What are the issues with using real weapons on set?

[stef]

I will assume all responses come with the "I'm not responsible for your idiocy or accidents, and I don't advocate weapons on set" disclaimer. I would certainly rather use action replica guns, but those replicas are not that cheap (and the ones that are cheap, look cheap).

I realize that things like knives you have to be ultra-careful with, especially if the talent starts getting excited. I've always considered knives much more dangerous to video than guns, since guns can be turned into a simple chunk of metal (basically a rock), while knives always remain dangerous in range of other talent. I have used a real knife on set and we were extremely careful, making sure any stabbing action done was out of frame while the actor had an empty hand.

I'm asking how many people have used real weapons (unloaded and made as safe as possible) on set, and anything inobvious I might need to worry about, besides obvious issues like some idiot bringing ammo.

What about things like removing the firing pin, or somehow occluding the chamber (like a ball of gaffer tape)? Or is it just a horrible idea at pretty much all times?

(Some background: firearms are completely legal where I live with no issues, and I'm well-trained in use, breakdown, and maintenance. I'm worried about safety, as I have a HUGE aversion to allowing anyone to point even an unloaded firearm at someone else without serious protection in place.)

 

[stef]

So speaking of the stabbing/plastic knife thing... Do people feel basically the same way about real knives? While searching for props, I found there are a lot more fake guns than fake knives, at least any that could convince an audience.

I deduce that people don't generally have the same feelings about knives, and doubt someone would make a blanket "if I see a real knife I'm leaving" comment. Someone very well might say "if I see a knife being used dangerously, I'm leaving". But looking at the list of accidents, there were a few firearm related one, but very few. One was self inflicted, one was a mishap due to not checking the condition, and one was an accidental discharge which grazed someone. There were a couple knife wounds. One guy fell and landed on a sword by accident, and another was stabbed in the eye by van damme. The incident with Dexter wasn't in there, presumably because the safety equipment saved the stuntman.

It actually looks like there's a similar amount of injuries, at least in the same ballpark, between guns and knives.

Do you have a similar mindset of the dangers between the two, or does one seem inherently more dangerous?

 

[jax_rox]

As far as I'm concerned, you'd have to look at it on a case by case basis. The experience and professionalism of the crew will be taken into account.

I'd be more likely to raise serious concerns if it's a bunch of students waving around a large machete, trying to pull off stunts with it.
If the same group wanted to use a butter knife in a scene where someone butters toast, I'd be less inclined to.

 

[stef]

Well I asked the question twice in two different ways, still didn't get an answer so i give up, I obviously cannot communicate clearly with you

He was responding to my response. I removed it after rereading it an hour later, but he saw it before the edit. And yeah, I pressed him a little bit, but didn't see the point, so I tried to prevent the inevitable bickering that would happen by editing my post.

It looks like we've gotten that out of our systems now

 

[sfoster]

1. Presumably that's why even the US makes it illegal for the public to own nuclear bombs?

2. In the UK the number of people deliberately killed by explosives is less today than it was when firearms were legal! There are fewer people killed per capita in the UK, either accidentally or on purpose, combining the figures for both explosive and firearm deaths than there are of just accidental shooting deaths in the US! To the best of my knowledge, none of the mature western democracies who have restricted or outlawed public ownership of firearms have seen any significant increase in the use of explosives by mass murderers. Of course, you're free to believe whatever you want but the evidence doesn't support your belief!

G

What in the hell is the point of discussing this with you when you jump to completely absurd things like nuclear bombs.

Did you not see that I said IED?
Did you know that in the first of these US school shootings they were also using IEDs.. pipe bombs.. Yeah it's illegal to own explosives. It's also illegal to own drugs, but guess what, we can't even keep drugs out of PRISONS and those are the most controlled environments in our entire country.

The people doing these mass shootings aren't dumb people. They're crazy but most of them are pretty smart, and it's not hard to manufacture explosives. Believe me if they wanted to kill people they would find a way.

Comparing that to the UK is different because you guys have a completely different culture.

In the Oklahoma city bombing, i believe that far less people would have died if he was walking around with an AK instead of a van full of explosives. If you want to believe otherwise thats your prerogative

 

[Will Vincent]

(Not the guy, ding dongs. The cigarette. But Ding Dongs will also kill you.)

