What are the issues with using real weapons on set?

S

stef

I will assume all responses come with the "I'm not responsible for your idiocy or accidents, and I don't advocate weapons on set" disclaimer. I would certainly rather use action replica guns, but those replicas are not that cheap (and the ones that are cheap, look cheap).

I realize that things like knives you have to be ultra-careful with, especially if the talent starts getting excited. I've always considered knives much more dangerous to video than guns, since guns can be turned into a simple chunk of metal (basically a rock), while knives always remain dangerous in range of other talent. I have used a real knife on set and we were extremely careful, making sure any stabbing action done was out of frame while the actor had an empty hand.

I'm asking how many people have used real weapons (unloaded and made as safe as possible) on set, and anything inobvious I might need to worry about, besides obvious issues like some idiot bringing ammo.

What about things like removing the firing pin, or somehow occluding the chamber (like a ball of gaffer tape)? Or is it just a horrible idea at pretty much all times?

(Some background: firearms are completely legal where I live with no issues, and I'm well-trained in use, breakdown, and maintenance. I'm worried about safety, as I have a HUGE aversion to allowing anyone to point even an unloaded firearm at someone else without serious protection in place.)
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
yes i live in a country where it is very hard to own a gun.

i also live in a country with a noticeable lack of school shootings by disgruntled teenagers.

well a real gun on set certainly does not make it any safer.

when it comes to safety i prefer to err on the side of caution.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alleged school shootings are not a symptom of firearms, they're a symptom of overmedication. EVERY mass-shooting suspect reported over the past several years (probably longer) was prescribed psychotropic drugs. But this conversation is going nowhere.

Agree to disagree.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I find some of the arguments in this thread bizarre!

Will Vincent said:
Alleged school shootings are not a symptom of firearms, they're a symptom of overmedication. EVERY mass-shooting suspect reported over the past several years (probably longer) was prescribed psychotropic drugs.
Click to expand...

You cannot legislate or enforce legislation for everyone's state of mind for every hour of their entire lives. Regardless of medication or any other reasons, how many mass-shootings (or any shootings) could there be if no one owned any firearms?

Having a cop on set in the US means having to have a gun on set because cops in the US have to be armed to combat everyone else who has guns, it's a vicious circle. In the UK (and some other countries) having a cop on set does NOT mean you have a gun on set because British cops do not carry firearms (because they don't need to), which is a rather pleasant circle as opposed to a vicious circle! The simple fact is, there are more accidental shooting deaths in the US than there are accidental and deliberate shooting deaths combined in say the UK (per capita).

At the end of the day, is a set with a skilsaw and a real gun safer than the exact same set but without the real gun? The answer to this question seems blatantly obvious to me. If there's anyway to avoid having something on set which is specifically designed to kill people, then avoid it! If you absolutely cannot avoid it, get the best professionals available to minimise the risk.

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AudioPostExpert said:
The answer to this question seems blatantly obvious to me.
Click to expand...
Of course it seems blatantly obvious to you, because you have your beliefs that differ from others. That doesn't necessarily make you correct. :)

But, yes absolutely this:
AudioPostExpert said:
If you absolutely cannot avoid it, get the best professionals available to minimise the risk.
Click to expand...


As for outlawing guns.. there will always be some jackass who wants to wreak havoc on people. I am fairly certain it's near impossible for the general populous to get guns in China, but look at the recent mass stabbings there...

Following the same train of thought to address that problem leads to this... which is not a solution.
 

Attachments

  • zO2U2Ux.jpg
    zO2U2Ux.jpg
    90.5 KB · Views: 86
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent said:
Of course it seems blatantly obvious to you, because you have your beliefs that differ from others. That doesn't necessarily make you correct. :)
Click to expand...

You're being sarcastic, surely? The statement that I stand less chance of being accidentally shot on a set with no real guns than I do on a set with real guns is a matter of simple logic, not a matter of a personal belief.

