Hunter  GWPB wrote:
I was expressing opinions and sometimes opinions are expressed as sweeping statements regarding subjective categories, such as art.  Opposed, of course, to sweeping statements that are illogical and uniformed, which abound sometimes.

There are numerous reasons for including guns in photos.  That doesn't mean the reasons are good reasons and it certainly doesn't make the results artistic.  Perhaps for someone that needs a phallic symbol in art to appreciate the art, then a gun would be appropriate.  Since I only photograph people with guns when the gun is integral to the shot, i.e., hunting or shooting, and I wouldn't bother to photograph guns as a phallic symbol, especially alongside naked women, which would serve what other purpose than to give needy men a further boost of euphoria due to perceived sexual dominance, and get their blood flowing, so to speak.

It was appropriate for you to put "guns" in quotes since you aren't using guns and the safety issue would not apply to you.

I'm not sure how an image of a woman with a gun necessarily boosts needy men's perceived sexual dominance. One good argument in favor of gun ownership is that it gives single women a better chance of defending themselves against rapists and other criminal scum.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
And yet a 55 year old woman in Alabama dropped a gun and it fired.  Do you think she was carrying an antique? 

Of course, they don't "usually" go off when you drop one.  It depends on the gun and the impact.  Usually, usually means that there are exceptions to what usually happens.  Apparently, the gun in question in Alabama was not designed in a manner that it would not fire regardless of the way it fell.  Otherwise it wouldn't have gone off, would it?

Obviously, you still have not read up on the subject.

The point I was making there is that a modern handgun in good condition should not fire if dropped, although I did read somewhere about a lawsuit against Sig Sauer's US subsidiary over that issue.

JSouthworth wrote:
The point I was making there is that a modern handgun in good condition should not fire if dropped, although I did read somewhere about a lawsuit against Sig Sauer's US subsidiary over that issue.

No, the point you are making is that you don't acknowledge facts. The gun was dropped and it fired.  In your last post, you claimed "a modern handgun" won't fire when dropped.  Now you are saying one in good condition won't fire when dropped.  The handgun fired when dropped.  End of story.  You have no facts to back up an assertion the gun was not modern nor that it was in poor condition.  If you would take some time to read, you would see that your position is bunk.

But then, you argue against yourself when you say someone is suing a subsidiary of Sig Sauer over guns firing.  It is Sig Sauer. 

"... the bullet had come from her own service gun, a semi-automatic pistol called the P320. It was still holstered inside her purse, according to the police report."

"The gunmaker said in an August 2017 press release that "the P320 meets and exceeds all U.S. standards for safety.""

Inside her purse?  Holstered, inside her purse?  You think her finger was on the trigger, holstered inside her purse?  Just checking.  Because I can't imagine you are claiming that a cop's Sig is not a modern weapon or that it isn't in good condition.

So, once again, you defeat your own sweeping statements and derail the thread because you insist on talking about things that you know nothing about. 

https://abc7chicago.com/sig-sauer-lawsu … /10974219/

JSouthworth wrote:
I'm not sure how an image of a woman with a gun necessarily boosts needy men's perceived sexual dominance. One good argument in favor of gun ownership is that it gives single women a better chance of defending themselves against rapists and other criminal scum.

You don't understand porn either?  Porn has nothing to due with male dominance? 

Actually, the argument is often made that guns protect women.  The question of it being a good argument is debatable.  Are women allowed to carry guns in England? If not, then that would indicate that it isn't a good argument.  There are still rapists in England, aren't there?  Men with knives and other criminal scum?

Interesting how you changed the subject from the value of guns in works of non-art, to why people should carry guns.  In one two sentence paragraph, you go from dismissing gun porn as male sexual dominance to supporting guns for women for protection?  Way to develop an argument!


You say women have a better chance against criminals?  They won't necessarily escape or survive, but they have a better chance?  A better chance of having a rapist steal their gun and shoot them?

You say it helps single women.  What about married women? 

I bet the woman in Alabama wouldn't have a bullet hole in her foot if she wasn't carrying a gun.

Remember, the thread is about safety on sets regarding guns.  You don't know anything about guns, so you should definitely use toy guns.  Toy guns are how you suggest photographers promote safety in their misogynistic gun porn shoots.  Got it.

JSouthworth wrote:

The point I was making there is that a modern handgun in good condition should not fire if dropped, although I did read somewhere about a lawsuit against Sig Sauer's US subsidiary over that issue.

Obviously all you want to do is argue, claiming your knowledge of guns is superior to ours .. which is in no way established from the the comments you have posted by the way!   I asked about what chances if any have photographers made in the name of safety.  Safety in the studio, or on location is important.  My answer is that I have not been doing sessions with guns nor have I been shooting around rail road tracks, although I used to.  I was thinking about safety on the set when the accident happened on the Rust set.  No matter how many comments with your conspiracy theories, it is my opinion that it was an accident that could have been prevented.  Someone in the crew will probably be charged, but that is not what I wanted to comment about.  We know what your opinion is!

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
You don't understand porn either?  Porn has nothing to due with male dominance? 

Actually, the argument is often made that guns protect women.  The question of it being a good argument is debatable.  Are women allowed to carry guns in England? If not, then that would indicate that it isn't a good argument.  There are still rapists in England, aren't there?  Men with knives and other criminal scum?

