One of multiple live bullets found on the set of “Rust” by investigators of the 2021 fatal shooting was discovered in the bandolier of actor Jensen Ackles, according to crime scene technician Marissa Poppell.
Poppell disclosed the detail while on the stand during the second day of testimony in the involuntary manslaughter trial of actor Alec Baldwin, nearly three years after cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot on the New Mexico set of the Western film.
Asked about the live rounds of ammunition that were discovered on set, Poppell said investigators found some on a prop cart, in a box of ammo and also in two prop gun holsters — the one worn by Alec Baldwin and another worn by co-star Ackles.
This case has been going on for a while. Offhand, I can think of at least three toddlers who killed themselves or someone else using a gun that the owner knew was loaded.
None of those adults has been arrested. But the guy who was told his gun had blanks is responsible?
I think it’s bc he is also a producer. The case hinges on him being responsible for safety of the crew and being repeatedly negligent.
This one is his negligence trial, in the trial about him as a producer it came out that he was also messing around with the gun on set and had fired blanks at the crew between takes among other unsafe behaviors.
Jesus christ, firing blanks is still dangerous. If there is an obstruction in the barrel it can still act like a projectile.
One of ten producers. And the one who was mostly in charge fundraising.
The people who were actually in charge of safety and the guns told Baldwin it was safe.
This is omitting the detail that members of the crew had brought up safety concerns about the firearms handlers and production went on.
They had an inexperienced armorer on set raising all sorts of red flags, production was made aware, show went on.
Baldwin is on set when many producers probably weren’t. He’s got his fair shame of blame in this, and the armorer as well.
Exactly this. People forgot, or dont know, that safety concerns were raised before the accident.
Also, look at the first minute of a major Hollywood movie; there are often a dozen companies involved. I remember one wrestling show that seemed to have more producers than wrestlers involved.
How is being a producer more of a vital role than being a parent?
you sign papers saying your responsible for things as a producer. to be a parent you just have sex.
Don’t get me started how upside down it is all the hoops you have to go through for adoption vs just popping one out on your own….
So it’s not exactly about the shooting itself but creating the negligent conditions that allowed it to happen. From what I understand, as a producer he had his crew cut as many safety corners as possible to reduce costs. His direction to cut corners led to oversights in safety, which led to the prop masters making safety mistakes and accidentslly loading a live round into a firearm designated as a prop, which led to a person dying because of an on set accident. If he didn’t direct his crew to cut corners, the chances of somebody dying is dramatically reduced and makes this line of work incredibly safe despite the potentially dangerous implements used.
So the case is about “did the executive decisions Baldwin make to cut corners on safety contribute to the death of someone on set?”
Again, I point out that parents of children who killed/died aren’t being held to the same level of responsibility.
They should be. Is that your point? That they should be, because I think any sane person would agree.
If you’re arguing that the responsible parties in this incident shouldn’t be prosecuted because another person is getting away with manslaughter… well that’s a bit silly isn’t it?
I can’t tell what your intentions are, because nuance is hard via text
Not to derail but I just want to say that this is an impeccably crafted and balanced comment.
I spotted it too, it is well reasoned with an excellent flow of thought. I appreciate that others see it too and commented on it.
NGL I rode the high from these two comments for like three days ♥️
And your reply did the same for me, hope you are having a wonderful week! 🖖
My point is that this is a selective prosecution. Either treat Baldwin like the parents, or treat the parents like Baldwin. Laws should be applied fairly.
Yeah the legal system is not a just system.
That being said, usually the prosecutorial imbalance is against the weak and powerless. In this case, a man with more power, money, and influence than most of us will ever see in a lifetime is being held responsible for cutting corners. Can you imagine if Boeing execs were actually held accountable? Or Chase/BoA/Wells Fargo et. al.? It rarely happens.
Is it unjust that the protection is selective? Yes. In the balance, I’d rather the scales be weighted against the powerful, rather than how it normally is.
Comparing Baldwin to Boeing is like comparing your local deli to McDonalds.
He’s got a net worth of $70 million. He’s been a successful actor for decades, but he’s nowhere near being a billionaire.
That’s just taking the comparison in bad faith. It’s not about net worth, it’s about their power and responsibility. Who’s at fault for Boeing’s planes failing? The execs cutting corners to maximize profits or the minimum wage employees just doing what they’re told?