Will Vincent said:
As for outlawing guns.. there will always be some jackass who wants to wreak havoc on people.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so why give them access to tools which are designed for no other purpose than to kill numbers of people quickly and easily?

Will Vincent said:
Following the same train of thought to address that problem leads to this...
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't, that's an illogical, extremist argument! What you're saying is that if the US bans civilian gun ownership you'll somehow all become Chinese? The main gun ownership laws came into effect in Britain in 1974 and as of yet there is no sign that Britain is becoming Chinese or becoming a communist/totalitarian state. Not only can we go and buy a pack of plastic knives in a supermarket (without ID) but we can do so safe in the certain knowledge that we won't get accidentally or deliberately shot! This seems to me to be the best of both worlds, rather than one extreme or the other. And, Britain isn't an isolated case, the same is true of Australia, New Zealand and a number of other countries who have to a large degree outlawed civilian gun ownership and have somehow managed to resist; becoming Chinese, the end of democracy or needing ID to purchase plastic knives! :)

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I am a firm believer that explosives are far, far more dangerous than firearms. And if you outlawed guns these mass murders would be MUCH more vicious and deadly.

Why don't you ask anyone who is been to iraq or Afghanistan. Which is more deadly, a rifle or an IED ?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Actually, that image is apparently from Australia. :) And no, nowhere did I say that I think disarming the US population would make it Chinese.

It absolutely would make us defenseless... most importantly defenseless against an ever encroaching/overreaching federal government.


This is a pointless discussion though. You will never understand or see things the same as someone in the US because you have been barred from exercising your right to defend yourself with deadly force if need be. And you've been fed plenty of propaganda about it your entire life.. That's fine, but continuing to argue the point would be the same as me trying to have a discussion about it with the douche that is Piers Morgan.. truly no offense intended, even though that is pretty offensive. :)

Anyway. Yes, a set with fake, or non firing weapons is inherently safer. But a set with well controlled real weapons, with a proper armorer and safety protocols in place is not inherently unsafe.

That's my entire point. I'm not going to continue arguing over any other portion of gun access, ownership, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
sfoster said:
1. I am a firm believer that explosives are far, far more dangerous than firearms. And,
2. if you outlawed guns these mass murders would be MUCH more vicious and deadly.
Click to expand...

1. Presumably that's why even the US makes it illegal for the public to own nuclear bombs?

2. In the UK the number of people deliberately killed by explosives is less today than it was when firearms were legal! There are fewer people killed per capita in the UK, either accidentally or on purpose, combining the figures for both explosive and firearm deaths than there are of just accidental shooting deaths in the US! To the best of my knowledge, none of the mature western democracies who have restricted or outlawed public ownership of firearms have seen any significant increase in the use of explosives by mass murderers. Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want but the evidence doesn't support your belief!

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent:
You will never understand or see things the same as someone in the US because you have been barred from exercising your right to defend yourself with deadly force if need be.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with being in the US or not; I'm American & I agree with everything AudioPostExpert has said. Do I think I can convince you? Absolutely not. But it's not about living in the US or not.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The GREATEST Killers Within Industrialized Nations

090214162746-large.jpg


Chicken-Burger-Fries-Drink.png


obama-smoking.jpg

(Not the guy, ding dongs. The cigarette. But Ding Dongs will also kill you.)
22a7088ac8d7d2db027e21bceace0d18



Airsoft pistols?

Not so many people.

5-airsoft-guns-25.jpg
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent said:
You will never understand or see things the same as someone in the US because you have been barred from exercising your right to defend yourself with deadly force if need be.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely NOT true! It is enshrined in British law that one may use "reasonable force" to defend oneself, one's property or to prevent a crime or injury to another person. Reasonable force includes deadly force if need be. I can't imagine where you've got the idea that we've somehow been banned from our right to defend ourselves?

Will Vincent said:
It absolutely would make us defenseless... most importantly defenseless against an ever encroaching/overreaching federal government.
Click to expand...

