Double standard?

[bushidomosquito]

Just finished reading a locked thread about a photo someone came accross with many guns pointing at some guys head and all the comments about how stupid it was. This got me thinking, is there no room for exception here? This wasn't a bunch of drunk Bubba's sitting in the garage and playing dry fire commando's. It was photagraphy. Don't we all love to spout off about how guns are inanimate objects and should not be feared. How do we know that that guy didn't personally inspect every single one repeatedly before that photo was taken? I hear guns refered to as tools all the time and certianly wouldn't have a problem with someone pointing a cordless drill at my head if I took the bit out first. Why dosen't anyone complain about the hundreds of movies and TV shows made every year with guns pointed at faces and heads and every other part of the body? Are movie set armorers better qualified to check a gun than anyone else? And yes, they are real guns. Do you think gunsmiths and armorers can do their jobs effectly without pointing that muzzle at themselves? I'm all for following the safety rules but does it really help our cause to pretend that guns are sinister objects that can materialize and spit out a bullet at will?

 

[Playboypenguin]

You also have to think..."Is a carefully planned and staged photo any worse than a movie scene with guns pointed at actors?"

 

[easyG]

I thought the photos were a riot!

 

[CraigC]

Just because Hollyweird breaks the most important rule in firearms safety doesn't make it right. They have done enough damage without gunowners who should know better contributing to overall public stupidity.

 

[gvf]

And yes, they are real guns.

Movie and stage guns are not real in the sense they are operational - at least that's the normal way. The realistic looking "props" are strictly under the control of technicians with expertise in prop-guns - and under rules of all kinds including the 3 performance-unions: Actor's Equity, Screen Actors' Guild, and American Television and Radio Artists. If they are to simulate shots they are even more tightly controlled and carefully set-up by specialized technicians. What you're seeing on the screen/stage is a well-crafted illusion

 

[Playboypenguin]

Movie and stage guns are not real in the sense they are operational - at least that's the normal way. The realistic looking "props" are strictly under the control of technicians with expertise in prop-guns - and under rules of all kinds including the 3 performance-unions: Actor's Equity, Screen Actors' Guild, and American Television and Radio Artists. If they are to simulate shots they are even more tightly controlled and carefully set-up by specialized technicians.

Actually, most guns in most films are indeed real guns. I read a book not too long ago that dealt with gun in movies and had alot of info about what guns were used in what movies and what mods were made to real guns to make them look futuristic, etc. They may have firing pins removed or parts welded in place but that is because they keep being used a reused during filming and this prevents them from "accidently" getting loaded without being rechecks. They are not crepe paper mock ups.

If I was an anti I could very easily construe your statement to mean that guns are dangerous, they are always dangerous...even when unloaded, and should only be handled by experts. Otherwise they are just disaster waiting to happen.

I am all for proper gun safety and not taking any unnecessary chances, but like with all things you have to use common sense and not be an extremist.

 

[Sigma 40 Blaster]

I thought the first picture with the five guns pointed at the guys head was...well it could be construed as art or something with a message or something. It wasn't profane, it was pretty shocking and funny at the same time.

The second picture that was linked to was pretty shocking and had no value whatsoever...What all insert bad word here need as the title for that pic nullified any artistic statement that could be made...even with rap music lol.

Either way, I felt part of the OP's contempt (for that second one anyway)...it does reflect on "our thing" in a very negative light. I'd much rather see someone heralding something positive (other than self defense shootings that is)...I do also see your point though.

I personally wouldn't go so far as to comment to the poster of some crap like that and deride them for unsafe handling practices, but being a computer geek I couldn't help but think about how easy using a little technology would eliminate any risk and give a product just as good if not better.

I guess it just comes down to the fact that we have some people who feel VERY strongly about the public perception of guns and handling practices and want to be the messenger of the truth and light lol. Then you have dummies like me who'll get caught up in the moment so to speak and want to vent about how stupidity irritates you. It's hard to remember at times that this forum is not here for that...we got a very reminder.

 

[Derius_T]

Guns are dangerous tools, if used improperly. But so are cars, chainsaws, screwdrivers, parachutes, and on and on and on. That being said, one must have a healthy amount of respect for any dangerous thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to live in mortal fear of it.

 

[novaDAK]

I'm still against those pictures.

If we want to keep the relation to cars, would you take a picture of yourself with your head under the rear wheel of a car that is only being held up with a bumper jack? Hell no...

 

[Magyar]

Why dosen't anyone complain about the hundreds of movies and TV shows made every year with guns pointed at faces and heads and every other part of the body?

That's exactly the point. The web is surfed by many others that are not familiar with guns and safety rules...I reacted one way "dumb-butt", but the pimply-faced 16 yr old might think it's cool and reinact a similar scenario w/o necessary precautions....
Anyway, I thought it was poorly conceived & not well-thought out...