You seem weirdly invested in Alec Baldwin’s well-being. I don’t think there’s anything productive left to be said about this, so I’ll wish you peace, and long life
Bald wins prosecutor is not allowed to do his job, because some other prosecutor didn’t?
If a cop lets everyone break the speed limit, and then targets the one driver with a ACAB bumper sticker, now the cop is doing his job?
Has this prosecutor been in charge of prosecuting any of the other shootings you’re referencing?
Yes they should be, now leave the non sequitur discussion derailing nonsense at the door and stay on topic. Parents being irresponsible dumbasses has nothing to do with a film exec directing his crew to cut safety corners to save a quick buck.
Sounds like you agree with my point that this is a selective prosecution and that plenty of folks who did worse skated.
All prosecution is selective. Parents do get prosecuted for the death of their children. People get arrested for participating in peaceful protests while neonazis march in the streets. People speed past cops as they’re pulling someone else over. Unless you want to live in a world where a cop watches your every move and locks you away without trial, it’s impossible to prosecute every single crime that happens.
2 of 2
The manslaughter trial against Alec Baldwin over the fatal shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins has been dismissed. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer threw out the case over how police and prosecutors treated a handful of bullets, which they failed to turn over to the defence.
“The state is highly culpable for its failure to provide discovery to the defendant,” Judge Sommer said. “Dismissal with prejudice is warranted.” The dismissal came as a surprise as gasps were said to be heard in the courtroom and Baldwin was congratulated by his family and supporter
deleted by creator
and that plenty of folks who did worse skated.
Fuck off, stop arguing in bad faith, it’s patently clear to everyone in this thread you’re arguing in bad faith.
Did you read anything I commented or are you going to strut around like a pigeon on a chessboard arguing a nonsequitur nobody was arguing and everyone already broadly agrees with?
Agreeing that parents should be prosecuted for improperly storing firearms around children, which sidenote a simple fucking google search shows that parents often are prosecuted for improperly storing firearms but they’re not famous actor and producer Alec Baldwin so it doesn’t make national news, is not agreeing to the idea of not prosecute Alec Baldwin for directing his crew to cut corners in safety protocols.
Apparently you didn’t hear the latest news.
A different judge has dismissed the case. Permanently.
They looked at the prosecutor and saw that they’d acted in bad faith, trying to railroad Baldwin.
2 of 2
The manslaughter trial against Alec Baldwin over the fatal shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins has been dismissed. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer threw out the case over how police and prosecutors treated a handful of bullets, which they failed to turn over to the defence.
“The state is highly culpable for its failure to provide discovery to the defendant,” Judge Sommer said. “Dismissal with prejudice is warranted.” The dismissal came as a surprise as gasps were said to be heard in the courtroom and Baldwin was congratulated by his family and supporter
Not really relevant for this topic though
Many other people seem to find it relevant.
Please explain why the selective nature of the prosecution isn’t relevant.
Removed by mod
It sounds like you are agreeing with me that this is a case of selective prosecution.
We might have actually saved some kids’ lives if we’d thrown a few negligent parents in jail.
Removed by mod
If a worker dies in a factory line while following instructions, we would all agree that owners of the factory should be held responsible. I don’t see why that concept is so difficult to grasp here and so many people are trying to defend Alec Balwdin. The filming set is a workplace and someone died through no fault of their own, but rather by the conditions set by the owners of this production. There were complaints on set about the safety conditions before this incident happened and it seems that nothing was done to mitigate it. Everyone is trying to throw the armorer under the bus, but she was hired and vetted by management, and even after complaints nothing was changed.
First, that’s not the situation. The boss isn’t responsible if a second worker creates a dangerous situation without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
Be that as it may, I’m not defending Baldwin; I’m pointing out that a lot of people with much more personal responsibility don’t get in trouble when toddlers kill.
dangerous situation without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
As I mentioned in my last comment, concerns were raised about safety on set before Baldwin shot someone. So knowledge was there.
And yes nobody disagrees, a toddler shooting themselves in the face from a parent’s unsecured gun should definitely be punishable
It was somewhat the same with smoking. We were able to ban smoking from workplaces decades ago by virtue of worker protections and the known health impact. However even today your kid’s lungs have no such protection
Plus goofing around with a gun is not ok, even if you think there are no live rounds
I thought he was working on a scene and not “goofing around” when the incident occurred. Was he actually just playing with the “prop” gun?
