it that Alec Baldwin, Liam Nielson, or any of the gun control advocates making their living using them cannot? They seem to believe they are somehow superior to ordinary people, but I have personally shot thousands upon thousands of rounds during my lifetime... so many that I reload to keep from going broke buying ammo... and despite me living in the presence of more crime and danger than him living in a gated mansion, Alec Baldwin has killed more people. And he is the one claiming I can't control my weapon.

Yeah, that's the height of hypocrisy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: acackohfcc

If you're an anti - gun nut, don't make movies that have guns in them

While I can't argue with that (I feel the same way about convenience stores making a fortune off selling cigarettes while being anti-smoking), how does one legislate that? There are a few common sense regulations on firearm use I can agree with... I started this thread with some. Does that make me anti-gun?

While Alec Baldwin is certainly a good example of someone who is definitely anti-gun, the truth is that there exists a broad range of pro- and anti-gun ideas. We all come down somewhere in the middle between letting everyone have their own private nuke and no one ever having any kind of protection whatsoever. So any such legislation that punishes one for a stance on firearm regulation has the potential to do some serious butt-biting on the ones who once supported it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

How about just don't use real guns on set?
There has to be a way of making a "real" gun that looks like it's firing, but fires nothing.

CGI still has its limitations. One of those is the ability to produce realistic smoke or water... any non-solid material. A few of the more advanced programs can do so, but the end result is more "cartoony" than realistic. The physics involved are just too complex to effectively and accurately model with our present computing abilities.

Besides, such a broad law would add fuel to the cause of gun control. If guns are so dangerous that they cannot be allowed on a movie set, they would also be seen as too dangerous to be allowed anywhere. I'm not going to advocate for that, obviously!

No, allowing the safe use of firearms is the optimal solution here. Alec Baldwin has the same ability to use a gun safely as anyone else. He simply lacks the education and refuses to accept the responsibility. That's not a gun issue; that's a human issue. Or a criminal issue, if one chooses to look at it that way.

Not to mention, redneck likes a little realism in his movies.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Here's an idea, use toy guns, cgi the rest

No more dead people

Still not happy they took Brandon Lee

a reply to: DeadlyStaringFrog

How about people just doing their jobs. Armorer should be giving the gun a once over to make sure everything is in proper working order, no barrel obstructions, etc. And verify if loaded, and if loaded that it is loaded with the proper ammo for whatever it's being used for. I'd be surprised if this wasn't already the case. Maybe add a second person to double check the first? Adding more rules doesn't fix things when the original rules weren't followed.

Yes, those rules exist... but they are not enforced. The rules governing movie sets are, from my understanding, made up by the people in the movie sets. If they choose to break a rule for economic reasons, they can break a rule for economic reasons. That's the whole problem: the entertainment industry has been allowed to police itself, and now that has failed. One failure wouldn't be an issue, honestly, but now we're hearing about some seriously unsafe practices on these sets. That's an issue, and some outside enforcement of simple safety rules is the easiest answer to correct the problem.

You''ll notice that most of what I have proposed is geared toward people doing their job. I just also put down what that job is. I honestly believe the armorer on the Rust set had no idea what she was supposed to do; the role of armorer was a reward for being someone likeable instead of an actual responsibility. I place full responsibility for firearm safety on the set in the hands of the armorer, even granting them the power to override the producer if there are safety issues. I also put responsibility for actions taken in the hands of whoever is handling the firearm; that should be part of their job as well.

There's a reason most normal jobs have job descriptions. That should also be the case on a movie set where firearms are used as props.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Skyman65

If it were any of us that pulled the trigger (normal citizens) the ink would already be dry on the arrest warrant for manslaughter or murder.

Absolutely!

The one thing I cannot and will never be able to stomach is "rules for thee, none for me." The laws apply to everyone, or they apply to no one. As far as I am concerned, that is the line in the sand that cannot be crossed, and yet we see it crossed every day in politics. Now we see it also being crossed in a private industry. No... just no. Just HELL no!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Another issue is that toy guns and replicas can't simulate the recoil, and actors miming it will never look realistic.

On the other hand, a lot of the audience probably wouldn't know the difference. A lot of us will though.

a reply to: Edumakated

I would not want any live firearm on set at all if there are scenes being shot with props...