 

[Gbro]

"I Just Gotta Know"?
Harry draws down on his head and "CLICK",
That one scene in "The" movie separated the population.

What did it do for you?

Did it have to be pointed at his head?(even in the movies)

 

[ShootemDown]

Actually, most guns in most films are indeed real guns.

once I was told by the propmaster on a film that they are real guns and that safety is of upmost concern.... Upon my closer inspection, they were actually replicas, several made of solid rubber, a couple of non-functioning airsoft, a couple of blank firing pistols which are made that way.. I think they used 8mm blanks or something.

PHOTO:

the photo was bad, it was dumb and pointless.

maybe if it was a poster for some kind of comedy act or film it would make sense, but otherwise not a good photo.

 

[EastSideRich]

"I Just Gotta Know"?
Harry draws down on his head and "CLICK",
That one scene in "The" movie separated the population.

This may be a dumb question, but what movie are we referring to, and how did it separate the population?

In my opinion the first picture was kinda dumb (artistically); wasn't shocking to me and I think alot of people are making a lot bigger deal about it than is necessary.

The second picture is just in VERY poor taste. Safety issues aside, all parties involved should be ashamed (for reasons other than safety violations), and in ten years time probably will be. Somewhere in the other thread someone commented on this girls self-esteem; I totally agree, and truly feel sorry for her.

About art/photos/scenes in movies and gun safety:
One of the most tense and gripping (and well done) scenes in any movie I have seen is the Russian roulette scene in The Deer Hunter. I don't know if this was a replica firearm, but doubt it. The safety "rules" which are in question were certainly violated here. That scene absolutely achieved what the director was going for, and in a spectacular fashion. I think sometimes certain "rules" need to be bent or broken to achieve the goal of the participants. As long as common sense is used, accidents should be avoided.

 

[Mal H]

... what movie are we referring to

"Dirty Harry" - Clint Eastwood

 

[TexasSeaRay]

The movie ("Hey, I gotta know") is from the first/original Dirty Harry with Clint Eastwood. This movie/series did more for the .44 Magnum than perhaps any other movie(s), books, or whatever. Ironically, Callahan (played by Eastwood) used .44 Specials rather than magnums, and even explained why--at least he did in the third "Dirty Harry" movie, which I think was Magnum Force and had Tyne Daily (who I despise) as his partner.

As far as "real guns or props" in the making of films, in the line of work I just retired from, we shot documentaries, television commercials, ads, etc. I've worked with a LOT of producers and directors, and when it comes to the use of firearms, it varies.

Some use actual guns with specially loaded blanks. In "stuntman" scenes, props are often used if there is to be no gunfire/gunplay. There are a number of recorded instances of injuries, and a few deaths, in the shooting scenes of films and commercials. Most of these are a result of film crews not understanding how blanks work. Blanks still fire a projectile--they just don't travel very far. But at "point blank" (no pun intended) range, they can be injurious and even fatal.

As far as the picture that started this thread, I'm kind of confused about the double-standards argument--which is my fault and not the original poster's.

But, I feel the picture is stupid and mocking and serves zero purpose. If it were a poster for some Hollyweird comedy like "My name is Michael Moore, meet some of my biggest fans," then I'd be all right with it.

Jeff

 

[EastSideRich]

not trying to drift or hijack but,

I've seen the movie (Dirty Harry), although it's been a while.
I don't remember the scene mentioned, but how did it divide people or separate the population.
I'm not sure if I'm even correctly interpreting what is meant by this.

 

[Playboypenguin]

the pimply-faced 16 yr old might think it's cool and reinact a similar scenario w/o necessary precautions....

Maybe that is where parental supervision and education would come into play...barring that I guess survival of the fittest.

 

[Manedwolf]

ALL GUNS ARE LOADED.

If you want to point a gun at someone's head:

1. Use a stage prop
2. Photoshop the second person in

I treat any gun, even an old milsurp in a shop, as if it's got a laser beam of hurt extending from the muzzle, and that line shouldn't be passed over any other person. Ever.

 

[Slopemeno]

I worked on quite a few movie guns in my time, and it varied. Some were bone-stock (the first "Sniper", we refinished and tricked out two identical Remington 700 PSS rifles for the movie) and some, of course, had all kinds of work to make them function with the blanks the studios use, which can vary in power. We worked on some straight blow back CETME's, and some 1911's that were converted to work with blanks (no lugs on the barrels, and, get this, a second recoil spring around the barrel, and sprung very light overall).

Have you noticed this on movies/TV lately? They make a habit of never pointing the gun directly at someone. Look at the perspective and you realize the gun is always slightly off to one isde or another of the person held at gunpoint.

back on topic- WE are the sports ambassadors. WE can be our own worst enemies when it comes to the general public. WE can do a better job.

 

[Let it Bleed]

Brandon Lee . It happens.