Movie About an Accidental Killing Has an Accidental Killing

That too. But, I meant guns.

And your post was still a non-fucking-sequitor to mine.

You think rules are insufficient, so you propose one simple rule to rule them all? It wouldn't matter if there isn't live ammo, or if the guns aren't real. The three rules (there is actually a fourth...be sure of your target and what's behind it) still apply. What if everybody knows for a fact that all of the guns on the set aren't real and couldn't possibly be loaded with live ammo (because of your one simple rule) and so the basic firearm safety rules don't need to be followed? What if your one "simple" unbreakable rule was broken? That would be a disaster waiting to happen.

I think nobody gives a fuck about rules until not having that rule affects them directly. The best course is to make it infinitely more difficult for someone to “accidentally” injure another person.

But without real guns being allowed on the set, would we have ever gotten "Aguirre, Wrath of God"?

(Supposedly, Mick Jagger quit "Fitzcarraldo" after Herzog pulled a gun on him.)

Yeah...with a rule.

Is it easier to skirt “no live ammo past this point” or “no live ammo period”?

It's the exact fucking same easy if "nobody gives a fuck about the rules". And assuming either rule is followed allowing you to ignore all other safety rules is asking for trouble.

I don’t think so. Even I could lie my way out of “oh, I didn’t realize I’d crossed that line”. But, not “oh, I didn’t realize there was a rule against that.”

But you said that "nobody gives a fuck about the rules", so you want to establish a rule to circumvent that. That makes no sense. with the three basic firearm safety rules Paladin referenced to, any two of the three could be broken and no one would get hurt. With your one "simple" rule, only one rule (that nobody gives a fuck about) needs to be broken. And making up excuses after the fact changes nothing.

If that one rule is broken, then the punishment is clear. If you have 5 rules, the punishment becomes blurry. Anyway, I thought right wing poeople were against more rules when one will do.

No. That makes no sense. If you broke one rule and someone died, then the punishment is blurry. If you broke multiple rules, THEN the punishment is clear.

Who are you calling "right wing"?

Although there was a high school production of Sweeney Todd a few years ago in New Zealand where two kids got sent to the hospital because some idiot decided to use a real razor blade covered with tape instead of a fake blade.

Pertinent -- and Beau sounds pissed off at the end.

How is punishment for murder blurry?
And if you’re not right wing, fine. For the purposes of the quoted post, it wasn’t intended to be an insult. Just a question.

I heard from a well placed source, paladin beats his partner.

I'm not sure. I was following your lead.

Gun safety rules aren't a political thing. If you go to any gun range and start acting reckless, sweeping people with your muzzle, firing when the range is cold, mishandling a firearm, etc., odds are you'll piss off everyone there and be shown the door sooner than later.

Man, I wish @Paladin and @Federal Farmer would show this much concern and interest over school shootings.

Oh look, there you go posting in bad faith again. If you had actually read more than the title of the thread/article, you'd realize by the first sentence of the opening post that it wasn't anywhere near California. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously?

One rule. Don't murder.

The question had nothing to do with guns, rather laws.

That is so not funny.

and I didn't even chuckle

not even a little bit

Hi Marvin.

That’s fucked up. Funny, but fucked up.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/29/movies/hannah-gutierrez-reed-rust-armorer.html

Admitting you have no idea how live rounds got onto the set of the film where you're working as the armourer (let alone how they got into a gun that was supposed to be under your control) is pretty much confessing to gross negligence. How does someone lose control like that? How are actual guns capable of firing live rounds not kept under lock and key at all times? At my job they keep the fucking mousepads locked up, and you're not getting one without at least two people knowing about it first.

Un. Fuckingbelievable. This whole situation stinks. Who did the hiring? My understanding is that on a properly run set, the armourer is the only person who controls guns on the set and the last person to touch a gun before the talent gets it. Jeezus....

Dollars to donuts they were left in the guns when they took them out "plinking." Ever read Samuel L. Jackson's tale about how he picked out his lightsabre for the prequels? (Not the purple blade color story.) He said a guy with a briefcase chained to his wrist walked up to him, opened up the case, and asked Jackson to pick which one that he liked. Jackson told the guy, the guy noted which one it was, and put it back in the briefcase. Jackson only got to handle it when they were rehearsing or shooting. That's a harmless prop, where the biggest worry would be that somebody either stole it and sold it or they took pictures of it so they could start selling authentic-looking knockoffs before the real ones came out. And they treated it with more care and concern than the armorer and others did on this movie.

Oh yeah, almost certainly. It's insane, not just from a gun safety perspective, but from an "anyone can wander off the set with costly props whenever they feel like it without any sort of tracking" perspective.