No guns (on set) encourages Movie and TV production to move out of California. A lot of stuff is already shot in Canada and NY.
California is already seeing a lot of industry leave. Telsa is one example. I doubt they want to lose revenue from TV and movies.
Or if they want even less regulation, they can film in Mexico.
I am for a fundamental reworking of criminal law, such that when people in leadership positions make decisions that get others killed, they are held personally responsible for their decisions just as surely as if they’d fired a rifle into the air in the middle of a city.
Those in charge need to be held personally responsible when they let safety regulations slide.
You forget that laws are written by people in leadership positions.
That’s not something I tend to forget.
How many times do you think someone will move an entire movie production out of California just because of a rule that you have to add muzzle flashes in post?
Do you really think the producers actually told the armorer and assistant director to let safety regulations slide? All they do is set unachievable goals on a unrealistic timeline and expect their employees to do whatever it takes to deliver the product.
It’s like telling truck drivers they need to cover 770 miles in their 14 hour driving window. That’s only an average of 55 miles per hour, so you haven’t ordered them to speed, or throw piss bottles out the window, or blow off safety checks, so you’ve got deniability, right?
It would be another factor in deciding where to film. It’s already cheaper to film in other places. Requiring additional CGI in post is another added expense.
I understand a lot of TV will always be produced in California.
No? I don’t understand the question.
That’s the piece for which I believe they should be held criminally accountable.
Didn’t Bruce Willis wave a fire spewing machinegun around in an airport office in Die Hard 2, to prove it was blanks? I don’t want to watch it again, but I seem to recall the office full of people. Seems a little dangerous, now.
To make sure, since I haven’t watched the movie either, did Bruce Willis do this or John McClane do this? Because it makes a difference. 
Here’s the scene. Clearly filmed in two shots so (I assume) nobody was in front of the gun as it fired (30 secs into the clip). Note this clip contains lots of swearing.
I can now officially say that I’ve been on the internet too long. When I read that, my first impulse was to click on the blacked-out text to reveal the spoilers.
That’s simplistic and an example of the kind of thinking that harms safety, because if people think that only those people do unsafe things, then their own behaviour is undoubtedly fine,
Safety slips not because mustachio’d villains don’t care, but because we are all bad at evaluating risk and protection against rare events can look like a waste of time after a while. “I know I’m supposed to check the gun, but I’m tired and besides, I’ve been checking them for years and nothing’s ever in there. Just give me the damned thing.”
Everyone can fall prey to this. In aviation, we use checklists to prevent people from getting sloppy, and even then lots of small planes land gear-up, which shouldn’t happen if everyone follows procedure. And in this case the pilots risk their own lives through their sloppiness, as Alec Baldwin did. They weren’t forced to skip the gear check by some money grubber.
Do people pressure others to skip safety? Sure. But probably because they’ve convinced themselves that the checks are unnecessary - not because they are willing to kill people for money.
I’m sorry, but this is lazy thinking that lets off the people who really have the power to change things—the people writing paychecks. When an accident happens, it should be so costly to the boss that e will never again try to cut corners on safety to safe some money.
It’s like with the mortgage crisis—until you start taking the houses, investments, cars, vacations, college funds, etc., from the people making all the money from cutting corners, nothing will fundamentally change.
Canada has very strict laws governing the possession and use of handguns. An individual needs both a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL), and a restricted firearm permit to have a handgun. They are only allowed to possess the handgun at their home, and at a firing range, and in transit between the two. They can only allow another individual to fire the handgun at a range, under their direct supervision. Even if they have the licences for a handgun, as soon as they take it to the set, they’re committing a criminal offence.
There is also an offence of pointing a firearm at another individual, “without lawful excuse”. I’ve not researched the phrase “without lawful excuse” in this context, but I’d be surprised if it permitted the inherently dangerous act of pointing a firearm at another person “because it looks good in a movie”.
I don’t think someone could even take a handgun to a movie set, as outlined above, let alone leave it unattended on a gun rack.
(Nitpick: we don’t have felonies in Canada.)
You can’t legislate that people don’t make mistakes.
You can legislate that certain classes of guns — say, ones that use a proellant other than air — be banned from movie sets. And I expect compliance would be high.
Someone could still, maybe, bring in a personal weapon and get it confused with the air gun meant for the film. But I think that kind of law against stupidity could work,
I think that laws mandating biometric trigger locks for real guns, to prevent toddlers from shooting mom, and preventing the many incidences where criminals manage to shoot an officer with the cop’s gun, will, when technically feasible, prove to be workable laws against stupidity.
Biometric trigger locks sound like a solution in search of a problem if ever there was one. Kind of like when suddenly everyone cares a whole lot about “mental health” after a mass shooting.
“Bitch set me up!” (Historical reference)