• Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      They’re not fake guns; they’re real guns with what was supposed to be fake ammo. Because the gun in question was a revolver, the ammo must also look real since you can see the tips of the bullets in the cylinder. Typically, there’s a hole in the side of the casing indicating that it’s a dummy round, but you can no longer see that once it’s been loaded into the gun.

        • sploosh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Whether or not you believe what you’re calling “gun culture,” the fact that the gun in question is a revolver is one of the most relevant facts of the case.

          A semi-automatic pistol, which is to say a single-hand firearm where the ammunition is fed up the handle into to back of the barrel, will not load the next round if you fire a blank. It relies on there being a bullet in the barrel to contain pressure long enough to push a mechanism that pops out the old bullet case and slides the next round into the chamber. In order for a semi-auto to use blanks, you have to modify it in such a way that you can no long fire live ammunition without destroying the gun.

          Revolvers do not need such modification. Revolvers have a cylinder with boreholes running through it that form the chambers for the rounds. Pulling the trigger or cocking the hammer rotates the cylinder to the chamber, no pressure from the last round needed. This means that idiots on film sets can grab a revolver intended as a prop, put real live ammo in and target shoot in between takes and eventually mix up live and dummy ammo, causing people to be killed.

          • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            This means that idiots on film sets can grab a revolver intended as a prop, put real live ammo in and target shoot in between takes and eventually mix up live and dummy ammo, causing people to be killed.

            I thought they were arguing that the gun that was supposed to come with fake ammo actually came with real ammo? To me it sounds like the gun supplier should be held liable?

            • sploosh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              The person who supplied the gun, the armorer, was held responsible. It was her job to make sure the guns were kept safe and she failed. She was found guilty already. Baldwin was on trial because statements he made to police regarding the incident were found to be inconsistent with the facts found through investigation, which were concerning enough to warrant a trial. The prosecution then fucked up so hard he can’t be retried.

              • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                I meant I thought the prop supplier should be held liable, since the article I read about it previously, had said that a box of ammo came from the prop supplier, Seth Kenney, and that it matched the ammo that was used that killed Hutchins, and that’s why I was thinking the prop supplier should be held liable.

                That was my understanding of it anyway.

                • sploosh@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  If that’s the case I agree. Bringing live ammo onto a movie set is a huge no-no, and if it was his round that killed the AD he certainly bears some responsibility.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because the gun in question was a revolver, the ammo must also look real

        I have seen so much bad science, like basic physics mistakes, in movies that that’s not really true. The average movie goer isn’t going to know what the difference between a fake and real revolver by sight.

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s not the point. If you’re swinging around a semi-automatic pistol with an empty magazine, nobody will know. However, with a revolver, you need to load it with real-looking bullets for close-up shots. Of course, at a distance, you can use lesser-quality prop guns.

          • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Or you can create, from scratch, purpose built guns with the same spec, but are made of materials(like aluminum) that the holder will know is fake from the moment they pick it up. For larger pieces, you could include a co2 mechanism to recreate recoil and include an LED to light up with a trigger pull for sfx people to use as a reference. Pretty sure some of these things already exist.

            And quite frankly, the audience doesn’t deserve a perfect recreation if it means putting people in harms way. There’s a thing call Suspension of Disbelief that seems to be in short supply these days. Never bring the CinemaSins guy to a traditional Japanese theater. The Kuroko stagehands would give him an hearth attack.

    • x4740N@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I was going to say there’s no way those fake rubber guns or toy guns can be dangerous but then I remembered a police officer could shoot someone especially in america