Interesting how you changed the subject from the value of guns in works of non-art, to why people should carry guns.  In one two sentence paragraph, you go from dismissing gun porn as male sexual dominance to supporting guns for women for protection?  Way to develop an argument!


You say women have a better chance against criminals?  They won't necessarily escape or survive, but they have a better chance?  A better chance of having a rapist steal their gun and shoot them?

You say it helps single women.  What about married women? 

I bet the woman in Alabama wouldn't have a bullet hole in her foot if she wasn't carrying a gun.

Remember, the thread is about safety on sets regarding guns.  You don't know anything about guns, so you should definitely use toy guns.  Toy guns are how you suggest photographers promote safety in their misogynistic gun porn shoots.  Got it.

In general terms I don't think there's any doubt that a woman has a much better chance of defending herself against a male attacker with a gun, provided that she knows how to use it and is psychologically prepared and able to use it in an effective way. Women are on average physically smaller and weaker than men, but the effect of a bullet from a gun is the same, irrespective of who pulls the trigger. Common sense really.

A woman who is skilled in martial arts can sometimes defend herself successfully against a larger male attacker, but it's very difficult for anyone to defend themselves against multiple attackers without a weapon.

A realistic replica or imitation gun is far from being a toy, if misused in public places they can be very dangerous. In Hull where I live there was an incident quite recently in which someone was shot by police while messing around with a BB gun, deservedly so judging from what I read.

I don't know where you're coming from with this stuff about "gun porn", I can't identify with that.

JSouthworth wrote:
In general terms I don't think there's any doubt that a woman has a much better chance of defending herself against a male attacker with a gun, provided that she knows how to use it and is psychologically prepared and able to use it in an effective way. Women are on average physically smaller and weaker than men, but the effect of a bullet from a gun is the same, irrespective of who pulls the trigger. Common sense really.

A woman who is skilled in martial arts can sometimes defend herself successfully against a larger male attacker, but it's very difficult for anyone to defend themselves against multiple attackers without a weapon.

A realistic replica or imitation gun is far from being a toy, if misused in public places they can be very dangerous. In Hull where I live there was an incident quite recently in which someone was shot by police while messing around with a BB gun, deservedly so judging from what I read.

I don't know where you're coming from with this stuff about "gun porn", I can't identify with that.

-
-
-
Didn't you recently complain about sweeping statements?  "General terms?"  Anyway, your opinion is illogical and uniformed.  You "don't think there is any doubt that a woman has a much better chance of defending herself against a male attacker with a gun?"  In this statement, your sentence structure is that the man has the gun.  If the woman has the gun, in her purse or on her body in a concealed location, she has to get it out and use it.  I understand that since you don't have any experience with guns, that you think this is a relatively easy thing to do.

Your concern was rape.  What is a likely scenario? A man in an area of cover will suddenly grab a women and try to drag her into a place where he can harm her and not get caught.  Do you think the woman has advanced warning of the rape attempt when the guy is 25 meters away?  Therefore having enough time to get her gun out?  If he grabs her by the arms, is she getting her gun out?  If she is strong enough to fight off her attacker for the precious seconds needed to retrieve her purse or get to the gun concealed on her person, she may still have to fend off the guy while the guns is in her hand, as he tries to point it back at her, while she tries to point it at him.  Since the effect of the bullet is the same, regardless of who pulls the trigger, is it sensible for a weaker woman to hand a criminal scum attacker rapist a gun?  No.  Common sense, really. 

Let us not forget that you listed multiple deficiencies or additional qualifications required for a woman to effectively use a gun to counter her attacker, after you made your sweeping statement.

Do you still not have "any doubt?"

Once again, are women allowed to carry handguns in England, and if it is such a good idea for women to be armed, then why aren't they carrying them in England, where, according to you, there is ample criminal scum, including at photoshoots.

Why do you deflect and alter the subject away from the theme, and deflect after each unsuccessful subsequent argument you make?  So you can keep arguing your ill-informed points?

Clearly, this is another subject that you need to read up on.  What is more likely, statistically, a rape from an unknown attacker out in the wild or on the city streets, or a date rape scenario?  Do you think a woman should keep her gun trained on a guy while on a date?  Or watch to make sure no one slips something into her drink?  Which can be done in a moment of inattention.

An assault scenario against women that is also relative to male dominance in porn: Have you ever heard of "skirt sharking".  Skirt sharking is an abhorrent form of male dominance which depends on abject disrespect for women, where a man suddenly grabs a girl or woman, hikes her skirt and rips off her underwear.  Sometimes the attacker, a future rapist, tries to rip out the woman's pubic hair with his hands.  Then he runs.  All while the accomplice is videoing the attack to further humiliate the woman and feed the decadent fetishes of pathetic subhuman males. Would a firearm prevent this? If you should watch one of these sick videos, please inform us of where in the brief attack, the woman had a chance to pull her gun instead of trying to keep her clothing on,  as she fears about the rape that would be reasonable to expect her to feel that that was what was happening to her.  I am not suggesting anyone watch one of these videos.  Why would anyone that is sane want to give a click or income to someone that assaults women for fun, but how could anyone not see this type of porn as porn serving men who are turned on by male dominance and rape fantasy?  Is not abuse a function of dominance? Then we can look at the use of guns in porn and can see things like naked women lined up for a firing squad which is composed of rightist wing nuts.  Or men pressing guns against a woman's head until she submits to his demands.

