12 minutes ago, Ron Attwood said:

the BBC doesn't always tell the truth

Gasp!!

18 minutes ago, Ron Attwood said:

the BBC doesn't always tell the truth next. 

I don't think that they intentionally lie but as with all news media, there is always an agendum.
It is perfectly possible to tell the exact truth but to then leave out the points that do not support
the agendum that drives the story.
I miss the days when the news reader read the news and left the viewer or listener to make their
own mind up about the story.
I deplore the current practice of endless comment from those in whose opinion I have no interest,
followed by the endless comments subsequently being reported as news.

9 hours ago, Tim_Capps said:

Does anyone know how it would be taken if an actor made it a point to double-check a weapon cleared by the people responsible every time he picked it up?

I imagine the actor would be responsible for the safe keeping of the gun while it is in his possession.

I wonder, what is the procedure when a gun has to be reloaded in the middle of a shoot?

4 minutes ago, Reader said:

I deplore the current practice of endless comment from those in whose opinion I have no interest,
followed by the endless comments subsequently being reported as news.

That's a whole, separate topic but I must say that the practice of having guests with opposing views having to debate in a very limited time and  which inevitably end up in shouting matches, is a complete waste of time. It seems to be encouraged for dramatic effect.

Anyway, this looks more and more like a cluster, with different people handling guns and--I figured this would come up:--procedures were changed due to COVID.

Since this is becoming a gun thread in general, apparently, I have it on the highest authority that the State's Attorney of Cook County, Kim Foxx, declined to prosecute gang members involved in a shootout on the novel legal theory of "mutual combat." You see, if you are involved a gunfight in Chicago, it's apparently not against the law because... perhaps mutual self-defense, or consent, or... the legal mind boggles. Apparently Kim Foxx does not have one, though. My survival strategy includes avoiding Chicago lest I become an innocent bystander between mutual combatants. Seen everything I wanted to see there anyway. Local mopes I can deal with (and would have to, since rats would be gnawing my mortal remains by the time law enforcement made it out here).

8 hours ago, birdguy said:

When you have in your hand the potential to kill or maim someone the onus is on YOU to verify the gun is safe.

The rule seems to say that the onus is on the armorer to give the gun directly to the actor and show the actor that the gun is safe, i.e., show him that there are no rounds in the gun or, if it is required to be loaded with blanks, that the rounds are blanks and not live rounds, and show him that the barrel is clear, etc.

Maybe the onus is on the actor not to accept a gun from anyone other than the armorer.

I have to say this all based on one actor receiving one gun. I don't know how it would work in a battle scene involving hundreds of actors with guns.

Also, I was hoping someone would comment on what insurance company requirements are for movies involving gun battles

9 hours ago, Tim_Capps said:

An inexperienced armorer on only her second movie, who said herself she wasn't sure she was ready for the one before this

I wonder how one becomes an armorer. There must be some sort of test of suitability, knowledge and expertise in order to gain a licence. Then what happens? Is there a training period alongside an experienced armorer or are you on your own? 

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Half of US gun owners keep their guns in a proper safe. I'm just wondering why you don't Noel as its regarded as the right thing to do? 

For a couple of reasons Martin.

I don't have children in the house anymore.

It's a house gun for protection against intruders.  There have been home invasions in my neighborhood.  I can't tell someone who breaks into my house to wait while I open a safe to get my gun.

And I did have occasion to get it out once until the police arrived.  But I was never in a position of having to shoot someone.  After the incident was over I removed the magazine and unchambered the round that was in the receiver.

Noel

I'm having trouble understanding the attitude that some of you seem to have that's it's OK if you shoot and kill someone on a movie set.  It's not your fault.  Its the armorers fault.  When it is so simple and takes les than a minute to verify a gun is safe.

If the procedure doesn't include the shooter himself/herself visibly verifying the gun is safe then the procedure is wrong.  Even a filming running behind schedule can spare a minute to protect a life.

Noel

2 hours ago, psolk said:

I live just outside NYC, don't feel I "HAVE" to keep a gun in my house by any means.  Do you think every American thinks they NEED a gun?   I'm 47, never had an incident where I felt I needed a firearm. The vast majority of Americans will live their entire life without the need for a firearm.  It's sadly a case of the British press being obsessed with what happens in the US and cherry picking their stories.  Especially BBC. The perception of the US portrayed by British media compared to the reality is actually quite amusing.  

