• @anonymoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    111 year ago

    This analogy is flawed. The engineer would be a gunsmith. The bridge collapsing would be the gun catastrophically failing. A bridge is not deliberately designed to inflict damage on animals (mostly humans) the way a gun is.

    • @_bug0ut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I wasn’t aiming at crafting the perfect analogy. I wanted to capture the absurdity and fucking asininity of the responders comment.

      The point is that it’s not up to either the bridge’s users (the actors in the film) to “take a safety course” - it’s up to the bridge designers/builders (the film set’s armorer if we’re talking about direct blame or the executive film staff if were talking about corner cutting or poor funding) to make sure the bridge (the prop gun) is safe to use.

      If Baldwin is culpable for corner cutting as an executive staff member (and for example, hiring a shitty armorer to save on costs), so be it. I don’t give a shit about him. But being mad at someone for not checking a gun when the responsibility lies on a hired expert and this is just how Hollywood operates and in a century of filmmaking there have been a handful of freak accidents?