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

Regarding the little part of your post that might be on topic: "A realistic replica or imitation gun is far from being a toy," is not really true.  It certainly isn't a real gun, and someone might want to feel macho by claiming it is a Nic Nac, or replica art, but it is still a hunk of cheap-assed plastic that doesn't have any function other than giving someone the ability to play pretend.   We, well, not you, are talking about gun safety on a set.  Consequently, your "plastic" replica doesn't require gun safety training or techniques because it cannot fire live rounds.  As I said, "Got it."  Maybe if your toy shoots plastic pellets.  Safety would still be a wise thing to consider, but you have given no indication that your toys fire anything.  A plastic gun that shoots plastic pellets is still a toy, though a more dangerous one.

Your jump from plastic replicas to BB guns is another one of those leaps you take.  Fact is, a BB gun is a gun.  It fires lead or steel projectiles under pressure of gas or springs.  Guns also fire projectiles propelled by expanding gas created from the burning of gun powder.  BB guns are not toys for unsupervised children and gun safety should be employed with BB guns during a photo shoot.  Haven't you ever heard that a BB gun can put someone's eye out?  If you are using BB guns on a set, then you should consider answering the question that has been proffered: What changes are you making regarding gun safety on your sets and in photographing guns?  Your example of people being shot by the coppers while in possession of BB guns, or, by extension, realistic plastic replicas, should give you an opportunity to discuss the actual subject, and yet you don't.

For instance, if a photographer and model want to shoot a scene with plastic toys, they should consider the safety aspects of doing so in public.  We have a recent example of a child with toy a gun being shot by police within seconds of the cops rolling up.  Which may be insufficient time even for an adult to comprehend that the cop may be crapping his pants at the sight of a plastic gun, and give you or the model insufficient warning before he gives you what, no doubtably, some people would consider a proper response. So what are your safety protocols going to be for using your plastic "realist replicas?"

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

"The term Gun Porn did not originate with the videogame Black. Gun Porn as a term meaning photos of guns that display them in the same carefully posed and lighted manner as the models in traditional pornography, has been around for a long time in firearms and shooting cultures." 

Of course, you can't identify with the concept of gun porn.  I doubt anyone is surprised.  It is probably related to denial that a genre you like is porn.  Perhaps you should read up on the concept?  You could google the term and look to see what is displayed under images and videos, then perhaps, start your own thread to discuss how the genre is artistic in nature rather than pornographic.  You could even discuss if porn is art.

Not all gun porn requires nudity.  Originally, gun porn was just photos of guns because debased men would look at the photos of guns in a similar manner as debased men look at labia.  Gun Porn is broader in definition now.  Personally, I have never once seen a nude person, male or female, at the firing range, or hunting (going through briars is hard enough with heavy clothing on), so it doesn't seem to be a reflection of history or real life.   Are naked women advancing across a field carrying military style, modern assault rifles reflective of anything you have seen one day while driving through the countryside?  Or is it some kind of fantasy?  You could also explain how a gun barrel that is pushed against a woman's ample bosom, or against or into a woman's pudendum, is artistic.  And you can defend the pics of a man pointing a gun at a woman's pudendum as not being related to male dominance.  Considering the amount of ***** you can fit into a short post, it should be a great laugh to read your thoughts.


Merry Christmas

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

-
-
-
Didn't you recently complain about sweeping statements?  "General terms?"  Anyway, your opinion is illogical and uniformed.  You "don't think there is any doubt that a woman has a much better chance of defending herself against a male attacker with a gun?"  In this statement, your sentence structure is that the man has the gun.  If the woman has the gun, in her purse or on her body in a concealed location, she has to get it out and use it.  I understand that since you don't have any experience with guns, that you think this is a relatively easy thing to do.

Your concern was rape.  What is a likely scenario? A man in an area of cover will suddenly grab a women and try to drag her into a place where he can harm her and not get caught.  Do you think the woman has advanced warning of the rape attempt when the guy is 25 meters away?  Therefore having enough time to get her gun out?  If he grabs her by the arms, is she getting her gun out?  If she is strong enough to fight off her attacker for the precious seconds needed to retrieve her purse or get to the gun concealed on her person, she may still have to fend off the guy while the guns is in her hand, as he tries to point it back at her, while she tries to point it at him.  Since the effect of the bullet is the same, regardless of who pulls the trigger, is it sensible for a weaker woman to hand a criminal scum attacker rapist a gun?  No.  Common sense, really. 

Let us not forget that you listed multiple deficiencies or additional qualifications required for a woman to effectively use a gun to counter her attacker, after you made your sweeping statement.

Do you still not have "any doubt?"

Once again, are women allowed to carry handguns in England, and if it is such a good idea for women to be armed, then why aren't they carrying them in England, where, according to you, there is ample criminal scum, including at photoshoots.

Why do you deflect and alter the subject away from the theme, and deflect after each unsuccessful subsequent argument you make?  So you can keep arguing your ill-informed points?

Clearly, this is another subject that you need to read up on.  What is more likely, statistically, a rape from an unknown attacker out in the wild or on the city streets, or a date rape scenario?  Do you think a woman should keep her gun trained on a guy while on a date?  Or watch to make sure no one slips something into her drink?  Which can be done in a moment of inattention.

