Gun Shots

[directorik]

I don't want to derail this thread and descend into politics but the constitution of the US and the influence of lobbying groups like the NRA seems to lead many in the US to feel it's their right and "normal" to own firearms.

My questions were not politically driven. I was simply curious about the
import laws.

However...

It isn't the NRA or any lobbying groups that seems to lead many in the
US to feel it's their right and "normal" to own firearms. What leads many
in the US to feel it's their right and "normal" to own firearms is our
Constitution.

 

[rayw]

Right so is there anywhere that we as indie film makes can get good sounding gun sounds?

Find them or buy them off the internet.
http://soundbible.com/suggest.php?q=gun&x=0&y=0

I like the Barreta one: http://soundbible.com/1906-Barreta-M9.html

If you wanna do it right or best you'll end up mixing several sounds together to "build" a gun shot for maximum audience appeal.

If you just don't care or it just doesn't matter you can just paste one in as is.

But you really DON'T want to use an actual DIY-recorded gunshot, which frankly sounds just like an insignificant "crack!", er... "crack."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6FZxzkPjIg#t=150

 

[AudioPostExpert]

APE - You have to understand that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, "The Right To Bear Arms," stems from a little disagreement we call the Revolutionary War and from our frontier heritage, the western expansion.

Yes, I realise what the Second Amendment is, and why it was needed but as far as I remember from my school days, The 13 Colonies won the War of Independence and it was all done and dusted over 200 years ago. Why do you need "The Right to Bare Arms" now? Having asked this question though, one thing's for sure, I wouldn't dream of mentioning taxing tea anywhere near an armed American!

I'm itching to respond to your concept of a "great deterrent" but this isn't the place.

My questions were not politically driven. I was simply curious about the import laws.

I realise that, and my response came across as more political than I really intended. I only meant to point out that the American attitude to gun ownership could make it quite difficult for an American to appreciate and make the appropriate allowances for the laws and attitudes of many other countries towards gun (or replica) ownership/use. The first ports of call would be a local gun club and the regional police department, a couple of months or so should be allowed for bureaucracy, as well as the possibility of ultimately being refused the required permissions/licences.

Right so is there anywhere that we as indie film makes can get good sounding gun sounds?

You might be lucky enough to find exactly what you want in one of the free sound libraries, freesound.org or one of the others, but most likely you will have to create one yourself by layering up various different gun (and even other impact/explosion) SFX and then EQ'ing and adding delay to the result to suit your visual location. This same process is used in big budget films too, except they'll usually record their own bespoke sounds to layer.

G

 

[rayw]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We're all surprised ya'll can't have guns.
Ya'll r all surprised we can or how easy it is.

Whatever.
Get over it.

 

[directorik]

I realise that, and my response came across as more political than I really intended. I only meant to point out that the American attitude to gun ownership could make it quite difficult for an American to appreciate and make the appropriate allowances for the laws and attitudes of many other countries towards gun (or replica) ownership/use.

I'm sorry that's what you took from my questions.

I honestly was not making an "American" assumption or attitude. I was
honestly and sincerely curious about the laws regarding prop weapons
be imported. No other agenda at all.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Yes, I realise what the Second Amendment is, and why it was needed but as far as I remember from my school days, The 13 Colonies won the War of Independence and it was all done and dusted over 200 years ago. Why do you need "The Right to Bare Arms" now?

Because there is always the possibility we will have to overthrow a despotic government again. As you've studied your history I'm sure that you remember that, when they gained power, one of the first things both the Russian Communists and the Nazis did was to take away gun rights from their populations. This is a common theme throughout history; the first things despots do is restrict their populations ability to defend themselves.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Right so is there anywhere that we as indie film makes can get good sounding gun sounds?

http://triune-store.myshopify.com/collections/sound-effects

 

[rayw]

http://sound.stackexchange.com/questions/1284/how-do-you-create-the-deadliest-sounding-gunshots

 

[Alcove Audio]

The Boom Sound Effects Libraries are pretty good, recorded at 96kHz/24bit, and many of the libraries can be purchased as a bundle, construction kit or designed. The Guns bundle contains both the construction kit and designed sound sets. The designed set is "ready-to-use" premixed elements; the construction kit is a 12-channel multitrack recording of each shot for 6 pistols, 7 rifles, 4 shotguns.