The guy too, he's got drones for that.

 

[Zensteve]

Where the hell are the mods? This is stupid now.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Agreed with what Zensteve said. Bring in the Mod!

Seriously though, please, mods should close this up.

The guy too, he's got drones for that.

First off, it's an impersonator.

I was thinking about posting how not to bring up politics and their irrelevance to the conversation. But you said it just as well a couple of weeks ago.

Several years ago there was virtually no tolerance for political discussions, and rightfully so there's no real reason for it on this forum.

Forum Rules: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=4567

 

[rayw]

The guy too, he's got drones for that.

Are drones on AI autopilot?
I thought they had... like... soldiers sitting in a control room flying those things and a big fat engagement protocol notebook.

Or did we outsource that job to some foreign company?

Or a bunch of high schoolers?

When's the drone theme version of GTA come out?

 

[Will Vincent]

This has been stupid for a while now.

 

[Will Vincent]

When's the drone theme version of GTA come out?

Next thursday.

 

[rayw]

Next thursday.

Egssellent.

I'm going to the local high school with a truck load of donut boxes, supersized fast food bags, 2liter sodas, and a crate of GTA: Drone Striker, pass 'em all out, and kill some kids... eventually. It might take a decade. Or three. But I'll get 'em.
Promise I'll kill more kids with cigarettes than airsoft pistols.
Or even real pistols.
Statistically speaking, or course.

I wonder if the school would go into a lockdown if I brought a truck of KKs and Happy Meals®?


The important part is that I'll be wearing a GoPro head-mounted camera and make a video of it.
THEN it's a legitimate topic of discussion here.
ESPECIALLY if one of Obama's personally authorized AI driven drones launches a sidewinder missile at me... In which case one of you guys could piece together the found footage for me because I'll be fricasseed.

 

[Will Vincent]

I wonder if the school would go into a lockdown if I brought a truck of KKs and Happy Meals®?

If they were gun-shaped, yes.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Eggsellent.

 

[stef]

So speaking of the stabbing/plastic knife thing... Do people feel basically the same way about real knives? While searching for props, I found there are a lot more fake guns than fake knives, at least any that could convince an audience.

I deduce that people don't generally have the same feelings about knives, and doubt someone would make a blanket "if I see a real knife I'm leaving" comment. Someone very well might say "if I see a knife being used dangerously, I'm leaving". But looking at the list of accidents, there were a few firearm related one, but very few. One was self inflicted, one was a mishap due to not checking the condition, and one was an accidental discharge which grazed someone. There were a couple knife wounds. One guy fell and landed on a sword by accident, and another was stabbed in the eye by van damme. The incident with Dexter wasn't in there, presumably because the safety equipment saved the stuntman.

It actually looks like there's a similar amount of injuries, at least in the same ballpark, between guns and knives.

Do you have a similar mindset of the dangers between the two, or does one seem inherently more dangerous?

So, Jax_rox actually answered this, but the majority of the folks bickering have not. Maybe I should've phrased it with all sorts of knee-jerk dogma

Film injury stats make a difference. State/country stats do not. Especially when you start pulling out mass shootings, please name a single mass shooting by a crewmember done because of access to guns. I highly doubt there were any in the history of film, so mass shootings are immaterial to this thread.

I was 2 seconds from requesting it get locked, but realized that there's a lot of non-political stuff that still makes it valid, like this question which was ignored.

Do you treat knives the same as guns? Do you think guns are more deadly on set?

Do the statistics back you up? (I don't think they do. I believe there have been more knife injuries.)

I couldn't find a single injury from a loaded weapon on set. All were either blanks, or blanks firing something stuck in the barrel, or just powder burn from the blanks.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

Do you treat knives the same as guns? Do you think guns are more deadly on set?

Do the statistics back you up? (I don't think they do. I believe there have been more knife injuries.

In general knives are treated very differently, as guns are inherently more dangerous. It's not really possible for example, under usual knife usage conditions, to accidentally kill someone 20ft away with a knife! Regardless of anyone's belief here on the safety of firearms on set, the risk assessors in the film insurance companies believe guns to be inherently dangerous. For this reason (as I said in my first post), commercial productions would be forced to hire a certified armourer and follow strict safety procedures when using guns on set, regardless of whether it's a legal requirement (as say in Britain) or only a requirement for insurance cover (as say in the US). With such strict measures in always in place, gun accidents on commercial film sets are thankfully extremely rare.