An assault scenario against women that is also relative to male dominance in porn: Have you ever heard of "skirt sharking".  Skirt sharking is an abhorrent form of male dominance which depends on abject disrespect for women, where a man suddenly grabs a girl or woman, hikes her skirt and rips off her underwear.  Sometimes the attacker, a future rapist, tries to rip out the woman's pubic hair with his hands.  Then he runs.  All while the accomplice is videoing the attack to further humiliate the woman and feed the decadent fetishes of pathetic subhuman males. Would a firearm prevent this? If you should watch one of these sick videos, please inform us of where in the brief attack, the woman had a chance to pull her gun instead of trying to keep her clothing on,  as she fears about the rape that would be reasonable to expect her to feel that that was what was happening to her.  I am not suggesting anyone watch one of these videos.  Why would anyone that is sane want to give a click or income to someone that assaults women for fun, but how could anyone not see this type of porn as porn serving men who are turned on by male dominance and rape fantasy?  Is not abuse a function of dominance? Then we can look at the use of guns in porn and can see things like naked women lined up for a firing squad which is composed of rightist wing nuts.  Or men pressing guns against a woman's head until she submits to his demands.

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

Regarding the little part of your post that might be on topic: "A realistic replica or imitation gun is far from being a toy," is not really true.  It certainly isn't a real gun, and someone might want to feel macho by claiming it is a Nic Nac, or replica art, but it is still a hunk of cheap-assed plastic that doesn't have any function other than giving someone the ability to play pretend.   We, well, not you, are talking about gun safety on a set.  Consequently, your "plastic" replica doesn't require gun safety training or techniques because it cannot fire live rounds.  As I said, "Got it."  Maybe if your toy shoots plastic pellets.  Safety would still be a wise thing to consider, but you have given no indication that your toys fire anything.  A plastic gun that shoots plastic pellets is still a toy, though a more dangerous one.

Your jump from plastic replicas to BB guns is another one of those leaps you take.  Fact is, a BB gun is a gun.  It fires lead or steel projectiles under pressure of gas or springs.  Guns also fire projectiles propelled by expanding gas created from the burning of gun powder.  BB guns are not toys for unsupervised children and gun safety should be employed with BB guns during a photo shoot.  Haven't you ever heard that a BB gun can put someone's eye out?  If you are using BB guns on a set, then you should consider answering the question that has been proffered: What changes are you making regarding gun safety on your sets and in photographing guns?  Your example of people being shot by the coppers while in possession of BB guns, or, by extension, realistic plastic replicas, should give you an opportunity to discuss the actual subject, and yet you don't.

For instance, if a photographer and model want to shoot a scene with plastic toys, they should consider the safety aspects of doing so in public.  We have a recent example of a child with toy a gun being shot by police within seconds of the cops rolling up.  Which may be insufficient time even for an adult to comprehend that the cop may be crapping his pants at the sight of a plastic gun, and give you or the model insufficient warning before he gives you what, no doubtably, some people would consider a proper response. So what are your safety protocols going to be for using your plastic "realist replicas?"

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

"The term Gun Porn did not originate with the videogame Black. Gun Porn as a term meaning photos of guns that display them in the same carefully posed and lighted manner as the models in traditional pornography, has been around for a long time in firearms and shooting cultures." 

Of course, you can't identify with the concept of gun porn.  I doubt anyone is surprised.  It is probably related to denial that a genre you like is porn.  Perhaps you should read up on the concept?  You could google the term and look to see what is displayed under images and videos, then perhaps, start your own thread to discuss how the genre is artistic in nature rather than pornographic.  You could even discuss if porn is art.

Not all gun porn requires nudity.  Originally, gun porn was just photos of guns because debased men would look at the photos of guns in a similar manner as debased men look at labia.  Gun Porn is broader in definition now.  Personally, I have never once seen a nude person, male or female, at the firing range, or hunting (going through briars is hard enough with heavy clothing on), so it doesn't seem to be a reflection of history or real life.   Are naked women advancing across a field carrying military style, modern assault rifles reflective of anything you have seen one day while driving through the countryside?  Or is it some kind of fantasy?  You could also explain how a gun barrel that is pushed against a woman's ample bosom, or against or into a woman's pudendum, is artistic.  And you can defend the pics of a man pointing a gun at a woman's pudendum as not being related to male dominance.  Considering the amount of ***** you can fit into a short post, it should be a great laugh to read your thoughts.


Merry Christmas

As far as I can tell, what you're saying is that if a woman's pubic area is visible in a photograph, that makes it porn, and if there is also a gun in the picture, then it's "gun porn". Wrong, and wrong again. Your approach to evaluating other people's work is completely crass, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not always sure myself as to whether my images are art or kitsch. They sure as hell aren't porn.

JSouthworth wrote:
As far as I can tell, what you're saying is that if a woman's pubic area is visible in a photograph, that makes it porn, and if there is also a gun in the picture, then it's "gun porn". Wrong, and wrong again. Your approach to evaluating other people's work is completely crass, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not always sure myself as to whether my images are art or kitsch. They sure as hell aren't porn.

Might help if you understood the definition of "porn."