The armorer was apparently target shooting with the gun some time before the scene was being filmed, and left a round chambered. That’s my understanding anyway.
Why the fuck the arms master was using prop guns for target shooting is something I’ll never understand.
Baldwin then practiced the “cross draw” move and pointed the gun toward the camera, helmed by Hutchins, Souza and a camera operator. Suddenly, they heard a loud bang.
I had previously interpreted descriptions like this as goofing around - I used to do stuff like that with cap guns as a kid - but yeah, you’re probably right
I think it’s relevant whether he observed unsafe practices on set. It sounds like the whole thing was kind of a shit show. Plus the investigation concluded that the gun could not have fired without him pulling the trigger. Pointing a gun at someone and firing when you have reason to believe that proper safety precautions haven’t been followed is exactly the sort of thing that might end up with an involuntary manslaughter charge. I dunno if he gets convicted but I don’t think the charges are crazy.
If you want logic from American gun culture, you better get comfortable waiting.
Amen
Baldwin made fun of Trump a bunch of times on SNL. It had already been ruled involuntary manslaughter, but maga court had a bone to pick.
Additionally - a *half truth from chat frickin GPT:
"In a tense political climate, Alec Baldwin’s satirical portrayal of President Donald Trump on “Saturday Night Live” had garnered significant attention and polarized opinions. His impersonations were both celebrated and criticized, drawing ire from Trump supporters who saw his performances as disrespectful and damaging.
On the set of the film “Rust,” an unfortunate and tragic accident occurred, leading to the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. As investigations began, initial findings suggested that the incident was a result of a series of safety lapses and negligence on the part of the production team, including Baldwin, who was both an actor and a producer on the film.
Enter District Attorney Thomas Harlan, a staunch supporter of President Trump, appointed during Trump’s tenure. Harlan had previously expressed disdain for Baldwin’s portrayals of Trump, believing them to be part of a broader media conspiracy against conservative values.
Seizing the opportunity presented by the “Rust” incident, Harlan decided to press charges against Baldwin with unusual fervor. He argued that Baldwin’s role as a producer made him directly responsible for the safety lapses on set, thus filing charges of involuntary manslaughter against him. Critics claimed that the intensity and speed of the charges were disproportionate compared to similar cases in the industry, suggesting political motivations behind Harlan’s actions.
Supporters of Baldwin and various legal analysts argued that the charges were a clear case of political retribution. They pointed out that other individuals with similar roles in previous on-set accidents had not faced such severe charges. Furthermore, they highlighted Harlan’s public statements and connections to pro-Trump groups as evidence of his bias.
The media frenzy intensified, with pundits on both sides debating whether Baldwin was being unfairly targeted due to his political satire. This scenario underscores the complexities of mixing legal actions with political motivations, ultimately raising questions about the impartiality of justice in a highly polarized environment."
Is this accurate? I’m not finding any info on a Thomas Harlan at all
Great catch. Yep Chat GPT made him up 🤷🏻 I’ll edit the original post.
The first time I was online was in the 90’s. I always heard the “don’t believe everything you read online” thing, but it honestly wasn’t ever a worry up until about two-three years ago.
By all means, arrest them all. Take what justice we can get
- What is live ammo doing on the set period
- What is the prop master doing? (Was there even one?)
The arms master has already been charged. No one really knows why live ammo was on set besides it was mixed into the blanks they bought and the arms master didn’t check properly.
I thought the arms master made her own blanks or some other dumb shit.
Nah, she brought real bullets for shooting tin cans during downtime.
Even worse then, she is directly responsible for not making them blanks.
You might be getting confused with the circumstances around Brandon Lee’s death on the set of the Crow, which makes sense since that has been a hot topic when discussing the situation on Rust’s set. As I understand it, in the case of Lee’s death, they had taken live rounds and “converted” them to dummy rounds by removing the bullets, dumping out the gunpowder from the cartridge, and then reinstalling the bullets. However, they did not remove the primer from the cartridges, because they wanted the bottom of the cases to look pristine for shots where the revolver was loaded.