In the vast majority of cases using a knife on set, say an ordinary food knife being used normally as part of a dinner scene, would not require any special measures beyond normal common sense. In a scene where a knife is being used as a weapon rather than as a standard eating tool then of course I would expect to see special safety measures being taken and I presume a film insurance company would too. For all of these reasons I would therefore expect both knife and gun accidents on set to be very rare and roughly the same or slightly more knife accidents. Remember too that even just a minor scratch on an actor could be very serious as far as the insurance company is concerned because it might cause continuity issues and force very costly changes to the filming schedule which the production company could claim against their insurance.

However, in the case of no/lo budget films which cannot afford these types of commercial film insurance, the whole situation could be completely different in countries such as the US where a certified armourer on set may not be required by law. I don't know if any figures exist for knife or gun accidents on set for non-commercial/amateur films in the US or whether accidents are only listed in the general figures for accidental deaths/injuries. But without a certified armourer and the particularly strict procedures which have to be employed on commercial film sets, it would be logical to assume a higher incidence of firearm related accidents ("per capita" of films which require the use of guns). It would also be logical to presume a higher incidence of knife accidents (in uninsured films) in those cases where a knife is being used as a weapon or any other scenario in which a commercial film would require stringent safety personnel/procedures (due to the demands of the film insurance risk assessment).

G

 

[sfoster]

In general knives are treated very differently, as guns are inherently more dangerous. It's not really possible for example, under usual knife usage conditions, to accidentally kill someone 20ft away with a knife!

These kinds of assumptions are exactly why accidents happen.
In a BTS from The Man From Nowhere during one of their fights while disarming the guy, the knife flew across the set and stabbed into a wall. Everyone was shocked.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

These kinds of assumptions are exactly why accidents happen.
In a BTS from The Man From Nowhere during one of their fights while disarming the guy, the knife flew across the set and stabbed into a wall. Everyone was shocked.

Maybe this is a cultural difference? In my part of the world "usual knife usage" is to butter bread, peel an orange, chop basil, etc., maybe in your culture it's more "usual usage" to use a knife in a fight? Certainly I can't image a knife flying across the room and sticking in the wall while trying to peel an orange, unless maybe it was an astonishingly tough skinned orange!

As I specifically stated: "In a scene where a knife is being used as a weapon rather than as a standard eating tool then of course I would expect to see special safety measures being taken and I presume a film insurance company would too." - So I'm not exactly sure what you think my assumptions are, or the relevance of your anecdote?

G

 

[sfoster]

Uhh.. yeah okay. You're right it's not usual for a BUTTER knife to hurt someone. I'm pretty sure you're the only person in this entire thread to be talking about butter knives. I talk about IEDs, you assume I'm talking about nuclear bombs. I talk about knives, you assume I'm talking about a butter knife. Obviously we're on different frequencies

or are you intentionally trying to be dense? The title of the thread s 'using real WEAPONS on set' not talking about buttering bread

 

[AudioPostExpert]

You're right it's not usual for a BUTTER knife to hurt someone. I'm pretty sure you're the only person in this entire thread to be talking about butter knives.

Actually, I'm afraid you're wrong there too!

I'd be more likely to raise serious concerns if it's a bunch of students waving around a large machete, trying to pull off stunts with it.
If the same group wanted to use a butter knife in a scene where someone butters toast, I'd be less inclined to.

I talk about knives, you assume I'm talking about a butter knife. Obviously we're on different frequencies

I would think some sort of eating knife on set was more common than a knife as a weapon but even so, I did not mention only eating knives but more than once, knives as weapons. I think you're the one making assumptions, rather than actually reading what I wrote!

G

 

[sfoster]

Actually, I'm afraid you're wrong there too!





I would think some sort of eating knife on set was more common than a knife as a weapon but even so, I did not mention only eating knives but more than once, knives as weapons. I think you're the one making assumptions, rather than actually reading what I wrote!

G

Yes i assumed in a thread about weapons on set that we would be talking about weapons .. my bad