 

[FantasyFilmProductions]

cool. thanks all for those links

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I honestly was not making an "American" assumption or attitude. I was
honestly and sincerely curious about the laws regarding prop weapons be imported. No other agenda at all.

I realise you have no agenda and were not making a political statement, honestly! While I obviously do have views on the subject, in my replies to you I was not specifically trying to push those views or being deliberately derogatory about the generalised American views on gun ownership. I was trying to explain (obviously unsuccessfully!) that regardless of my personal judgement of whether it's right or wrong and regardless of why the situation is as it is, there is a generalised American view of gun ownership which is very significantly different to that in many other countries. I bought this issue up simply because although I fully accept your questions were not politically motivated, they do demonstrate "an American assumption". My background is as a British citizen and the British assumption is that it is simply illegal to import firearms (real or replica), period. For example, for the 2012 London Olympics the British government had to pass a temporary dispensation law to make it possible for the shooting events to take place, for the competitors to import their guns and train in Britain. However, British olympians still had to do all their training in Switzerland as it was still illegal for them to train in England. To have say a pistol in one's possession carries a minimum 5 year sentence and to apply to legally own a pistol or rifle is an horrendous procedure, you need a very specific and specialist reason to apply for a licence in the first place, the process can take a year or more and includes a personal investigation by Special Branch, an elite department of the police force (The Flying Squad or as it's known colloquially "The Sweeney" is part of Special Branch). In practise, it's virtually impossible for a member of the public to import or privately own most types of firearms.

Regardless of how difficult/impossible it is to own or possess a firearm in Britain, having or using a firearm (or replica) on-set legally requires the employment of a licensed Film Armourer. It requires years of training to become an Armourer, then a few more to train as a Film Armourer and if you're one of the lucky few, another year or two to get both the regional police and central government to issue a Section 5 Firearms Certificate and voilà, you're a Film Armourer! Due to the difficulty of becoming one, licensed Film Armourers are about as common as hen's teeth and they are legally obligated to produce written script analysis, risk assessment reports, codes of practise bespoke for each production, liaise with local police forces and comply with numerous other legal requirements. Needless to say, all this costs a packet and is well beyond the means of the average lo/no budget filmmaker. You asked specifically about Australia for which I don't have the exact details but I believe a Licensed Film Armourer is also a legal requirement there, although I doubt it's quite as difficult to become a licensed Film Armourer in Australia as it is in Britain or that the legal obligations are quite so stringent. BTW, I spent about an hour or so on-set chatting with a licensed Film Armourer a few years ago (which is where I got all this info from) and that was the only time in my life I've seen firearms up close (I wasn't allowed to actually touch any of them though, as I wasn't listed in the reports/paperwork).

Because there is always the possibility we will have to overthrow a despotic government again.

Really? I can't think of a country less likely than the USA to be ruled by a communist/fascist/despotic government, considering it's fervent advocacy of democracy. I understand this scenario did exist in the US 200 years ago, it has also existed on several occasions in Britain, but I'd like to believe that our society and method of governance has matured and evolved since then, to the point where the worst case scenarios likely today require no more than massed peaceful demonstrations. What is the likelihood of some hypothetical scenario existing in the US today which would require the uprising of an armed civilian population? AND, is it worth the tens of thousands of lives it costs annually to protect against this extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario?

G

 

[rayw]

What is the likelihood of some hypothetical scenario existing in the US today which would require the uprising of an armed civilian population?

Not much - as long as the prospect of a foreign or domestic attempt would meet pervasive armed resistance.