At some point, one of these “dummy” (but still very much not inert, thanks to the primer) rounds was accidentally fired. Because they had removed the propellent, only the primer detonated. This provided enough force to dislodge the bullet from the case, but not enough to expel it out the barrel. No one checked the barrel before a blank was loaded into weapon for the scene where Lee’s character was shot. Blank detonated, dummy bullet is dislodged, Lee is killed.
So, while both productions are staggering examples of safety protocol failures on film sets, the circumstances are differ in the details.
The prop master was doing coke and shooting live rounds out of these guns during breaks for fun.
Why can’t they use specially made guns for Hollywood. Like, you won’t be able to fit real ammo in these weapons to begin with. Let me guess, money. They don’t want to spend the money.
I just saw where Guy Ritchie exclusively used air soft guns on The Covenant because it was right after this.
That would’ve changed Bullet Tooth Tony’s speech a bit I guess. “And the fact that you’ve got Replica written down the side of your guns… Oh and mine does too because this is a movie and we all need to be safe.”
Why do they call him the bullet dodger?
Because none of the bullets are real, Avi
Because he fuckin’ dodges bullets man!?
Solid solution.
If we can make Han Solo shoot second…
Surely we can green screen a wooden prop into a real gun.
I’ll even volunteer for the sound effects.
Pew Pew Pew Pew zip Pew pew
deleted by creator
Ta ta ta (we love the triple tap)
Don’t you actually need a working chamber and barrel to use blanks ?
So make a caliber that’s only used for prop guns and blanks.
The trick is getting the whole industry to standardize on it
This is pretty much 8mm, which is widely used in blank guns already.
Then you’d want it in every style of weapon, including historical
Well, yeah. probably most difficult in guns that were historically muzzle-loaded
You don’t need a working chamber at all; with modern cgi you can make it indistinguishable from the real thing.
Well while that’s a pretty great video, it’s definitely not “indistinguishable”.
I mean, you are correct that it can be made indistinguishable, but this youtube skit ain’t that, although it’s pretty fucking hilarious.
Clearly ″indistinguishable″ was meant here as a joke
You’re very likely correct. I’m fron the 80’s and while that might have been clear to you, it wasn’t to me.
I apologise.
It’s just very high quality compared to the jokey videos we were making at that age with camcorders and no pc’s.
You have been forgiven. Here is a somewhat gun related sketch from WKUK that is even more HQ, but that is expected cause this was on TV, episode aired on 2008.
I miss the Whitest Kids You Know.
My favourite is still the PCP skit
Giggled like a motherfucker last week when my brother showed that to me.
It’s a rough world in business, innit?
Gus has fuckin mastered the cigarette-hanging-out-of-your-mouth-while-you-talk thing
Yeah, blanks are for guns, a lot of gun fire is post processing anyway, so idk, I’d think the risk wasn’t worth the end result.
Yes and no. There are both but real guns are typically used for hero shots because they have the right weight and make the right noises.
There’s also blank firing adapters for some weapons which are fairly big and obvious but essentially split the round in two as it exits the barrel and mushes them up so they lose all their energy.
That’s not really what BFAs do, at least not the models I’ve used. You seem to imply that weapons with BFAs fitted are still firing real rounds, which are rendered safe by hitting the adapter. That’s not true. They are firing blanks, which are cartridges with the bullet and some of the powder removed. Pull the trigger, you get a pop, a flash, and some smoke. Yay!
Pull the trigger again though, and you’re very likely to have a misfire because the next round failed to feed from the magazine to the chamber. This is because most semi or fully automatic weapons use some of the energy of a fired round to cycle the action which expels the spent cartridge and feeds a fresh round into the firing chamber. When you fire a real bullet, it actually acts as something of a plug in the barrel for the very brief period of time it travels through it. This allows the pressure to overcome the resistance of the weapon’s action, and thus operate.
When you fire a blank, there’s no bullet. No bullet means no plug, which means that all of the gas from the explosion just rushes right out the end of the barrel and is not enough to cycle the gun. This, you have to manually run the action, turning your scary big black assault rifle into a quaint bolt action rifle.
So, how do you solve this problem? You make your own plug and stick it on the end of the barrel to redirect all of the energy through the weapon system rather than expelling it. That’s a all a BFA is, a metal post matched to the diameter of the barrel that screws into place to plug it. This has the additional positive of preventing anything from exiting the barrel accidentally while firing blanks, which is useful in the training contexts that you often see these devices, because you’re often “firing” on other people.