Dictionary.com:

"television shows, articles, photographs, etc., thought to cater to an excessive, irresistible desire for or interest in something:
a magazine filled with enticing food porn; an addiction to real-estate porn."

JSouthworth wrote:

As far as I can tell, what you're saying is that if a woman's pubic area is visible in a photograph, that makes it porn, and if there is also a gun in the picture, then it's "gun porn". Wrong, and wrong again. Your approach to evaluating other people's work is completely crass, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not always sure myself as to whether my images are art or kitsch. They sure as hell aren't porn.

I have a problem with you.  As your most recent comment on here is a perfect example of you ignoring the topic ...  with you taking it all over the place with conspiracy theories, your blaming Alec Baldwin for murder, and so many other directions some related and totally unrelated to the topic!   Now you are commenting about porn?   The topic of porn has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic.

I thought safety on the set would be related to General Industry.  If I had any idea that this would shift all over to off topic subjects, I would have posted it in Off Topic Discussion.

JSouthworth wrote:
As far as I can tell, what you're saying is that if a woman's pubic area is visible in a photograph, that makes it porn, and if there is also a gun in the picture, then it's "gun porn". Wrong, and wrong again. Your approach to evaluating other people's work is completely crass, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not always sure myself as to whether my images are art or kitsch. They sure as hell aren't porn.

-
-
-
If your assessment was anything near realistic, then yes, I would be wrong.  However, your assessment is an indication of poor reading comprehension and because you don't know the difference between a pubic area and a pudendum. You don't seem to understand there is a difference in the common usage of the word porn which may or may not be pornography.  (See Focuspuller's post.) You definitely don't seem to comprehend the definition of pornography. Have you heard the phrase, "Prurient interest?"  How about the phrase, "Lascivious display of genitals?"  How about these easily obtainable definitions:
-Sexually explicit writing, images, video, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
-Lurid or sensational material. Often used in combination.

Are you aware that "Obscenity refers to a narrow category of pornography that violates contemporary community standards and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. For adults at least, most pornography receives constitutional protection." Therefore, in reality, if you are a purveyor of pornography you at least have a microscopic contribution to serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Of course, it only requires inclusion in one of those categories to be protected speech (in the United States), so that does not mean it is artistic.  Perhaps part of your problem is that you do not understand the difference between obscenities and pornography.

If obscenities are relative to community standards, shouldn't you have the decency to acknowledge that other people will disagree with you as to what is and what isn't an obscenity and pornography?

If you take a photo emphasizing a women's genitalia and a man pointing a gun at her genitalia, you better not post it here because it would violate the site's rules.  Do you know why it violates the site's rules? (Community standards?)  Given that example I just reiterated and the other previous examples I gave, if you think any of that isn't pornography, then you are out of touch with reality.  That doesn't mean that it is an obscenity, because, unfortunately, misogyny is a politically valid and protected form speech.  Ask trump if you doubt me.

I quoted the following, "Gun Porn as a term meaning photos of guns that display them in the same carefully posed and lighted manner as the models in traditional pornography, has been around for a long time in firearms and shooting cultures."  I said, "Not all gun porn requires nudity.  Originally, gun porn was just photos of guns ...."  So, how could that possibly mean that a pubic area must be involved for an image to be gun porn? I also said, "Gun Porn is broader in definition now."  None of that registered to you regarding your illogical assessment? 

I am not aware that I evaluated anybody's work.  I expressed an opinion that the genre of guns and scantily clad or naked women and gun images furthering stereotypes of male dominance are mostly inane, and I will further say those images have questionable benefits to a civil society.   

You said, "I'm not always sure myself as to whether my images are art or kitsch. They sure as hell aren't porn."  I would question your ability to make an objective determination as to the classification of your images as being porn or not, considering your behavior in this thread.  Please feel free to submit the images you have made to the critique section and let's have a go at building a consensus on the matter.  If you present an artful piece of gun porn, I will give you credit for doing so. 

However, if you have trouble determining if your work is art or kitsch (ie., an object considered to be in poor taste), then you should not be surprised at all if others consider it to be either an image in poor taste or porn.  Now that we know you consider your work to be sometimes difficult to distinguish between art and something in poor taste, it would be reasonable to predict that you evaluate your work on the positive side of your perspective. 

You also said, "A gun is to some extent a phallic symbol, ...."  Which not only points to your position on the subject, it is also where you introduced the discussion of porn into the thread.  And though you said there were several possible reasons for guns to be included in an image, a phallic symbol was the only reason you enumerated.  Why is that?

If you wish to continue this line of discussion then please have the courtesy of moving your arguments to this thread:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post … st19951338

JSouthworth wrote:
Were they simply professionals working together on a movie set or was there more to it than that? Is it possible that they had a motive for murder? If there was a conspiracy involving two or more of these people, they may have planned to make a murder to look like an accident by covering for each other, that's possible in theory.

If that is your standard for conjecture, why aren't you postulating that the cinematographer inserted the live round as an elaborate form of suicide? I mean, by your standard...Is it possible?

How many other far-fetched possibilities do you believe in? You've spent the lions share of your contributions to this forum in this single thread. You are clearly obsessed. I pity the models who have to listen to you rant on shoots.

Dan Howell wrote:

If that is your standard for conjecture, why aren't you postulating that the cinematographer inserted the live round as an elaborate form of suicide? I mean, by your standard...Is it possible?

How many other far-fetched possibilities do you believe in? You've spent the lions share of your contributions to this forum in this single thread. You are clearly obsessed. I pity the models who have to listen to you rant on shoots.

There's no evidence that the cinematographer ever handled the gun prior to the shooting incident, so the answer to that question would be no.

JSouthworth wrote:
There's no evidence that the cinematographer ever handled the gun prior to the shooting incident, so the answer to that question would be no.

NO EVIDENCE? Pot, meet kettle. You're a joke.

Dan Howell wrote:
NO EVIDENCE? Pot, meet kettle. You're a joke.

I'm not aware of anyone to date even suggesting that the cinematographer might have engineered the incident, that's a pretty ridiculous idea. The AD, the armorer and Baldwin were the people who handled the gun beforehand, according to published accounts of what happened.

If the armorer is sueing the supplier of the dummy rounds, that suggests that she was the one who loaded the live round, or live rounds into the gun involved in the fatal incident.

JSouthworth wrote:
If the armorer is sueing the supplier of the dummy rounds, that suggests that she was the one who loaded the live round, or live rounds into the gun involved in the fatal incident.

That is because, Sherlock, THAT IS HER JOB AS ARMORER, and her lawsuit does not absolve her as the last person in the chain of custody responsible for what is loaded in the chambers of the weapon.

"What kind of relationships did these people have to, and with each other? Were they simply professionals working together on a movie set or was there more to it than that? Is it possible that they had a motive for murder? If there was a conspiracy involving two or more of these people, they may have planned to make a murder look like an accident, by covering for each other. Is that what we're looking at here? Whatever it is, it has the look of desperation about it."

UTTER GARBAGE AND A MOCKERY OF HONEST DISCUSSION. You should have quit at "I don't think..."

JSouthworth wrote:
I don't buy the idea of a live round in a box of dummies, I think the armourer intentionally loaded a live round, or rounds in the gun knowing that the AD would hand the gun to Baldwin without checking it properly, and that Baldwin would shoot the cinematographer and/or the director, that's my hypothesis at this time.

Baldwin can say that he didn't know the gun was loaded with live rounds. The AD can say he didn't think the gun was loaded with live rounds. The armorer's story is the weak point; having initially denied loading the gun with live rounds, she now has to invent this silly story about a live round in a box of dummy rounds. Not quite the perfect murder?

To get convictions on this basis, the police will of course have to prove the existence of a conspiracy and demonstrate a motive.

To absolutely no one's surprise, your latest conspiracy claim is that it is the Armourer that (apparently) committed murder, although she didn't know if it would result in the death of the Director or that of the Cinematographer?

And would completely destroy her own career in the meantime?  Not to mention all the civil and/or possible criminal charges as a result of what they (according to you) would falsely believe is a fatal accident that was actually a murder plot that she carefully orchestrated?

Although I can't quite figure if this Amourer is supposed to be absolutely brilliant in conceiving of this master murder plot (and not too picky about the victim, or worried about the consequences to herself), or if she's supposed to be the world's biggest fool.

WOW.  That's truly amazing.   And somehow, I suspect that you'll keep on with this (never ending) collection of conspiracy and murder claims, even after they find that it's an accident.  Even with the penalties and liabilities that come as a result from that.  And not a "multiple choice" murder plot.

---

By the way, I hope she sues your ass off.

LightDreams wrote:
To absolutely no one's surprise, your latest conspiracy claim is that it is the Armourer that (apparently) committed murder, although she didn't know if it would result in the death of the Director or that of the Cinematographer?

And would completely destroy her own career in the meantime?  Not to mention all the civil and/or possible criminal charges as a result of what they (according to you) would falsely believe is a fatal accident that was actually a murder plot that she carefully orchestrated?

Although I can't quite figure if this Amourer is supposed to be absolutely brilliant in conceiving of this master murder plot (and not too picky about the victim, or worried about the consequences to herself), or if she's supposed to be the world's biggest fool.

WOW.  That's truly amazing.   And somehow, I suspect that you'll keep on with this (never ending) collection of conspiracy and murder claims, even after they find that it's an accident.  Even with the penalties and liabilities that come as a result from that.  And not a "multiple choice" murder plot.

---

By the way, I hope she sues your ass off.

Obviously if there was a conspiracy, it would have been clear to all those involved, who it was that they were planning to murder, that's pretty fundamental.

JSouthworth wrote:
I don't buy the idea of a live round in a box of dummies, I think the armourer intentionally loaded a live round, or rounds in the gun knowing that the AD would hand the gun to Baldwin without checking it properly, and that Baldwin would shoot the cinematographer and/or the director, that's my hypothesis at this time.

Baldwin can say that he didn't know the gun was loaded with live rounds. The AD can say he didn't think the gun was loaded with live rounds. The armorer's story is the weak point; having initially denied loading the gun with live rounds, she now has to invent this silly story about a live round in a box of dummy rounds. Not quite the perfect murder?

To get convictions on this basis, the police will of course have to prove the existence of a conspiracy and demonstrate a motive.

What a shame Mack Sennett is gone. You would make a GREAT Keystone Kop.