That's the thing that really caught my eye early on in this discussion. Movie sets, especially westerns, are filled with guns. Unfortunately, a great many people today learn what they think they know about firearms from watching the movies, which likely accounts for all the mistakes made by people in firearm use. So the potential for a fatal accident, in a situation that is filled with people seemingly doing what no one could get away with in real life, is astronomical!

The more dangerous a situation potentially is, the more a focus on safety is needed. That's just common sense.

And yet, notice that there is nothing in my proposal that isn't based on those simple firearm rules of safety that everyone else has to follow. The firearm safety rules work. If they are so needed in real life, they are so much more needed on a movie set which by definition is showing scenes of firearm misuse.

I only hope this incident causes a major change in the way movie sets handle firearms. If not, Halyna Hutchins died in vain and her death meant nothing.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

The Left tends to think sex education is a good thing, because antiquated attitudes like "well my child just isn't going to have sex" aren't realistic and don't work. And you know what, they're right.

So why do they think "well my child is never gonna be around guns" is likely to work?

That's a good point. As a child starts to mature, their life is never under as much control as parents would like; it's part of growing up. The best way to handle that reality is to train them early for the things they will likely encounter.

The last reply I made got me to thinking about something else. I made the statement that most people learn what they know about firearms today from the movies instead of from their parents. So we actually have a situation where those like Alec Baldwin are teaching our youth about the use of firearms, while themselves demonstrating over and over, both in word and action and lack of safety, that they themselves are among the most unsafe users of firearms we have available.

I swear, it's like putting a convicted arsonist in charge of teaching kids to make campfires.

TheRedneck

a reply to: DAVG1980

Here's an idea, use toy guns, cgi the rest

Again, cgi, as good as it is (I like CGI), cannot duplicate an actual gun firing. The smoke is simply too chaotic.

Plus, outlawing guns on movie sets would inevitably lead to more calls for gun control. That's an idea that could easily backfire and cause more problems in society. Remember, criminals will always have access to the things they need to commit crimes. Only law-abiding citizens obey laws. That would lead to more needless deaths overall, not fewer.

TheRedneck

Not sure if it's been mentioned but most sets use live fire weapons during the day for one reason and that's to film the muzzle flash because of lightning blanks and other methods do not show up on film the same .

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

I was not aware of that.

Given the errors on this set in the handling of ammunition, though, I want to hear from some more people in the industry before I sign on to the idea of allowing live rounds on a movie set.

Thanks for the info. Do you work in the industry?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You miss what I'm suggesting.
I'm saying make a fake gun, that looks like it really shot something, without CGI, but has zero chance of any projectile.

a reply to: DeadlyStaringFrog

There would be no need for any of that, if they had a 'gun' incapable of shooting anything

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: TheRedneck

Another issue is that toy guns and replicas can't simulate the recoil, and actors miming it will never look realistic.

On the other hand, a lot of the audience probably wouldn't know the difference. A lot of us will though.

Movies do stuff that simply doesn't occur in real life all the time. Fake car scenes. Fake gun scenes. The biggest fake is the "silencer." Suppressed gun fire is not silent or even all that quiet. Certainly not the quiet "Twhat, Twhat" or "Pfftt, Pfft" sound used in movies.

Those of us that know, shoudln't focus on something being unrealistic. It is the movies and they most certainly can use CGI, sound recordings, and other methods to film a gun fight that is realistic enough for a movie even if some of the little details may be off for those in the know.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DAVG1980

Here's an idea, use toy guns, cgi the rest

Again, cgi, as good as it is (I like CGI), cannot duplicate an actual gun firing. The smoke is simply too chaotic.

So, I have an idea.

Take a film crew to a range, with real experts, and have them fire all kinds of different guns while the film crew films it from a bunch of different angles. The more dangerous angles could be filmed remotely. Then you could have stock footage of the smoke, muzzle flash, gases escaping, etc. of dozens of different kinds of common firearms from all these different angles. They could make all of that material available to all the big special effects companies.

Filmmakers would then film their actors "shooting" a replica gun that ejects fake cartridges, if applicable, and has some kind of mechanical device built into it to simulate recoil. Then the SFX companies would digitally composite the realistic (because they're real) effects that I previously mentioned into the shot.