If you were to use a BFA in the manner you describe, i.e. with a real bullet, you’re certainly going to damage the shit out of your weapon, and possibly wind up in the Emergency Room because you caught some metal splinters in the face when the end of your weapon exploded.
You seem to imply that weapons with BFAs fitted are still firing real rounds, which are rendered safe by hitting the adapter. That’s not true. They are firing blanks, which are cartridges with the bullet and some of the powder removed. Pull the trigger, you get a pop, a flash, and some smoke.
They aren’t wrong though. There’s different types of “blanks”. There are blanks which are completely “blank”, but there are also “blanks” which just have a regular shaped bullet, but a very light one, made out of balsa wood, and those do require a blank-firing adapter and while they wouldn’t fly far from the barrel, you could hurt someone with one probably, but more importantly the blank-firing adapter also restricts the gases which are let out, thus increasing the (otherwise inadequate) pressure on the reload mechanism, so you don’t have to manually reload. In fact, we here in Finland call it “sysäyksenvahvistin”, and the direct translation wouldn’t be “blank-firing adapter”, but “increaser-of-pushback-pressure”, more or less.
It’s easier to make blanks like that than it is to make ones which don’t expel anything and still manage to keep a semi- or fullauto reloading.
There’s a mandated 50m safety distance for these, but I once got shot in the face from less than a metre a way while we were practicing urban warfare. I was spitting balsa wood for the rest of the day.
One dipshit ones had blanks in his mag, didn’t have his safety on, didn’t have his blank-firing adapter installed, and the gun was fucking loaded. Sure it probably wouldn’t have killed anyone, but that shit was still dangerous.
Soooo yeah, it is exactly what certain types of blank-firing adapters do.
I’m a little confused by your response. Everything in my post was written from the perspective of firing the type of blank I described (no bullet, balsa wood or real) with the BFA attached. While I have had that type of blank cycle the weapon without a BFA attached, it’s the exception to the rule.
Furthermore, would you clarify the use of these balsa wood bullets for me? Because, given my understanding of BFAs and what you described, I don’t see how those two concepts would work together. As you said, the principle behind BFAs is plugging the barrel so more gas is directed to the action, rather than our of the system. If you had a BFA fitted to a weapon that was firing blanks which were tipped with wood or some other fake projectile, my assumption would be the debris would collect in the end of the barrel behind the BFA post. Hell, that’s why we always hated training with blanks, it was always a nightmare to clean out the carbon buildup in the weapon after since none of it was expelled in the firing process like it would be in normal operation. Compacting a shit load of debris in the barrel of your weapon does not seem like it would be the intended outcome of a training event, but dumber shit has happened.
I am sure that there are blanks (especially in the context of a Hollywood armory) which are designed in such away to more closely resemble real ammunition, I’ve just never worked with something of that ilk, and it doesn’t jive with my (limited) understanding of how firearms work.
If you had a BFA fitted to a weapon that was firing blanks which were tipped with wood or some other fake projectile, my assumption would be the debris would collect in the end of the barrel behind the BFA post.
Why do you assume how it works instead of just simply looking it up?
The blank firing adaptor isn’t solid. There’s an opening, but not a direct one. Thus the balsa wood bullet will be broken down into little pieces which will be ejected through the BFA, making room for the next bullet.
“If you had”
You don’t have the balls to say “you’re full of bullshit and don’t know what you’re talking about”, but you’re still trying to say that, when you could’ve just actually googled this.
“It doesn’t jive with my ignorance”, yeah, and that’s probably what should propel you to seek more information on the matter instead of thinking your assumptions are correct, isn’t it?
If the cops didn’t bust me for weed and take take out all the other stuff I had while they were at it, I’d still have a few of those blanks to show you from my army days. It just really upsets me that you would rather assert that I’m in the wrong than be open to learning more. It’s just… so American.
edit here’s an image of the type of bullet I’m talking about, but this one is Swedish
OP described something which conflicted with my direct, personal experience with that thing. I offered up my perspective. You responded with your perspective, based on your own anecdotal evidence. Yes, I could have run off to Google to fact check you and learn of all of the types of BFA that are out there. I chose not to. Why? Because we’re in the comment section of an article that has NOTHING to do with blank firing adapters. I assumed, and I guess you’re just going to have to forgive me for not researching in advance enough to not make this assumption, that, in responding to my post, you might be interested in further expounding upon the statements you made and answering questions I had about how your devices worked since they were clearly of a different design than what I had experienced. On the topic of assumptions, I was very clear that I was making an assumption so as to make it painstakingly obvious that I wasn’t trying to say you were WRONG ON THE INTERNET, but just that I wasn’t clear on how the device you were describing could be functional, given my previously stated understanding. I even attempted to reinforce that I wasn’t trying to invalidate your assertions by stating I was certain that wood tipped blanks were a real thing, I just had no personal experience with them.
