|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Gun Fires In Movie Theatre
|
|
|
Steve Matz
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 672
From: Billings, Montana, USA
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 05-23-2014 03:34 PM
Well there are always exceptions in Firearm Misfires even on the Best of Firearms. I've seen Quality S/A handguns like Beretta 92's 96's, Glock 17's,19's,20's,22's,Sig-Sauer 226's,228's,229's,Walther P5's, H&K P7's Browning Hi-power P35's,etc. Many of which have a safety system where the Firing pin is completely out of Registration with the Hammer yet accidental Discharges still occurred. Much of this sometimes occurs with people who do their own reloading and are careless with not seating Primers correctly. A primer is just a miniature version of a blasting cap using Shock sensitive chemicals like Potassium Chlorate and mercury or silver fulminate. That's what makes a primer go off in the first place; being hit or jarred to the point where the 2 shock sensitive chemicals create a detonation which intern ignites the powder charge in the Cartridge case.
Actually it's pretty amazing that you don't have more ammunition accidents than what is reported in the industry. Fulminates are so sensitive they can ignite at the drop of a hat. If you remember the days of the little cracker balls kids threw down on the sidewalks that made a small pop/explosion; that was the fulminate being shocked by the impact on the sidewalk or any hard surface causing the explosion.
Theoretically the quality control on Factory Ammo is so good this would rarely ever happen but it occassionly does. You can't just have the attitude that I have a Top Notch 800 to 1200+ dollar Handgun and think you are excluded from ever having an accidental discharge even with your safety on. Firearm safety for a big part is too much taken for granted;Gun owners still need to use competence as well as common sense when carrying/handling any Firearm.
Bobby is right on much of gang violence using these cheap junk throw away type Firearms in crime. Most reputable Gun stores don't want anything to do with the likes of Ravens,Jennings,Hi-points,etc. just to name a few. they've been a detrement to the Firearms industry for decades. Most of the time their not reliable enough to be considered a home defense weapon. They Jam at the drop of a hat and quality ammunition sometines cost as much or more as the firearm. People that buy these usually buy throw away Ammo like the aluminum case BLAZER Ammo which makes these guns jam constantly. I wish they were completely banned from the Industry. The Firearms Mfgers(all of them) have so many lawsuits against them they don't even question if you have a problem or malfunction on your Handgun or Rifle. They will usually FedEx a Box for you to ship back to the Factory and repairs or replacements are rarely ever charged to the Owner...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 05-23-2014 10:59 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Here in the United States cars kill and injure a hell of a lot more people every year than guns. People use cars very frequently in their daily lives. An American's odds of getting hurt or killed in some kind of car accident are quite a lot higher than getting hurt or killed by a handgun. And that's even with most people having a license and insurance.
However, I'd be interested to know what proportion of those hurt or killed in car accidents were involved in accidents that were caused by someone who was not properly licensed and/or insured. I don't know what the situation is like here, but in the years before I left Britain accidents caused by uninsured drivers were a big and growing problem. The insurance industry ran a program to cover the claims of the innocent victims of such accidents (i.e. third party drivers who were insured and found to be not at fault, or non-drivers such as pedestrians and cyclists who were the victims of uninsured drivers), and the cost of it was widely blamed for driving up the cost of insurance premiums. It was estimated that the average driver paid about £30 ($50 ish) on each policy for this.
Likewise, one of the major arguments that is often used against gun control is that the main effect of is to make it more difficult for the law-abiding to own guns, but that it has little impact on those who are prepared to break the law, i.e. armed criminals. That argument is certainly supported by what seems to be happening here. My local paper (the San Bernardino Sun) has a report virtually every day of an armed robbery or domestic violence incident involving a gun of some description, and in almost every case the perpetrator, if caught, is charged with illegal firearm possession along with whatever mischief he (or occasionally, she) was actually causing with the thing.
The essence of this incident - someone causing trouble with a fiream they are in possession of legally - seems to be to be the exception rather than the rule. It's the firearms that are owned illegally that cause most of the problems.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-24-2014 05:13 PM
Isn't car insurance mandatory (legal minimum being third party insurance) in Britain as it is in practically all E.U. countries?
Around here the penalty process for uninsured vehicles is fully automated, they run it against several central databases. Also, with all this license plate scanning stuff going on, the chance of them pulling you over is rather large. If your car isn't insured even for a couple of days, you will get a hefty fine (something like at least EUR 400) if it was the first time they got you and if it's a "repeat offense", you usually end up in court as it is actually considered a crime. You might even lose your driving license and/or car as a result...
The fact that your own car insurance always covers the costs for accidents you didn't cause, even if the other party isn't insured is probably a good thing, even if it drove up the costs a bit. What good is insurance, if they always have a reason not to pay you when the shit hits the fan? Maybe it is better to pay the real cost of protection. There will always be people gaming the system, but insurance is also about being protected for those cases.
