Gun Safety

[Guest]

"Guns are made to kill."

 

I thought they are made to defend? At least that's what I keep hearing from the NRA.

 

R,

[Tim Tyler]

I thought they are made to defend?

 

O.K., Mr. I'm Looking for an Argument.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I have learned that when you hear: "Don't worry about it" in ANY production situation that is the time you

> should worry about it, a lot.

 

I have been told this rather a lot recently, and you're not wrong!

 

Phil

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

Hi David: I think you and I were typing our most recent posts at about the same time, so that may account for some of your comments concerning topics I raised.

 

My preference is that films would "show" certain things less literally/explicitly. Near the top of my list would be guns and violence. Rape, of course, being a example of violence -- it certainly has little to do with sex.

 

When these topics are handled less-explicitly -- not shied-away from, but instead of the actual acts/objects being shown, they are dealt with in the film's use of symbols and themes -- there's actually a chance of making a better film.

 

The more often and the more effectively this is done, the more the adults in the audience will "get it" without kids in the audience being unneccessarily subjected to literal images of weapons and violence in action. Kids will still "get" that something bad/intense has happened, but they won't auto-magically associate guns & violence with why the film has made them feel sad or scared or whatever point of view the film intends.

 

I especially want kids to see less and less weapons & violence used as "solutions" to characters' problems. Or "casual" events which just happen, as natural as breathing. Of course, there are places in the world where weapons & violence _are_ commonplace: For example, I live within a couple of miles of such places, so I know! But popular culture is currently "saturation bombing" all of us, adults and kids alike, with so much violence we are becoming insensitive to it, and that is extremely dangerous.

 

(I should also include video games in this discussion, since VGs are as big or bigger than films & TV, especially because of their typically violent content and typical _real_ audience, kids.)

 

Believe me, I'm not one of those right-wing "for the sake of the children" types (far from it!), but rather I'm a "save the world" type.

 

I want films & TV to work harder and stop taking the easy, cheap route. IMHO, 99% of weapons and violence in film, TV and video games is not only unneccessary, but -- much worse -- is actually contributing to making our world less and less safe.

 

I'm not advocating setting-up a government commission to regulate it. Instead I've attempted to describe how I deal with it: By just saying no.

 

(Of course, it's more complicated than that, but I'm not sure how else to express it.)

 

All the best.

[Kevin Zanit]

I was just on a show where my best boy electric had just came back from Afghanistan (was in the Army) and down the alley there was another show with a big shootout. It was funny to hear him identifying the different caliber rounds and their weapons.

 

A gun shot sounds so different if you are downrange of it rather than firing it. Also shooting in a range really makes the shot sound a lot louder than outdoors or in a larger space.

 

It is good to try and teach everyone on set some basic gun safety. It really is not complicated, just requires attention to detail, and as David said, is somewhat everyone's responsibility.

 

It is the responsibility of the producers to make sure a qualified gun handler is on set overseeing things, but I am always there watching out as best as I can for myself and my crew.

 

I have yet to read a script worth dieing for. Unsafe use of guns is unacceptable, and in some cases (like the ones using live ammo) criminal.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[David Mullen ASC]

My preference is that films would "show" certain things less literally/explicitly.

 

In general I agree with you, as long as in taking a more poetic, abstract approach one didn't end up romanticizing or soft-pedalling the violence to the detriment of achieving the dramatic intent of the scene.

 

A good example is comparing the "arty" violence of "Empire of the Sun" to the brutal matter-of-fact violence in "Schindler's List". Of course, in "Empire of the Sun" it can be justified as being the fevered view of a young man going through harsh times, but the simplicity of the violence, not cutting away from it, in "Schindler's List" is so much more effective at creating the proper sense of horror and moral outrage -- an example of the "banality of evil" as they say.

 

But I agree that the movies too often use guns for their entertainment value. I remember one critic who surmised that a future Hollywood film would just consist of a series of bridges being blown-up, and he wasn't far off. But I guess it's really the dumbness of it all that I object to rather than have a problem with violence.

 

As far as sex goes, it's too bad we lump it together with violence, as if both were "bad". However, personally I'm not that comfortable shooting sex scenes that are too explicit -- just makes me feel like I'm intruding on someone's privacy. I guess I'm a bit of a prude.

[Michael Nash]

I recall hearing on the news how people have been caught in gun battles on the streets and the gunshots sounded like distant firecrackers, sort of like a like popping sound.

 

I don't ever recall hearing a gunshot depicted that way in the movies, and that's a bad thing because we equate loud gunshot sounds with danger when in fact a light popping sound might be just as dangerous.

 

That's true, and you don't always see a dramatic muzzle flash either. And people firing larger caliber weapons in an enclosed space with no hearing protection, and then going right into quiet dialogue...

[David Mullen ASC]

On the other hand, a movie can't really convey how deafening gunfire can be for the soldiers. I imagine there were a lot of deaf artillery people below decks after the canon battles on old sailing warships.

[Tim Tyler]

a movie can't really convey how deafening gunfire can be for the soldiers.

 

I remember a scene in Jarhead, a closeup of Jake Gyllenhaal I think, where some shots are fired and they just pulled the audio way down in post and brought it back up later on the cut. That was really effective filmmaking IMO.

[Alessandro Machi]

I remember a scene in Jarhead, a closeup of Jake Gyllenhaal I think, where some shots are fired and they just pulled the audio way down in post and brought it back up later on the cut. That was really effective filmmaking IMO.

 

That's a clever way to handle the situation. It's a fresh idea the first few times an audience sees it but then maybe it becomes old???

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As for the temporary deafness issue.....

 

Maybe the audience doesn't want to deal with a wimpy action "hero" who temporaily can't hear after firing off a few rounds, kind of like "There's no crying in baseball", "There's no temporary deafness in gun fighting"... The scene could suddenly turn comical if neither side could hear. Could you imagine two temporarily deaf sides trying to call a truce.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I think it's fair to generalize and say that gunfights are overdone in Hollywood.

 

One thing that could really tone down gunfighting is to depict the correct amount of gun shots and then show the reloading of the gun prior to more gunshots being fired. The accurate depiction of reloading exactly after the correct amount of gunshots were fired would possibly go a long way towards toning down how many bullets are fired overall in a typical Hollywood gunfighting scene.

 

There's a saying from Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, "If the pleasure remains, does it remain a pleasure?"

More gunplay is not necessarily better if what replaces it is something fresh, and real. Why not have the scriptwriters and the continuity people, and/or the post production editor actually take an active role in counting the bullets fired and then show a reloading sequence?

 

Why not have the wardrobe people have to deal with the appropriate amount of bullets the actor has to hide within their clothing. Why not have the stunt department deal with performing stunts laden down with hidden prop bullets? My guess is it would be really complex to accurately depict all aspects of carrying, shooting and reloading bullets and it's just easier to show a bunch of bullets being fired instead.

 

If an actor in a movie has emptied his gun of bullets and desperately needs to reload, do they reload all six chambers, or only two or three so they can return fire quicker, but alas, they have to reload again again.

If a clip is jammed, does the actor throw the clip away, or retain it and try it again after a few more rounds hoping that maybe it will then work? I hardly ever see this type of strategy introduced into a gunfighting scene. Maybe the actor has two guns, and has to throw one away so they can be more mobile.

 

Part of the drama in the original Star Trek series was how they were always battling having the right mix of discovery and diplomacy with power to the shields, the engine, their onboard phasers, and those dang dilithium crystals that always needed repair. It wasn't about just having the most powerful ammo or the most phaser power, the original Star Trek probably had one of the best balances of story content and diplomacy to the use of firepower.

 

I really don't think the audience would be bored if instead of showing 100 bullets being shot between reloads they were only shown the proper amount of bullets being shot and then they also got see the character having to deal with each and every aspect of loading and reloading a gun.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On a contrarian note, is it possible that if gunfighting scenes were realistically portrayed that future criminals become a more deadly force when they use weaponry in real crimes because they were educated from Hollywood gunfighting movies that accurately depict gunfights?

 

Or does the entertainment value of gunfights without the realist depiction of reloading and storing bullets mislead dumber criminals into trying something they perhaps would not have bothered with if gunfights were more accurately depicted?

[David Mullen ASC]

I remember this story that John Woo told about making his first Hollywood feature, "Hard Target", the studio told him that the violence was over-the-top and too excessive and made him cut it down. But oddly enough, the trimmed-down film as a result became more violent and grueling to watch because now it was more REALISTIC. When it was over-the-top and stylized, the viewer saw it more as a cartoon, in a way, and didn't take it as seriously.

[Alan Lasky]

Discussions of firearms 'realism' in Hollywood are pretty ridiculous in general. A while back we took a course from a gentleman named Massad Ayoob, one of the most experienced law-enforcement "gunfighters" in the world.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob

 

His books: IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME and STRESSFIRE: GUNFIGHTING FOR POLICE are generally seen to be the classic texts on 'real world' firearms engagements. If you want to learn what real gunfights are like and how quickly they are over you should read Ayoob's books.

 

If Hollywood showed real gun engagements (typically a few seconds of chaos), and followed up with an examination of the long term psychological effects it wouldn't be very entertaining.

 

Alan Lasky

DALSA Digital Cinema

[Greg Gross]

I carry a concealed .45 ACP(.45 auto pistol,colt) everyday on my person,loaded. I am firmly aware

of gun safety and practice it everyday. As a resident of the state of Pennsylvania(shall issue a permit

to carry) I am able to carry and protect myself and others. I often times go into areas of high crime to

shoot still photography. I also instruct gun safety and teach a class for women to carry a pistol and pro-

tect themselves at my local gun club. I also at times carry a smaller Glock .40 cal. pistol. I have no ex-

perience at all with guns on a film set. However I would like to say this- AT NO TIME SHOULD LIVE AMM-

UNITION BE IN THE SAME AREA WHERE BLANKS ARE BEING USED. I understand that this has happened

a few times in the industry in years past. THERE SHOULD BE NO POSSIBILITY FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. I

would imagine that some person is in control on the set(control of all weapons). I hope this would be some-

one skilled with weapons and with extensive knowledge of firearms. This person would have to and must

eliminate any possibility of live rounds being mixed with blank rounds. This may sound juvenile to some

people here on the forum but let me re-assure you that it is not. Some time of audit and control would have

to be in place to prevent this. I'm saying this mostly to first time filmmakers who may be shooting firefights

in their scenes,productions. PLEASE EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION WITH FIREARMS.

 

Greg Gross

[Guest]

You actually walk around with a hand gun??????????

 

Geez the USA is an odd place. No other industrialized nation would even consider allowing such a thing.

 

It's like the old west.

 

R,

[Michael Nash]

You actually walk around with a hand gun??????????

 

Geez the USA is an odd place. No other industrialized nation would even consider allowing such a thing.

 

It's like the old west.

 

R,

 

Well it's this little thing we have called the 2nd amendment, which protects the citizen's rights to protect themselves from forces including the government...

 

But this could open up a whole debate that doesn't really belong on this forum.

[Greg Gross]

I agree Michael and Richard I understand your position on guns and thats okay. Richard, I'm a

decorated Vietnam veteran,Ranger 1st/16th rangers. I refuse to have myself or my loved ones

to be threatened or killed by an armed criminal. I GUARANTEE YOU THAT THE CRIMINAL WILL BE

THE VICTIM. In the 14 yrs that I have carried a firearm I have broken leather only twice, one bad

guy had a knive and he ran when he saw the gun. The other guy had a baseball bat swinging it at

me,when he saw my gun he dropped it and ran. Both guys had a record and both incidences were

reported to the H.P.D. and PA State Police. Both bad guys were eventually apprehended and did time.

I am sorry as I did not want to waste forum time with all this but felt you deserved explanation. I was

really concerned about safety with firearms on the film set and assuring that no live ammunition could

be mixed with blanks.

 

Greg Gross

[Michael Collier]

I have at least a magnum when ever I go camping, even in a national forest. My friend carrys his AK-47. I would rather explain to fish and wildlife why I shot a kodiak grizzly rather than have them explain to my parents where I went (oh, and that AK, my friend had to use it once to fend off a bear in his camp site once, just a black bear, but still deadly). I feel much safer with the people who have a concealed permit because in my experience they are the most responsible, law abidding citizens in this country. The ones who arent conceled licesnced (and especially the large majority who are not liscenced at all) are the ones who scare me. In a world where guns are criminilized, only the criminals have them.

 

also-if you get mugged on the street, cops will take your statement afterwards if you live--they wont come to your rescue ever. It might be the stranger with the 9mil in his holster that helps you.

 

The only form of gun control we need (and I live in Alaska, so I guess setiment on guns is a bit defferent than in california) is gun saftey class. I think an extensive gun saftey liscence should be in place, and laws to regulate how you can keep a gun. We had just a few months ago a kid who shot another kid with a wepon on accident. At my sisters elementary school a 6 year old kid shot his older brother when they found the guns. Thats what needs to be curbed.

 

My 2cents, I wont debate my position (unless someone really really wants to debate me, then PM me)

 

And hopefully we can return this discussion to safe wepon handling on set. Sorry to add to the hijack.

[Guest]

"Well it's this little thing we have called the 2nd amendment, which protects the citizen's rights to protect themselves from forces including the government..."

 

Well I don't want to start a debate about America's gun laws per se. It's just that I found Greg Gross' post so bizarre, as I'm sure any non-American would. I mean the idea that people walk around carrying guns, it's just so, well what's the word....weird.

 

As for the 2nd Ammendment, I've read it. It says nothing about people carrying hand guns in 21st century America. Clearly it was written at a time when the USA needed a standing citizen militia of some sort for protection against foreign invaders. Obviously the founding fathers did not intend the 2nd Amendment to be used to justify every Tom and Dick and Harry in the USA to carry a gun.

 

Here it is:

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Note the beginning reference to a "well regulated" militia. Millions of Americans carrying hand guns is hardly in any way a "well regulated" militia.

 

R,

[Chad Stockfleth]

I have at least a magnum when ever I go camping, even in a national forest. My friend carrys his AK-47.

 

 

This is the most bizarre thing I have ever read on this forum. ;-) You should make a documentary about one of your camping trips.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

... It's just that I found Greg Gross' post so bizarre, as I'm sure any non-American would. I mean the idea that people walk around carrying guns, it's just so, well what's the word....weird. ...

The "funny" thing is, Greg's comments _aren't_ particularly bizarre to most Americans. It's possible Greg's sense of what's "normal" (concerning guns) is shared by many, many Americans. And for sure, I bet there are folks all over the world who "love" their guns as much as, perhaps even more than, I "love" my Sony DSR-450WSL camcorder.

 

I don't mean to single-out Greg; it sounds like he has lots and lots of hard-won training in the "safe" use of guns.

 

However, it's the casual, "natural as breathing" attitude many Americans have about guns which results in the insanely commonplace occurance of guns and violence in American popular culture (films, TV & video games). Since so much of the world's pop culture has become (or is rapidly in the process of becoming) "American" culture, the plague of guns-n-violence continues to spread.

 

Of course it makes sense for a gunshot to be used in practically throw-away scenes in any one of a number of films, TV shows and especially video games! Many of us Americans live and breath gunfire and violence in our neighborhoods ... and then the news & entertainment media instantly feeds images of it back at us, so the behaviour is "modelled" and "roleplayed" over and over, steadily reinforced, in an ever-escalating deathspiral. Aack!

 

It makes my head hurt thinking about how I'm surrounded by a sea of concealed weapons (and explosives!), either on the person of those around me or in their vehicles, homes or places of work. I'm surrounded by people who barely function as citizens, who don't bother to vote, who don't pay enough taxes to support decent schools, health care, police or fire safety. They drive ever-bigger, ever more powerful, inherently more dangerous, polluting vehicles -- with wild abandon, and not surprisingly, increasingly threatening and using firearms to "settle" on-the-road disputes. With increasing frequency, large caches of military-grade weapons & explosives are discovered in American homes. With increasing frequency, peole are shot, injured and killed by "random" gunfire in our neighborhoods, schools, workplaces and roadways.

 

The "Wild West" is back with a vengence in America!

 

The notion of "gun safety" on movie sets is a worthy sentiment and goal, but has probably past the point where it's similr to the value of neatly lining-up the deck chairs on the Titanic. Yes, yes: It's a good thing fewer passengers will trip and fall on their way to the lifeboats, but many, many more of us Americans (and unfortunately people all over the world) will drown in our guns and violence before ... before ... what exactly?

 

After the Titantic which is America sinks to the bottom (we're not quite there yet), who exactly will come to our "rescue"?

 

... Meanwhile, I'm off to my little town's "4th of July" picnic, where I hope gunfire won't erupt, but knowing there's more than a passing chance it might.

 

All the best,

 

- Peter DeCrescenzo

[Dan Goulder]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Note the beginning reference to a "well regulated" militia. Millions of Americans carrying hand guns is hardly in any way a "well regulated" militia.

Most Americans have never read the Constitution, cannot properly quote the Second Amendment, and if they can, treat the "well regulated militia" clause as an inconvenience. They also believe we were attacked by Iraq on 9-11, and are perfectly willing to settle for having a feeble-minded baboon in the White House. So, what did you expect?

 

Since this is a cinematography forum that has veered off into the gun topic, let me take this opportunity to put in my two cents: I'd like to see more movies made ABOUT gun-loving idiots, than FOR gun-loving idiots.

[Guest]

"This is the most bizarre thing I have ever read on this forum. ;-) You should make a documentary about one of your camping trips."

 

"It makes my head hurt thinking about how I'm surrounded by a sea of concealed weapons "

 

Phew! Thank goodness there are two others here who think a heat packing public is most unusual.

 

I fear the three of us will invoke the wrath of the gun lovers in future posts. There will at least be the NRA style spin on the second amendment.

 

R,

[Kevin Zanit]

The direction this thread is going could end up making it one of the longest in this site's history ;)

 

My 2 cents - Gun laws only regulate those who intend on being law abiding, thus criminals who plan to break the law would never follow gun laws anyways. Thus these laws only end up affecting a good citizen's rights.

 

As for CCW, I think a will issue policy is a good one. Here in CA, it is more like a will never issue, no matter what policy. Critics of "will-issue" claim that the states would turn into the wild west with shootouts over anything, but that is not the case. There are plenty of places to read the crime statistics before and after the policies went into effect (I don't really feel like looking them up).

 

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Note the beginning reference to a "well regulated" militia. Millions of Americans carrying hand guns is hardly in any way a "well regulated" militia."

 

Well, note the comma. A lot of debate has happened over that comma.

 

Greg, you must be a big guy if you can conceal a 1911 on you :P My favorite, but I don't know if it would be my carry choice, although that round has all the stopping power you could want. And, thanks for your service; you guys never got the welcome home you deserved.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[Greg Gross]

I really enjoyed the posts on issue of carrying hand guns. However it is a cinematography forum

and I hope we all will let this subject come to an end. I mean just as it applies to fake guns,blank

guns on set,film production should be discussed. Of course safety included as to who controls these

items during a production and who insures for safety. I will make a few comments and then its over

for me. Most of the time I carry a Glock .40 cal. auto pistol(small easy to conceal). I do not even think

about it as far as it being on my person. I'm licensed and hold a current PA state license to carry. I

teach handgun safety once or twice a month at my gun club. Primarily I teach women who will carry a

hand gun for the first time. Usually they will carry the weapon in their purse but not always,for obvious

reasons,as someone can grab the purse and run with it. The course I teach is an NRA course and I foll-

ow their guidelines. Safety is heavily emphasized and encouraged and taught as the primary course.

Then we go in to combat techniques and safe techniques of carrying a firearm. Anyone who displays

continual carelessness for safety or who carries out un-safe practices continually is dismissed from the

course. One should carry the firearm that they are qualified to shoot with,the qualification weapon. It is

very easy to carry a full framed .45 ACP(pistol) alloy frame not steel. The secret is to be aware of the

proper technique of carry,as where to conceal it on you,type of holster. I wear slightly baggy shirts, as

out of the pants shirts in the summer,sweatshirts and sweaters in the winter(lot colder here than LA).

My favorite carry .45 ACP is actually the Sig 220 which is carry ready right out of the box. I prefer wood

grips. Now that is it guys,end of discussion on carrying firearms. I hope everyone practices good safety

while using fake firearms and blank firearms during production. Auditing of weapons and ammunition it

seems to me would be a great practice. I just remembered all the firefight scenes in Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

It would be interesting to see how they controlled all of the firearm action. One thing I do is post signs

when I'm teaching(from firearm manufacturer) red,blue,orange signs that simply say SAFETY WITH FIRE

ARMS. They are very effective. I hope I did not offend anyone with my posts. I will refrain now from any

discussions about using or carrying firearms.

 

Greg Gross

[Dan Goulder]

Anyone who displays continual carelessness for safety or who carries out un-safe practices continually is dismissed from the course.

Greg, you've just spotlighted a problem with "shall issue" states. What recourse do you have with someone who falls under the above description? Do you have the power to revoke their license? Too many of us, myself included, have lost family to just such a person...not in the commission of a crime. All this thanks to the prostitutes in government who take money from the gun lobby, and just hope and pray the inevitable losses of innocents, which they would gutlessly dismiss as collateral damage, happen to somebody else's family.