AND, is it worth the tens of thousands of lives it costs annually to protect against this extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_in_the_United_States

Smoking tobacco			435,000	18.1%	
Being overweight and obesity	111,909	4.6%
Alcohol				85,000	3.5%	
Infectious diseases		75,000	3.1%	
Toxic agents including toxins, particulates and radon		55,000	2.3%	
Preventable medical errors in hospitals		44,000 to 98,000
Traffic collisions		43,000	1.8%	
Firearms deaths			31,940	1.3%	
	Suicide: 19,766 
	Homicide: 11,101 
	Accidents: 852 
	Unknown: 822

McDonald's and Krispy Kreme donuts kill more Americans than Smith & Wesson and Colt combined. Almost THREE TIMES as many!
But you don't hear anyone going "Kill the double-cheeseburgers and fries! Ditch the donuts! Destroy all X-Boxes!"
And Marboro trumps them all. Still.

There's "fun" stuff to get all excited over - and then there's practical stuff.

 

[rayw]

More fun stats: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/news/united-kingdom-vs-united-states-top-10-causes-of-death

Nice: http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-rankings-total-deaths

Pretty to look at, only somewhat useful: http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010#_

"We may worry about murders or swine flu, but the big killers of heart disease and cancer are much more significant in terms of public health."​

Much better: http://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...tistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010#cause

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Not much - as long as the prospect of a foreign or domestic attempt would meet pervasive armed resistance.

I agree entirely, which is why an extremely well armed and disciplined military is useful but why does the civilian population need to be armed?

There's "fun" stuff to get all excited over - and then there's practical stuff.

So your argument is that tens of thousands of deaths per year are essentially insignificant and that yes, these numbers of deaths are worth it to protect against an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario?

G

 

[rayw]

I agree entirely, which is why an extremely well armed and disciplined military is useful but why does the civilian population need to be armed?

To disincentivize any notion of a domestic military control.
People are crazy, even smart people. Evan smart people in control of governments and militaries.
It's the MAD scenario.
All game play and math.
With this environment it forces anyone with the means to look elsewhere to vent their urges.
Trying to change the math sets off all sorts of alarms.

So your argument is that tens of thousands of deaths per year are essentially insignificant and that yes, these numbers of deaths are worth it to protect against an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario?

Yup.
https://www.census.gov/popclock/
I don't honestly see how having more people around is a greater benefit anyway, to the planet or even to humanity.

"Oh, well by all means, let's squirt out as many people as possible and keep them all alive for a century or more if we possibly can.
That'll be a good thing!"

Yeah.
That'll turn out fine.

Fun chart, report page 13: https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

But then we start getting way off out into the bushes about Earth's carrying capacity, technology and science thresholds vs. diminishing returns, and Lord knows what else.
(And we're already waaaaaaay off topic. )

I really have a hard time getting too excited over 30-40 thousand people a year dying of Cause H when 40-50 thousand a year are dying of Cause G, 50-100 thousand of Cause F, 50-60 thousand of Cause E, 75-80 thousand of Cause D,... up to 430-450 thousand a year of Cause A.
No. By all means, let's all obsess over the titillating Cause H! Yeah! That makes sense!

Big fat whatever.
There's too d@mn many people.

Ya'll's grandchildren and great grandchildren etc. are all gonna suffer for this quixotic nobility of trying to keep everybody alive for-effing-ever. Dumb@sses. What were we thinking?

So, "Yes", tens of thousands of deaths per year are essentially insignificant because mathematically they are, and "Yes", these numbers of deaths are worth it to protect against an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario because it promotes a stable economic environment - which current and future generations are all going to suffer from increasingly as we fight more over resources rather than religious and political ideologies.

http://soundbible.com/2078-Gun-Battle-Sound.html

 

[directorik]

Regardless of how difficult/impossible it is to own or possess a firearm in Britain, having or using a firearm (or replica) on-set legally requires the employment of a licensed Film Armourer.

Seems this is what you should have said: on topic, clear,
helpful.

As soon as you post your personal political assumptions about all Americans
you open up issues that do not belong in this forum. Your wrong assumption
about my question comes from your political and personal views on the
subject and not from any understanding of me or my views.