FYI, the REAL murderer is in plain sight - someone NO ONE would suspect... THE DIRECTOR. He must have hated the cinematographer and wanted her off the show, but was prevented for political reasons from firing her, so he concocted the scheme with his secret lover, the armorer, to have a live round loaded on the fateful day. Standing behind the victim he knew he would only be superficially wounded, BUT FREE OF SUSPICION! There it is, MYSTERY SOLVED.

Any questions?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Simple.

Yep.  Remarkably "Simple"...!!!

Although I can't help wondering if you might have been watching too much Monty Python...

But I certainly didn't know about their "snake hands" and their ability to handle weapons.  I always thought that they were unarmed.

And as far as your particular allegations go, I honestly hope that story doesn't come back to bite you.

Ummm, I think I'd better stop now.  Before I justifiably get permanently banned.   (Crimes against humanity?)

JQuest wrote:
NPR.ORG:
Rust armorer sues ammunition supplier

NBC Washignton:
"It states that authorities found on set "a suspected seven live rounds distributed inside the ammo box, on the ammo cart and in the bandoliers."

Are we supposed to believe that the supplier put seven live rounds in a box of dummies?

More probably, somebody put the live rounds into the box before the police arrived. Now who would have a reason to do something like that, I wonder?

JSouthworth wrote:
Are we supposed to believe that the supplier put seven live rounds in a box of dummies?

More probably, somebody put the live rounds into the box before the police arrived. Now who would have a reason to do something like that, I wonder?

Seriously? Read that again, (the bold part) if that hadn't happened then there wouldn't have been a shooting and hence (here's the tricky part) no need to call the police! Inspector Clouseau himself probably would have missed that clue! As for the rest, are you asking me what "We" should believe? I believe "We" should wait for facts rather than continue to make stuff up, but I also think you should believe what you want. You're clearly down the rabbit hole on this.

JQuest wrote:
Seriously? Read that again, (the bold part) if that hadn't happened then there wouldn't have been a shooting and hence (here's the tricky part) no need to call the police! Inspector Clouseau himself probably would have missed that clue! As for the rest, are you asking me what "We" should believe? I believe "We" should wait for facts rather than continue to make stuff up, but I also think you should believe what you want. You're clearly down the rabbit hole on this.

Do you really think an ammunition supplier would include seven live rounds in a box of dummies? One might be enough to get them sued even if nobody was killed or injured. I just don't think they could be so careless, not if they wanted to get any sleep at night. And why has the armorer waited until now to file a lawsuit?

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you really think an ammunition supplier would include seven live rounds in a box of dummies? One would be enough to get them sued even if nobody was killed or injured. Not very likely to say the least.

Why are you so convinced that a person acted with malfeasance and adamant about dismissing the possibility of a person making an error?  Why are you in such a rush to render judgement?

JSouthworth wrote:
I don't buy the idea of a live round in a box of dummies, I think the armourer intentionally loaded a live round, or rounds in the gun knowing that the AD would hand the gun to Baldwin without checking it properly, and that Baldwin would shoot the cinematographer and/or the director, that's my hypothesis at this time.

[...]

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you really think an ammunition supplier would include seven live rounds in a box of dummies? One would be enough to get them sued even if nobody was killed or injured. Not very likely to say the least.

I think we should wait for the facts as developed by the official police investigation.

I think accusing someone of murder on the basis of some fever dream conspiracy theory  is foolish.

I think you live in a rich fantasy world of your own making and spend your day leaping from one unfounded conclusion to the next.

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you really think an ammunition supplier would include seven live rounds in a box of dummies? One might be enough to get them sued even if nobody was killed or injured. I just don't think they could be so careless, not if they wanted to get any sleep at night. And why has the armorer waited until now to file a lawsuit?

Another obvious point would be that a person who was careless around guns and ammunition wouldn't live long enough to acquire a high reputation in the movie business, if they were working with them on a regular basis. There are some things that simply don't allow for carelessness at any level.

JSouthworth wrote:
Do you really think an ammunition supplier would include seven live rounds in a box of dummies? One might be enough to get them sued even if nobody was killed or injured. I just don't think they could be so careless, not if they wanted to get any sleep at night. And why has the armorer waited until now to file a lawsuit?

1) Do I think an ammunition supplier would include 7 live rounds? Obviously a question no one needs to answer. Clearly someone who supplied ammunition included seven lives rounds actually did so, because the police found them. How they got there and if it was the same supplier as the dummy rounds neither you nor I have any idea. I'm not privy to the logistics for this production. However I find it no less plausible than any of the conspiracy theories you've concocted.
2) As far as you not thinking anyone could be so careless well; Of course you don't, you didn't come up with the idea and it fits none of your scenarios.
3) Why has the armorer waited until now to file suit? Again I have no idea. I suppose I could make up some bullshit theory and run with it, but the fact is the armorer and her lawyers haven't consulted with me, so I honestly and actually don't know. However I am certain that you must have another neat theory on this as well.
,

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Sorry Patrick, but this thread is hopelessly lost.

It's gone off the track a few times, and not exactly what direction I hoped.  So I'm surprised that this is still going!  What was meant to be a starter discussion about how we conduct safety protocol on the set has become a thread of blaming games and conspiracies.. It is my humble opinion that the armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed was careless and that she will eventually be found at fault for the death.  She is young, it's her second film, and it does not matter who her father is.  She is not the great armorer that her dad is.  She "could" have made a fatal mistake.

