The Daily Beast has hinted that the "prop gun" may not have been a proper "prop gun." but a real gun
Presumably the local police have the gun, and are checking it out.
The Daily Beast has hinted that the "prop gun" may not have been a proper "prop gun." but a real gun
Presumably the local police have the gun, and are checking it out.
A real bullet is often used in a dummy bullet. The primer should have been removed.
You do not seem to know what a squib is. I am no expert on guns, but I am a bit of an expert on spotting experts. You are no expert on guns. You keep saying your personal experience will prove things we all know is false. This is pointless.
Nomad (10-22-2021)
4,487
18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
LOCK HIM UP!
The WOMAN(not girl) shot was the director of cinematographer. She would either have been looking through the camera, or with her head as close to the camera as possible to get the right perspective on the scene. The director, also injured, would have also been close to the camera, but not as close.
It is a normal shot to have an actor point the gun at the camera. From what little we know, that would be the most likely situation they were all in.
We could start making movies where no guns were ever pointed at actors, or cameras. They would only be pointed down range at completely certified and licensed firing ranges. All actors would be required to wear proper eye and ear protection. I could go on and on... But the simple fact is that we would lose Hollywood to a foreign country, with stronger gun laws, but saner gun laws (when it comes to movies).
Bookmarks