What, and you think with a Glock in your pocket you're defended against a federal government with APCs, tanks, stealth aircraft and smart bombs? I wonder who is the victim of propaganda here, or maybe we should call it marketing rather than propaganda? I don't have to wonder at it's consequences though, either in terms of the profits of US arms manufacturers/retailers or in terms of the 30,000 or so Americans a year who pay for it with their lives!

Will Vincent said:
You choose not to exercise your right, he has no choice.
Click to expand...

Absolutely I have a choice, that's the point of a modern mature democracy isn't it? That an unjust law or diktat can be overturned by the will of the people? There have been several instances of this, one of which I took part in 24 years ago. The eventual result was the downfall of the British Prime Minister and the very first proclamation of the new Prime Minister was to announce the abolishment of the new law against which we were protesting. Democracy in action and not one of the 200,000 of us had any firearms!! Except for a few extremists (the last people you'd want to have guns anyway!) there as never been any demonstrations against the firearm laws, they have the overwhelming support of the public because the laws save many lives and have no downside. By supporting rather demonstrating against the gun laws I am exercising my right not to get shot!

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AudioPostExpert said:
What, and you think with a Glock in your pocket you're defended against a federal government with APCs, tanks, stealth aircraft and smart bombs?
Click to expand...
All of that modern weaponry is no match for insurgencies, which is precisely why the war in Vietnam failed, why every force that's attempted to occupy Afghanistan fails, etc.

And I'm not a fan of glock, so I wouldn't have one in my pocket anyway -- even if that were the proper place to keep one, which it's not.

Furthermore, America is a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy.

But this is all WAAAAY off topic, the topic has been addressed. Moving on.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AudioPostExpert said:
This is absolutely NOT true! It is enshrined in British law that one may use "reasonable force" to defend oneself, one's property or to prevent a crime or injury to another person. Reasonable force includes deadly force if need be. I can't imagine where you've got the idea that we've somehow been banned from our right to defend ourselves?
Click to expand...

'We' have not been banned from our right to defend ourselves but plenty of people in the UK have.

I'm a 17 stone ex-rugby player with missing teeth and a nineteen inch neck. I played for the same team as Lomu and used to hit like a train. What my partially disabled, elderly, ten stone father can do to defend himself from a violent criminal is another thing.

Or my ex-wife who had operations to put her back together after being violently mugged on the streets of London; my ex-girlfriend who was beaten and tied up after an intruder broke in; my elderly father, who was left for dead on the streets of London, bleeding from a head wound (in a very nice area) who still walks with a limp; or a schoolfriend of mine who was stabbed through the temple with a sharpened screwdriver... from someone who was out on bail for guess what... attempted murder with a sharpened screwdriver.

I stepped in during a fight the other day in a very good area, just North of Wandsworth bridge. A lovely, 250lb gorilla of a chap was pursuing some woman (she was running away) and pushed her in front of a car. He then punched her in the face until she was unconscious. By the time I had managed to run down the pavement and cross the road to confront him (plus two cyclists had stopped to stop him) and eventually the police etc... arrived, the damage had been done. I mean, why arrest someone after they've just pushed someone in front of a car and beaten them to a pulp? Why couldn't she have been armed and prevented this?

Why should the elderly, weak and infirm have to suffer violence? If any of the personal examples I have given had a handgun, the violence would have been prevented. Frankly, I don't need a gun - just the size of me is enough of a deterrent and I've broken enough bones on the rugby pitch - mine and other peoples' to know how to break someone in two. However, the vast majority of the population do not have the means to defend themselves from violent criminals. They need something - if not guns, then tazers - something, anything. Taking away the means to defend themselves is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Whoah, APE lives in the UK? That's all I've really gotten out of this conversation. How did it turn political?

This is simple logic. Not using a real gun is safer than using a real gun. Politics have no bearing on this FACT.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top