Calling forum gun experts. How does a dummy firearm kill?

[cougie uk]

If we’re moaning about passwords. My company iPhone needs an eight digit entry code every time the screen locks and the code changes every 30 days.
What a PITA.

Eight digits ? Jeez. That'd be one phone I'd never use !

 

[fossyant]

I think there is some serious litigation coming. All parties liable.

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Oh aye, the ipad. It started with 1-2-3-4-5-6 which changed to 2-3-4-5-6-7 then 3-4-5-6-7-8 and so on.

 

[DRM]

I think this proves that by increasing the complexity of passwords, all that happens is that people note it, then have it written somewhere thereby making it less secure than something that’s easy to remember

 

[dodgy]

I think this proves that by increasing the complexity of passwords, all that happens is that people note it, then have it written somewhere thereby making it less secure than something that’s easy to remember

Pretty sure that was my point 😂

 

[classic33]

That's not a tank; this is a tank.
View attachment 615440

That's a Ferret.

 

[Arrowfoot]

If the controls are adequate, as indeed they may be in themselves, but people are ignoring them, then introducing more isn't going to help. We see that in quite a lot of spheres where people ignore the rules, the reaction is to introduce more rules, which inconvenience those already being sensible and are ignored by those already breaking the old rules. In industry it isn't unheard for safety rules to make the job much harder to do so people are almost forced to ignore the rule putting the burden of risk onto the employee. Too many rules can drive the whole operation into another country where there are no rules.

It does seem in this incident there was very little following of rules, rather than the rules being deficient.

No one should double hat for such a role. I am sure the Asst Director's 1st priority is his actual day job and not gun safety. I am sure after this they actually have a designated gun safety person which should be a full time role. He will the last line of defence before handing a firearm to an actor after checking it. The Armourer is already preoccupied with custody, issuing and ammo prep and other logistics.

I won't be surprised that the industry will issue new standards including a gun safety designated person. Not a part-timer.

 

[Arrowfoot]

There are already adequate controls (more than adequate according to actual armourers), the problem is the humans became sloppy. Add more controls maybe, but they’ll get ignored unless the movie set is managed more professionally.
Edit: too slow as @Profpointy said it better than I.

Not necessarily. Just a full time gun safety person and not a part-timer such as Asst Director etc. A person trained to inspect the gun before shouting "Cold". After this would anyone trust a part-timer from a studio hand, gaffer or even a director handing over a firearm. I am sure Actors will now have it in their contract to have a designated person for checking the gun before they touch it.

 

[Lozz360]

Obviously I know the square root of bog all about guns but could it be the case that if he wasn't expecting the gun to be loaded then he wouldn't have been expecting the recoil and it could thrown the gun, and therefore projectile, in any direction, not necessarily where it was being pointed?

I’m no gun expert but I do have experience of firing many different types of gun. The recoil happens after the projectile has left the barrel. So in the case of a single round being fired the bullet will go where the gun is being pointed regardless of whether the person pulling the trigger is expecting the gun to fire or not. It’s different for automatic weapons (machine guns) where the multiple recoils have caused the shooter to lose control of the weapon with fatal consequences.

 

[Lozz360]

Shades here of some sportsmen who think the various assault offences do not apply when they cross the white line onto the pitch.

And they would be correct regarding any contact sport. If you were to rugby tackle someone on the high street you would probably be charged with assault. However, the moment you enter a football or rugby pitch as a player you are consenting to being tackled in a way that would otherwise be illegal.

 

[Pale Rider]

And they would be correct regarding any contact sport. If you were to rugby tackle someone on the high street you would probably be charged with assault. However, the moment you enter a football or rugby pitch as a player you are consenting to being tackled in a way that would otherwise be illegal.

No complaint may be made, but the relevant legislation still applies.

Neither is not making a complaint a bar to prosecution, although the cooperation of the injured party would assist a prosecution.

You cannot fill someone in on a sports pitch risk free, just as you cannot racially abuse them.

 

[Alex321]

No complaint may be made, but the relevant legislation still applies.

It does, but the courts have held that if the injured party consents to assault (up to the level of actual bodily harm), then no offence has occurred. You cannot consent to assault causing grievous bodily harm.

Neither is not making a complaint a bar to prosecution, although the cooperation of the injured party would assist a prosecution.

You cannot fill someone in on a sports pitch risk free, just as you cannot racially abuse them.

Agreed. But so long as you are playing the sport within the rules, there is implied consent and no offence is occurring. Once you go outside the rules, there is no longer that implied consent, and you can easily be in trouble.

 

[Profpointy]

And they would be correct regarding any contact sport. If you were to rugby tackle someone on the high street you would probably be charged with assault. However, the moment you enter a football or rugby pitch as a player you are consenting to being tackled in a way that would otherwise be illegal.

I believe people playing sport have been prosecuted where it's gone beyond the usual rough and tumble that participants expect.

 

[midlife]

It does, but the courts have held that if the injured party consents to assault (up to the level of actual bodily harm), then no offence has occurred. You cannot consent to assault causing grievous bodily harm.


Agreed. But so long as you are playing the sport within the rules, there is implied consent and no offence is occurring. Once you go outside the rules, there is no longer that implied consent, and you can easily be in trouble.

I seem to recall from the bottom of my memory that you cannot consent to have your scrotum nailed to a piece of wood and the hammer bearer was charged and convicted. Or maybe that's just my over fertile imagination!

 

[Chromatic]

I believe people playing sport have been prosecuted where it's gone beyond the usual rough and tumble that participants expect.

Gloucester Rugby Club had a player sentenced to 9 months for punching and breaking the jaw of a Rosslyn Park player during a 2nd XV match a few years ago.