As even leftist Hollywood actors are shooting people now it is about time to make a general ban on firearms.
[Content deleted by moderator.]
A ban on the use of live blank rounds in "prop guns" seems highly likely.
sharea ban on all guns or just guns used on set? People have a second amendment right to have them.
As for movies; I get people want realism, but I don't think people are really analyzing guns from their theater seats. Special effects can be used to make a gun fire. So I would not be surprised if they switched from using these guns to all out fake guns. If there needs to be a close up shot of a real gun firing, it should be done with few people onset, no guns aimed at anyone. I hate the 'hindsight is 20/20' mentality. There are/should be procedures in place and when they aren't followed, this is what happens. You don't create more procedures, you enforce the ones you have. That's just me though. Obviously procedures that have been in place for decades were not followed here. You don't change the movie industry over it; you follow the damn rules put in place to prevent this from happening.
sorry if this response sounds so conflicted. My gut reaction is to ban all guns on set but logic tells me that this was a one time thing that could have been preventable if people just followed already vested protocols.
2nd Amendment was written in 1791.
Bit past it's use by date in all other democracies.
...tyrannies?
shareDon’t we have a drug ban? Somehow bad peeps still using drugs
shareThe problem with guns in movies today is that they are so far from reality it isn't even funny. You have magic guns that often never need to be reloaded during a shoot out, bullets that spark like firework on anything they hit, and worst of all the bullets that magically stop the bad guy as soon as they are hit... In real life a gun only has a limited number of rounds before it has to be reloaded, bullets rarely ever spark when you shoot something, and when a bad guy gets hit in real shoot outs he often is still able to fire a few more rounds before he goes down. Oh and when someone does get killed with a gun shot they don't always just fall over and lay still sometimes their body convulses or twitches in a very macabre way. But they sanitize the gruesome part of being shot which just makes it easier for the gullible fools watching to think shooting someone isn't that big a deal.
shareBack in the '50's folks used to laugh about the "27-shooter." There has always been the "dead-eye" who could shoot a gun out of the other fellow's hand, "fan" a revolver and shoot all six cans off the fence rail, or drop a fellow with one shot. By the same token, the hero could run in a straight line in front of a group of people shooting at him, and none of them could hit him. Why? "It's in the script."
It's not just "guns in movies today." It's been that way since they started making movies.
That's true. Guns have never been depicted accurately. Though I think it has gotten worse than it once was. Especially with the damn sparkler bullets. For god's sake some movies have them sparking when they hit a car windshield.
shareJimmy Cagney, in his biography, said that in one of the early gangster movies they wanted the cops to spray bullets at a window Cagney was firing out of. They had the problem of making it look real. Just the sound wasn't enough. The director hit on the idea of using real bullets out of a real machine gun. "Be careful!" Cagney was told, as if he needed to hear it.
I can't remember the name of the movie, but one time I saw it, and I could see why the director did it that way -- it looked just like bullets chipping bits off of brick. They had a sharp-shooter doing it, and Cagney had ducked behind the window before it started. JUST before.
I remember hearing about that back in the 80's... I couldn't remember the film or actor, but only that they used real machine guns hitting a concrete wall and brought in some former machine gunner from WWII. What I had heard was that it was some 50 cal pulled from an old flying fortress type bomber. If you remember the name of the movie let me know I've always wondered what it looked liked.
shareThe one I'm talking about was back in the '30's -- Cagney's early gangster movie days. I had no idea someone was nuts enough to do it after WWII!
shareThe story I heard may have been wrong, when I heard it I didn't really believe it as I would have expected a 50 cal to do so much damage to a concrete wall that it would put him at significant risk even if he ducked behind it. To me it would make a lot more sense if it was with some earlier lower caliber machine gun, maybe a Thompson shooting .45s would have made more sense. Though If that was the case it would take some very good gunners to keep the shots hitting the right area.
shareHe didn't seem to enjoy the experience! 😂
shareI've seen unjacketed lead bullets make sparks when they hit pavement or rocks at night. It's rare, but it can happen. What drives me nuts in movies of the last few decades is that every time someone holding a gun moves it, even just an inch, it makes a lot of "clickety-clack" noises. If a group of people raise their guns at the same time, there is a cacophony of rattling and clicking. Then when they lower them again, the same ridiculous sounds are repeated.
shareBasically impossible.
shareTime for a vehicle ban since 3700 people die in vehicle accidents every day around the globe.
shareI am for some of the common sense gun-control measures as they are called.
This was an accident, that happened because of a lot of very glaring problems.
Trace it back and it was a Union issue. The corporation that this movie was, was a money-making scam. The David Feldman podcast on You-Tube talks about this ... well, rants about this, It is way too long, 6+ hours, not all about Baldwin, but you get the gist in the first minutes.
There were abuses on the set against the Union crew. They were promised lodging nearby the set, but they were given lodging an hour away and had to drive roughly 2 hours every day to and from the set. They had not ever been paid for their work. And so - the day of this shooting they walked off the job on strike.
Then the production company went ahead and had other people fill in for these jobs. So the lady everyone is taking this out on screwed up on a job she was not qualified to do and did incompetently.
But then Baldwin did not check the gun, Baldwin aimed the gun and pointed it another person, and either deliberately ( thinking it was unloaded ) pulled the trigger or the gun just went off. Seems more likely that he pulled the trigger in rehearsal - and shot the woman and wounded the man behind her.
This is not a case to really go on the rampage and open the discussion up about gun control or banning guns on sets. It would be if this were a chronic problem that kept happening, but that is why they are supposed to have professional union people employed.
This was about saving money so investors could hide and launder their money through a media investment.
https://youtu.be/dICN7u6f48Y?t=232
Considering the millions of times guns have been fired on television and movie sets during the past dozen decades or so, and the fact that the number of people accidentally killed can be counted on less than one hand, this is really not much of a problem. The rules that are already in place just need to be followed.
shareA point made by Baldwin himself, ironically. I say ironically because Baldwin's usually the first to pounce if someone famous accidentally shoots someone. "All guns should be banned!" says the fellow who's made a fair amount of his money off of movies with gun violence.
share