So, I dunno what to tell you man. I tried really hard to be as non-confrontational as possible in my comments. I’m tempted to say that I clearly failed in my ambition there, but no, I don’t think I will. You responded like a dick, and I think you ought to ask yourself what you’re doing in a discussion forum if your first response to a comment asking for you to clarify some of your statements is “fuck you, Google it.”
They fix everything in post anyway; why do they have to fire blanks and not just cap gun caps?
If nothing else, recoil.
Blanks have less recoil than live rounds anyway, a large part of the recoil is due to the weight of the projectile.
Sure, but having something actually happen when the actor pulls the trigger gives them something to react to. These aren’t impossible hurdles but shooting blanks is way easier.
There’s also safe ways to do everything, like don’t point it at someone, point slightly upstage so it appears you’re pointing at them from the camera angle, for instance. Or not having live rounds on set.
Or, y’know, requiring the actors to become familiar with their real gun and double check safety before they use their real guns (a 15min lesson) because redundancy saves lives (the problem with that is actors pretend they’re too stupid to learn 15min of safety procedures before doing dangerous things and they would prefer to do dangerous things without fully understanding them. I think that’s a bad idea, personally. If I’m using a real chainsaw in a movie I’m gonna learn how to not chop off my own fucking leg as a part of learning my lines, because I like my legs. Same for if you pass me a blank firing gun, a real bullet in the mag turns that into a grenade in my hand, best fucking believe I’m checking, I like my hands!)
They’re actors. Just pretend. 🤷🏻♂️
Yeah but you could use a different caliber that’s nonstandard.
True. I guess they don’t do it because they’d basically need 1 nonstandard “blank only” variant for each actual caliber, otherwise the bigger gas/blowback-operated guns might have some trouble cycling ?
Yeah in my mind it’d be a “blank-only” gun, a movie prop. Which is well within the budget for movies like this, I mean they have a dedicated armorer. Resizing a barrel isn’t uncommon, based on Wikipedia searches, so while it might be a hassle, it could definitely be done within a reasonable timeframe and cost, and avoid any mechanical issues with the gun, but would be pretty high on the list of things a movie would cut corners on if it decided to.
Which is what I gather happened here, anyway, so maybe this IS standard practice.
I feel like a fake gun would be way cheaper than a real one. Real guns ain’t cheap.
Lord of War famously used real AKs because they were cheaper.
I mean AKs are an exception due to just how prevalent they are.
Easier to buy a shitload of what’s already been made than create manufacturing for something else.
Yeah I wondered the exact same thing. Seems like an easy solution.
Look, that was only there in case he or his similarly hot brother has to kill a demon.
Give me a break. Dean is way hotter than Sam and it ain’t even close.
Some people like the long-haired pretty boys. I don’t judge.
Was it a silver bullet?
Might have been a werewolf problem on set, is all I’m saying 🤷
They also found live holy water in his bandolier
But did they check whether Dean’s was a silver bullet?
stop making movies with guns people. it’s not that hard. no need to glorify gun violence.
This is a weird take. Guns appear in fiction a lot, and they can be important to a lot of plots.
I think the line can just be drawn at “never use real guns or ammo on a set, use prop guns”.
I read it kind of as that, “stop [producing] movies [while using] [real] guns!” Or something
“no need to glorify gun violence” definitely implies “stop making any movies depicting guns at all”
That’s certenly a take.
This is definitely one of the opinions of all time.
Yes never show guns, the century old weapons of destruction. Not mentioning violence will make the next generation peaceful and prosperous
Or they could just use non-firing guns.
Or the armorer could actually do their job and not hand a loaded gun to the actor and call it a cold gun.
This whole thing is so bizzare. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a hit. It just seems so unlikely given how many movies have guns and zero deaths.
