• nxfsi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    You don’t need to be an expert, just the basics in safe use of dangerous items that you are currently using.

    If you kill someone by accident because the armorer missed something obvious, you certainly aren’t responsible in any way but you still killed someone in a way that is easily preventable. Always check stuff yourself.

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      Wait, so you’re saying a novice should double check after the armorer clears it?

      Should the armorer clear it again after the novice checks it just to make sure they haven’t changed anything?

      Then I guess the novice should check it again to make sure it’s safe after the expert double checks it, right?

      • Moohamin12@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        You are being obtuse on purpose.

        You check clear when you get handed a weapon. That’s it.

        Once you are done and hand it back, they do the same. You personally have to be sure the weapon in your hand is cleared. Personally.

        • CapraObscura@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You know nothing about how firearms safety is handled on movie sets. You’re acting like your actions at the range are the same.

          They are absolutely not.

          First and foremost, no actor is EVER responsible for the safety of a firearm. End of story. That is the armorer’s job, and nobody else’s. No actor should ever be handed a firearm in any condition other than safe for the situation. If they’re standing around with a gun on their hip in a far-off shot, the firearm is a resin or foam replica. Always. If they’re handling a firearm up close and not firing it, it will be a non-firing replica. Always. If they are firing it the armorer will load the firearm, rack/cock it, and place it directly into the actor’s hands. The scene will be shot. The armorer then immediately takes the firearms away from all actors involved.

          At no point should the actor EVER be responsible for firearms safety. That is not their job. It is the armorer’s job to ensure that the actor cannot, either willfully or through ignorance, harm anyone else. These industry standards have been developed and utilized over a period of decades.

          In all of the movies that use firearms, how many deaths or injuries have you heard of?

          • Moohamin12@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            The comments and votes here baffle me.

            One step. That’s it.

            One step by actors being paid presumably millions. That’s all they need to do. All the steps you mentioned above can and should stay. But an actor can’t take 5 mins out of their oh so busy lives to learn to check clear a weapon? How is more safety a problem? What is wrong with people who disagree on that?

            Industry standards change throughout. Just because something worked before doesn’t mean it always will. Exhibit A is the man who died. Or is his life a statistical anamoly and within acceptable error? Do we wait for more people to die then?

            Does an actor blindly get behind a car and drive not caring if he runs anyone over because it’s the set director’s job to clear the path? Is he absolve of all blame here?

            • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

              Because you are being obtuse on purpose.

              Do you check the torque on every nut and bolt on your vehicle after you get it back from the mechanic?

              • kroy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                11 months ago

                Because you are being obtuse on purpose.

                Are you saying that when someone puts a deadly weapon in your hands, you are instantly absolved of all responsibility for it because it’s someone else’s responsibility? Oh, they didn’t TELL me the knife was sharp.

                That’s deliberately and painfully obtuse.

                  • kroy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    … okay, but at what point do you take some personal responsibility??? Blindly saying “it was the armor’s job description” is fantastically silly.

                    Dealership sells me the car in working and safe condition, I take said car and drive it into a crowd of people. Dealer is guilty?

                    I’m not absolving the armorer at all. She has a PILE of cupability here. But to absolve the actor of all responsibility and fault is ridiciulously misguided.

        • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          If there are dummies in it, the typical check is that you take the bullet and shake it because ball bearings are put in them that rattle.

          Once the actor re-loads it, they (and their insurance company) becomes liable. They probably aren’t an expert.

          Maybe things aren’t as black and white as you think they are, and maybe actors double checking the experts would lead to more incidents instead of less.