Here in Texas you'll see job posts from one clearly triggered right-wing small business owner paying $7.25 an hour, talking about how if you're working there you're WORKING there followed by a list of like 400 things you'll be doing.
This will be next to a job post from an actually sane individual that's paying more than twice as much for 1/4th of the effort, and you're still being overworked.
They don't want employees, they want indentured servants.
A sample of that size is enough to give you a confidence level of about 95% with 3% margin of error, when looking at a population of about 350,000,000
Welcome to basic statistics.
But, systematically, it shouldn’t be that way.
Entirely wrong. The actor is not a firearms professional. The armorer on the set is. Actors should never touch real firearms unless handed to them directly by an armorer. The moment the scene is finished, the armorer removes the real firearm from the equation entirely.
You have ONE person that is responsible. Their entire job is SOLELY to ensure that every firearm is accounted for at all times. Actors should not EVERY be put in a position where they have to think about anything but their job, just as you wouldn't expect the cinematographer to be over making burgers in craft services.
You have a job, you do your job. As an actor the job is to take the firearm, hold it in a specified way, fire it, then give it back to the armorer that handed it to you. End of story.
These practices are in place because they have proven to work for literal decades. It's only through extreme negligence (which the Rust situation was) or through horrendous circumstance (see: Brandon Lee) that accidents happen, and that's the case only because nobody except one specific professional is allowed to handle firearms outside of filming.
"The media" isn't responsible for spoonfeeding you everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_shooting_incident
"While the trio behind the monitor were repositioning the camera to remove a shadow, Baldwin began explaining to the crew how he planned to draw the firearm.[7] He said, "So, I guess I'm gonna take this out, pull it, and go, 'Bang!'"[9] When he removed it from the holster, the gun was fired a single time."
The person was standing there because they needed to be for one reason or another. They were not in the middle of shooting, they were rehearsing and blocking out the shot.
With a competent armorer Baldwin would not have even had a real firearm in his hand until the armorer handed it to him moments before actually firing the shot.
The spirit is quite clearly that rape and abuse numbers will likely go up slightly anywhere porn is banned.
Nobody said "drastically."
Oh man, if only we had statistics from countries where porn is banned, or some sort of scientific study from multiple countries where porn was banned and then unbanned to see what the change was...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm
Spoiler: They'll probably go up slightly.
"A dedicated gaming system with an available OS that most people will never directly access has slightly more users than an operating system that is openly antagonistic to most games" is one of the weirdest flexes I've seen from the Linux community, and I've been around it for about 20 years.
Taken around the block. False color IR image. Yes, I blew the reds waaaay up because I like how they burn my retinas.
Because when someone says "COME HERE" they're making the statement that whatever you're doing is pointless shit that can be dropped immediately.
I didn't tolerate that with my parents, and I sure as shit wouldn't tolerate it with a spouse. If you can't be bothered to give me a reason to go there, don't fucking tell me to go there.
"Hey, check this shit out!" - Fine. Implies it's on my own time. "Could you come in here?" - Fine. A request can be denied. "Come here." - I'm not your fucking dog.