You're viewing part of a thread.
You know nothing about how firearms safety is handled on movie sets. You're acting like your actions at the range are the same.
They are absolutely not.
First and foremost, no actor is EVER responsible for the safety of a firearm. End of story. That is the armorer's job, and nobody else's. No actor should ever be handed a firearm in any condition other than safe for the situation. If they're standing around with a gun on their hip in a far-off shot, the firearm is a resin or foam replica. Always. If they're handling a firearm up close and not firing it, it will be a non-firing replica. Always. If they are firing it the armorer will load the firearm, rack/cock it, and place it directly into the actor's hands. The scene will be shot. The armorer then immediately takes the firearms away from all actors involved.
At no point should the actor EVER be responsible for firearms safety. That is not their job. It is the armorer's job to ensure that the actor cannot, either willfully or through ignorance, harm anyone else. These industry standards have been developed and utilized over a period of decades.
In all of the movies that use firearms, how many deaths or injuries have you heard of?
The comments and votes here baffle me.
One step. That's it.
One step by actors being paid presumably millions. That's all they need to do. All the steps you mentioned above can and should stay. But an actor can't take 5 mins out of their oh so busy lives to learn to check clear a weapon? How is more safety a problem? What is wrong with people who disagree on that?
Industry standards change throughout. Just because something worked before doesn't mean it always will. Exhibit A is the man who died. Or is his life a statistical anamoly and within acceptable error? Do we wait for more people to die then?
Does an actor blindly get behind a car and drive not caring if he runs anyone over because it's the set director's job to clear the path? Is he absolve of all blame here?
Because you are being obtuse on purpose.
Do you check the torque on every nut and bolt on your vehicle after you get it back from the mechanic?
Because you are being obtuse on purpose.
Are you saying that when someone puts a deadly weapon in your hands, you are instantly absolved of all responsibility for it because it's someone else's responsibility? Oh, they didn't TELL me the knife was sharp.
That's deliberately and painfully obtuse.
That’s literally an armorer’s job description.
... okay, but at what point do you take some personal responsibility??? Blindly saying "it was the armor's job description" is fantastically silly.
Dealership sells me the car in working and safe condition, I take said car and drive it into a crowd of people. Dealer is guilty?
I'm not absolving the armorer at all. She has a PILE of cupability here. But to absolve the actor of all responsibility and fault is ridiciulously misguided.
That example is a perfect example of why you don’t know what you are talking about.
I notice you didn't actually respond, just pulled out some classic logical fallacy.
I'm not absolving the armorer here.
You don't like the cars vs guns analogy, fine. I was just making it relatable to righties.
If you put something in my hands that is capable of killing a person, I'm going to be 100% sure of how not to kill a person with this thing.
Maybe it's a firework. The armorer has told me that when I light it, I have exactly 5 seconds to ditch it so I don't hurt anybody. The armorer is fully culpable here when the firework goes off in 1 second and blows off my hand. I am culpable when I take said firework, and throw it into the unsuspecting crowd. We are both culpable when the firework goes off early AND is tossed into the unsuspecting crowd.
This is like picking up a car after a tire shop puts on its winters and on the way home a tire falls off and kills someone.
Is it your fault for not checking that it was torqued right?