It's getting a bit political now, but regarding the whole discussion about guns, gun control, etc. I don't have all the background information, but let's just have a look at the "cold hard numbers":
Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population
United Kingdom: 0.25 (2010)
Germany: 1.24 (2010)
Netherlands: 0.46 (2010)
United States: 10.3 (2011)
From the countries on this little list, the U.K. has by far the most restrictive gun control laws (even normal police officers don't carry guns), closely followed by the Netherlands. Germany also has restrictive gun control laws, but less strict than the U.K and the Netherlands. It may all be purely coincidental and there surely are other factors that count, but I do see a trend, don't you?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-27-2014 10:38 AM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It's getting a bit political now, but regarding the whole discussion about guns, gun control, etc. I don't have all the background information, but let's just have a look at the "cold hard numbers":
Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population
United Kingdom: 0.25 (2010)
Germany: 1.24 (2010)
Netherlands: 0.46 (2010)
United States: 10.3 (2011)
It's easy to put some big statistics on a page and not say what the numbers really mean, much less admit there are some apples to oranges comparisons taking place.
Most people would look at those numbers above and automatically assume the 10.3 deaths yearly out of 100,000 statistic in the U.S. is all from crime. Less than 1/3 of those gun related deaths in the United States come from criminal activity. Some of it comes from gun handling negligence. Most of it comes from suicide.
The United States currently ranks 33rd in the world in suicide rate. A bunch of countries, including developed ones like Finland, France, Japan and South Korea, have higher suicide rates than the United States. The availability of guns in the United States may give people here an additional choice in how to end it all, but the numbers from other countries with far more restrictive gun control laws prove people are resourceful in finding other methods to take their own life.
Gun availability alone does not automatically equate to a high crime rate or rate rate of gun deaths. Canada is a very interesting example. Firearms are just about as easy to obtain in Canada as in the United States, yet Canada has a far lower homicide rate than the United States (currently 1.6 per 100,000 in Canada versus 4.8 per 100,000 in the US -2012 numbers).
The United States has the highest homicide rate out of developed nations, but that has far more to do with culture than it does with gun availability. The United States brings in more immigrants than any other developed nation. We're practically a nation of immigrants. That includes immigrants from many developing nations with much higher homicide rates. The United States has spent much of its history importing Europe's tired, poor, huddled masses. It shipped in millions from Africa for use as slave labor. In more recent decades most of the United States' immigrants have come from Mexico, Central America and Asia. The United States has benefited tremendously from its immigration policies, but having the world's biggest "melting pot" has carried consequences too. This country has to deal with a lot of complex social issues due to clashing cultures and classes. Issues like poverty and racism aren't hidden away like they are in so many other nations. Add to this the value our country puts on individualism. Even if no one in America had guns we would still have the highest homicide rate in all of the developed world.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 05-28-2014 05:04 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's easy to put some big statistics on a page and not say what the numbers really mean, much less admit there are some apples to oranges comparisons taking place.
I did note that there is more to the show than just the plain numbers. For example, if a society is already inherently corrupt, the any gun control law is just a meaningless piece of paper.
But let's get back to the start of the discussion, it started with a gun randomly firing in a theater. The owner of the gun most likely never intended to commit a crime, so some of those non-crime related numbers also count in this particular discussion.
My personal objection isn't the laws themselves, I haven't any say in it anyway. It's your "God given" right to decide for yourself and if the majority doesn't want to give up their freedoms to own and carry firearms without any further regulation, it's their choice. My personal objection is primarily due to the fact that those laws are often defended with flawed arguments, like: The world is a safer place without any gun control laws. Although the definitive answer to that argument is hardly black and white, I'm pretty sure there is compelling evidence that in most cases, strict(er) gun control will at least have some impact. Even knowing this, you can still decide that your freedoms outweigh the potential risks, it's a decision that's been taken on may other subjects too. Sometimes you decide to "pay the price", because the alternative is considered worse.
quote: Steve Matz
Firearms have always been an easy target for politicians and anti-gun people who want them banned.Every time you Ban something you make the situation worse because US Citizens don't really want Federal and state government telling them what they can and can't have or do.
Luckily, "the law" still tells people what they can and can't do. Some people might find anarchy an appealing way of life, until they experience what it actually implies...
Prohibition is a perfect example of over-regulation gone bad. Banning alcohol was a stupid move. Some may claim that banning cannabis is an equally bad move. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But you have to draw a line somewhere, or would you actually prefer to deregulate everything? Would you prefer living in a world where heroin and enriched uranium can be bought at the local grocery store?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic