AR-15 stands for assault rifle 15

Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
It's dishonest to include suicide and to exclude murder by totalitarian government when making a case to limit anyone's right to self defense.
View attachment 5181271
Click to expand...
NONE of the statistics include military weapons or deaths...that is a whole separate issue with very little to do with private citizens...the only corollary i see is that civilians can get a lot of military grade hardware.
oh, the Alec Baldwin thing? not funny, never was, never will be...matter of fact, i'm pushing the theory that trump set him up for dissing him on SNL...just the type of thing trump would do
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
NONE of the statistics include military weapons or deaths...that is a whole separate issue with very little to do with private citizens...the only corollary i see is that civilians can get a lot of military grade hardware.
oh, the Alec Baldwin thing? not funny, never was, never will be...matter of fact, i'm pushing the theory that trump set him up for dissing him on SNL...just the type of thing trump would do
Click to expand...
The military doesn't have any firearms, they simply buy from the same pool of common, in use firearms we do and then spec them out above and beyond what we are allowed to. Or they spec them for the trials.

The M17 is just a Sig P320.
The M4 is just FN's mil-spec AR-15 style sporting rifle with select fire for full auto.

The bears double barrel shotgun if 12ga can put -1 9mm down in the bullseye faster than the sigP320 can mag dump.

*edit

And fuck Alec Baldwin.

Most 4 year olds know not to point a nerf gun at anyone unloaded.

Maybe he should have had proper training like Mr. Reeves at an actual instruction academy instead of spewing his bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
NONE of the statistics include military weapons or deaths...that is a whole separate issue with very little to do with private citizens...the only corollary i see is that civilians can get a lot of military grade hardware.
oh, the Alec Baldwin thing? not funny, never was, never will be...matter of fact, i'm pushing the theory that trump set him up for dissing him on SNL...just the type of thing trump would do
Click to expand...
1660646661710.png
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
And fuck Alec Baldwin.

Most 4 year olds know not to point a nerf gun at anyone unloaded.

Maybe he should have had proper training like Mr. Reeves at an actual instruction academy instead of spewing his bullshit.
Click to expand...
Remember, it is the movies. You want the audience to believe the story. I recall seeing one movie where this tough dame is holding a desert eagle and whipping it back and forth threatening people. There was no way it weighed the same as a real eagle, it was a plastic replica. Yes, you do not point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot. Unless you are making a movie. But in that case there is one person on the set to validate the gun is not loaded with real ammunition. Obviously the person did not do their job. No different than an explosion (we all love our explosions) and car crashes. The effects can be lethal, it is up to the effects crew to ensure the actions are safe.
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
printer said:
Remember, it is the movies. You want the audience to believe the story. I recall seeing one movie where this tough dame is holding a desert eagle and whipping it back and forth threatening people. There was no way it weighed the same as a real eagle, it was a plastic replica. Yes, you do not point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot. Unless you are making a movie. But in that case there is one person on the set to validate the gun is not loaded with real ammunition. Obviously the person did not do their job. No different than an explosion (we all love our explosions) and car crashes. The effects can be lethal, it is up to the effects crew to ensure the actions are safe.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The Armorer on set is responsible but the one holding the gun is ultimately responsible. Anyone else who is responsible is merely an added layer of protection. This was a Pietta, an actual gun not a movie prop.

Edit:

I don't find the pyrotechnics comparison comparable unless the actors are holding the detonator.
 
Last edited:
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
I disagree. The Armorer on set is responsible but the one holding the gun is ultimately responsible. Anyone else who is responsible is merely an added layer of protection. This was a Pietta, an actual gun not a movie prop.

Edit:

I don't find the pyrotechnics comparison comparable unless the actors are holding the detonator.
Click to expand...
It is the Armorer's job to load the guns and indicate that they are safe. It is the pyro people's job to ensure the actors are at a safe distance from the effect. I was working on a film with fake guns but we had squibs and blood packs on the actors. The pyro guy made sure there was a leather pad between the actor and the squib. The actors and the rest of the crew trust the people in charge of potentially dangerous actions that they are safe. The actors minds are on doing their job, not worrying about the electrician doing his job, the caterer doing his.

ActionianJacksonian said:
I'm sure there were others responsible for safety on set too. Including Baldwin who was a producer iirc?
Click to expand...
But that is why we hire people to do these jobs.
 
7CardBud

7CardBud

Well-Known Member
Isn't the Pietta a single action? I find it hard to believe that shooting someone would be just a negligent act. It would more likely consist of extreme recklessness and disregard for another's safety.

I would put heavy blame on the director as well. He should know the gun used was not a prop and should not let anyone handle it other than someone he had complete confidence in their firearm safety training.

Edit: I just thought about this. The armorer could have left it on a live cylinder, with the hammer cocked and ready to rock....but I highly doubt it.
 
A

ActionianJacksonian

Well-Known Member
printer said:
It is the Armorer's job to load the guns and indicate that they are safe. It is the pyro people's job to ensure the actors are at a safe distance from the effect. I was working on a film with fake guns but we had squibs and blood packs on the actors. The pyro guy made sure there was a leather pad between the actor and the squib. The actors and the rest of the crew trust the people in charge of potentially dangerous actions that they are safe. The actors minds are on doing their job, not worrying about the electrician doing his job, the caterer doing his.



But that is why we hire people to do these jobs.
Click to expand...
Again, if you drive a truck, and your companies mechanic certifies it as safe, it's still your job as the driver to inspect it again to make sure.

The firearm should have been checked for clear by the end user, it's can be others job to do that as well but it doesn't detract from the end users responsibility.

A negligent discharge from any average results in severe penalties, even if there are no injuries. This is a clear case of negligence by the end user, and the others you mention which happens also to be the end user as well in capacity as producer and actor who pulled the trigger without checking for clear.
 
printer

printer

Well-Known Member
ActionianJacksonian said:
Again, if you drive a truck, and your companies mechanic certifies it as safe, it's still your job as the driver to inspect it again to make sure.

The firearm should have been checked for clear by the end user, it's can be others job to do that as well but it doesn't detract from the end users responsibility.

A negligent discharge from any average results in severe penalties, even if there are no injuries. This is a clear case of negligence by the end user, and the others you mention which happens also to be the end user as well in capacity as producer and actor who pulled the trigger without checking for clear.
Click to expand...
So it is up to the actor to check the lighting he is under, that they are well secured? The whole point of having an armourer is to offload the responsibility and risk from the actor. If you do not like it that is fine. But the armourer I talked to said that he was hired to provide just that function. I have my license to use firearms, it would not bother me for an actor to go through a two day course. But dambed if I would trust an actor to ensure my safety with him pointing a gun at me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top