My questions did not demonstrate "an American assumption" on gun ownership.
FantasyFilmProductions (from NZ) suggested mbg224 (from AUS) check out
Stage-Props-Blank-Guns. I know them, I have ordered from them, I have been
to their place in Louisiana - I know they cannot ship to Canada because of Canadian
law. So I asked about shipping props to NZ and AUS. My questions only demonstrate
my curiosity as a licensed armorer for movies in the States (IATSE local 44) about
laws in other countries regarding prop/replica guns. My questions had noting at all
to do with any "American assumption" on gun ownership.

Now this thread about props is a thread about gun ownership.

 

[rayw]

Now this thread about props is a thread about gun ownership.

I thought it was about worrying over motes in eyes instead of the beams.

... while the ship was on fire and sinking! HA!

 

[AudioPostExpert]

My questions did not demonstrate "an American assumption" on gun ownership.
FantasyFilmProductions (from NZ) suggested mbg224 (from AUS) check out
Stage-Props-Blank-Guns. I know them, I have ordered from them, I have been
to their place in Louisiana - I know they cannot ship to Canada because of Canadian
law. So I asked about shipping props to NZ and AUS. My questions only demonstrate
my curiosity as a licensed armorer for movies in the States (IATSE local 44) about
laws in other countries regarding prop/replica guns. My questions had noting at all
to do with any "American assumption" on gun ownership.

My apologies, but in my defence:
1. I did not know you are a licensed armourer yourself.
2. I was once at the receiving end of a rant by an American producer doing a project in the UK who was more than a little upset at our "nanny state" regarding the use of firearm replicas.
3. I wasn't referring to ALL Americans, just an averaged, generalised view. I've met some Americans far more vehemently opposed to the public owning firearms than me.
4. Firearm and replica firearm laws do vary quite considerably from country to country and Britain certainly has some of the strictest. For example, I specifically say Britain rather than the UK because firearm laws in Northern Ireland are not as strict as those in mainland Britain. Many/most "western" countries have some kind of relatively strict license requirement for gun ownership and in some countries that standard private ownership license is enough for them to import replicas and even to use them on-set (unsupervised). The "Section 5 FAC" (Firearms certificate) required for a Film Armourer in Britain is in fact a full Firearms Dealer certificate and therefore a British licensed Film Armourer can import firearms and replicas, although I should imagine there's more than a little bureaucracy involved! While a licensed Armourer is also required for filming with a firearm/replica in Australia, I don't know if only a licensed Armourer is allowed to import or own firearms/replicas or whether private individuals (filmmakers) can too. My assumption (based on being British!) is probably not but most likely it's more possible than in Britain and it's also very likely that the laws/regulations vary from state to state within Australia. All of which brings me back to my original advice, the need to contact a regional police department and maybe a regional gun club who would know from practical experience the feasibility of importing firearms/replicas in their particular state.

G

 

[directorik]

Apology accepted, Greg.

All I ask is that you do not use me or anything I say to start a political discussion.
Even if I wasn't a licensed armorer/pryotechnician I was asking about import laws
of prop/replica weapons – not gun ownership. Please do not project your issue with
another American producer onto me. Just because you were on the receiving end
of a rant from someone else does not mean I was going to rant. No preemptive
defense needed.

If I want to have a discussion (or even read) about American assumptions and the
opposition to gun ownership in any country I know where to go. Here I talk about
filmmaking.

Firearm and replica firearm laws do vary quite considerably from country to country and Britain certainly has some of the strictest.

I have worked in Britain so I understand their laws. The only time I worked in
Australia I was working as a camera operator so I don't know their import laws.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I was asking about import laws of prop/replica weapons – not gun ownership.

I realise that in some countries this might appear to be two different areas, two different questions and that I have appeared to deliberately derail the thread by going after the wrong one. However, that's not the case because in some/many countries it is one and the same question, as prop/replica and deactivated firearms are treated in law essentially the same as real firearms.

G