Let's take a look at this in the generational sense.  It's like me taking a photography seminar from Ed Weston's grandson.  Ed Weston died before I was even born, but his children and grandchildren carry on in photography .... but they are not the same as far as ability, knowledge or reputation.  I could take a seminar from Kim Weston, Cole Weston's son .. but the value in that is diminished in my opinion.   My grandfather was a great photographer in the early 1900's.  I wish I could have spoken with him about photography, but he passed away before I was born.  I am NOT my grandfather, William J. Brings, and so just as the young armorer is not her dad ... you will get vastly different results in hiring her! 

The armorer has her father defending her, but she is NOT Thell Reed!  He says her daughter was set up.  I don't know about that?  It's up to those investigating to find out.  In the meantime, Hannah is a cutie!  Back in my younger days, she would've been my "type" as she has the 80's/90's rocker chick look and attitude. It's quite possible that guys were getting distracted around her, and might have covered for her mistakes. These articles are interesting!   

Inexperienced ‘Rust’ Armorer Enraged Nicolas Cage on Previous Film: ‘You Just Blew My F–ing Eardrums Out!’
https://www.thewrap.com/rust-armorer-in … cage-film/ 

Who is Hannah Gutierrez-Reed?
https://www.the-sun.com/news/3926657/wh … rrez-reed/

Rookie armorer on Baldwin’s ‘Rust’ set tied to friend’s fatal crash
https://nypost.com/2021/10/27/rust-armo … nds-death/

JQuest wrote:

1) Do I think an ammunition supplier would include 7 live rounds? Obviously a question no one needs to answer. Clearly someone who supplied ammunition included seven lives rounds actually did so, because the police found them. How they got there and if it was the same supplier as the dummy rounds neither you nor I have any idea. I'm not privy to the logistics for this production. However I find it no less plausible than any of the conspiracy theories you've concocted.
2) As far as you not thinking anyone could be so careless well; Of course you don't, you didn't come up with the idea and it fits none of your scenarios.
3) Why has the armorer waited until now to file suit? Again I have no idea. I suppose I could make up some bullshit theory and run with it, but the fact is the armorer and her lawyers haven't consulted with me, so I honestly and actually don't know. However I am certain that you must have another neat theory on this as well.
,

The fact that the police found live rounds in the box obviously does not prove that the ammunition supplier included live rounds in a box of dummies, the armorer or someone else could have put them in there, potentially at any time between the box arriving on the set, and the arrival of the police after the shooting.

JSouthworth wrote:
The fact that the police found live rounds in the box obviously does not prove that the ammunition supplier included live rounds in a box of dummies, the armorer or someone else could have put them in there, potentially at any time between the box arriving on the set, and the arrival of the police after the shooting.

1) The fact that police found live rounds does in fact indicate that someone supplied them. Read it again, I didn't say "the" ammunition supplier I said "an" ammunition supplier. By definition, anyone who put the bullets in the box, on the table, and in the bandolier is an ammunition supplier. If the armorer introduced the rounds, it makes them an ammunition supplier, if the key grip introduced the rounds it makes them an ammunition supplier.

Focuspuller wrote:
The only thing that matters is WHO LOADED THE WEAPON? Whoever that is, the armorer or someone designated by the armorer, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING EVERY ROUND CHAMBERED IN THE WEAPON. THAT PERSON, whoever it was, was NEGLIGENT, NOT MURDEROUS.

There is NO WAY the loader of the weapon, much less ANYONE further down the custody chain, would know the exact trajectory of a bullet after the shot was lined up to camera, for the incident to be premeditated murder. So, sorry, Sherlock Columbo Inspector Clouseau, your theories are a worthless waste of bandwidth.

Yes, it is important to establish who loaded the gun with live rounds. If there are fingerprints on fired cases, the police may have identified the loader by now. The gun should have been loaded with dummy rounds by the armorer, that was her job.

Having established the identity of the person who loaded the gun with live rounds, the next question is whether that person did so accidentally or intentionally, bearing in mind that dummy rounds are quite easy to distinguish from live rounds, dummy rounds rattle.

By accusing the ammunition supplier of including live rounds in the box of dummies, the armorer is in effect implying that she did in fact load the gun with live rounds, contrary to what she said earlier. Because if someone else had loaded the gun, she would not be in a position to say whether the rounds came from the ammunition box labelled dummies, or out of someone's pocket, unless she was looking over that person's shoulder at the time, in which case she would of course be in a position to identify the person who loaded the gun.

By saying that the live rounds were in the box labelled dummies, the armorer is trying to make the idea that she accidentally loaded them into the gun thinking that they were dummies, seem more believable. But if she put them there herself as seems likely, it looks like an attempt at deception on her part.

Another problem is that we have no way of knowing whether the live rounds were placed in the ammunition box labelled dummies before the shooting, or whether they were put in the box afterwards, before the police arrived on the scene.

If the gun was inadvertently loaded with live rounds when it should have been loaded with dummy rounds, which seems unlikely when it is easy to tell them apart, that could be considered negligence.

We also have to consider the question of why there would have been any live rounds on the set, if they were not needed for film production purposes.

If the gun was intentionally loaded with live rounds with prior knowledge that it would then be used to cause death or injury to a person or persons, that would be first or second degree murder with conspiracy I think. But I'm not a lawyer.