 

 

I'm sure Chris was referring to certain regions, and in response to the forum member who commented on his particular situation in the US where he feels he has to have a gun. The point Chris is making is that nobody in any region of the UK feels that way. I don't think we in the UK think that EVERBODY is in fear of being shot and needs a gun. We are aware that its some regions where they might. We are alos aware of the statistics though and the large number of deaths and injuries.

 

Quote

At least over there you only have machete wielding moped riding thieves attacking cyclists while politicians get stabbed and killed...  What's that about glass houses and stone throwing? 

 

Except we don't. as you say, impressions from the media can be misleading. We get spikes in knife crime but it pales in comparison to the per capita deaths in the US as a result of guns. 

10 hours ago, Penzoil3 said:

Umm, either one. The braking system does take a little longer, but it's not rocket science either. That's what the Mark One eyeball is for.

You're right Sue.  But checking the brakes is a bit more time consuming.  For me it means getting into the car, Starting the engine, backing out of he carport and stepping on the brake pedal.

Noel

23 minutes ago, birdguy said:

For a couple of reasons Martin.

I don't have children in the house anymore.

It's a house gun for protection against intruders.  There have been home invasions in my neighborhood.  I can't tell someone who breaks into my house to wait while I open a safe to get my gun.

And I did have occasion to get it out once until the police arrived.  But I was never in a position of having to shoot someone.  After the incident was over I removed the magazine and unchambered the round that was in the receiver.

Noel

 

 

You are telling me its not even in a locked draw!!! 😯

Sorry Noel, don't want to be rude, but I have to say, it seems ironic that you would berate some of us for not having the gun safety knowledge you had when you were 14, and tell us how thoroughly you check your weapon, but then you shove a deadly weapon in a drawer under your bed. It disturbs me greatly.

You may not have children in your house, but the point of a gun safe is that if another person breaks into your home while you aren't there (and it could be kids) they could get there hands on the deadly weapon under your bed and injure themselves, go on a shooting spree in your town, or if criminals use it to kill others.

As for needing the weapon quickly... a simple combination can be entered in seconds. 

 

Quote

 

"Household gun ownership can increase the risk of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings in the home, but practicing safe storage for all guns reduces these risks," she said.

 

By comparison, gun owners who reported a gun training course or family discussions as factors that influence their storage practices were more likely to practice what the study defined as safe storage.

 

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-02-22/majority-of-us-gun-owners-dont-safely-store-weapons-study-says

 

I seriously think you should get a proper gun safe Noel. I really do. 

Edited October 25, 20214 yr by martin-w

24 minutes ago, birdguy said:

I'm having trouble understanding the attitude that some of you seem to have that's it's OK if you shoot and kill someone on a movie set.  It's not your fault.  Its the armorers fault.  When it is so simple and takes les than a minute to verify a gun is safe.

 

Who's fault is it then if a person breaks into your house while you aren't there, gets the gun under your bed in a drawer (rather than a gun safe) and kills someone in your town with it? 

 

Get a gun safe Noel. They have them now where you can access them super fast with a simple finger scan. 

Edited October 25, 20214 yr by martin-w

6 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Get a gun safe Noel. They have them now where you can access them super fast with a simple finger scan. 

So, a gun safe that fits under the bed would be the perfect solution.

26 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

I'm sure Chris was referring to certain regions, and in response to the forum member who commented on his particular situation in the US where he feels he has to have a gun. The point Chris is making is that nobody in any region of the UK feels that way. I don't think we in the UK think that EVERBODY is in fear of being shot and needs a gun. We are aware that its some regions where they might. We are alos aware of the statistics though and the large number of deaths and injuries.

 

 

Except we don't. as you say, impressions from the media can be misleading. We get spikes in knife crime but it pales in comparison to the per capita deaths in the US as a result of guns. 

So a professional cyclist didn't have that exact thing happen to him and it hasn't been happening to cyclists in London?  And a politician wasn't just stabbed and killed?  Yes, your per capita numbers are lower but to act like no one lives in fear over there because they don't need a gun is a false comparison.

The days of no one being concerned about violent crimes in the UK are long gone sadly.    My family in Leeds say things have never been worse and that there are absolutely areas they flat out avoid now but sure, nobody in any region feels they need to have a gun.  Maybe because they don't have a choice in the matter.  

How all of this relates to what happened on this particular movie set is beyond me but I do find there is an odd focus in the UK with what happens in the US and the gun conversation always offers lots of opinions from overseas.  

Sadly our news seems to only care about the "Royals" when it comes to your side of the pond LOL.