Talk:I'm Not Ashamed

Sawed Off

Could use a definitive confirmation on that sawed-off. They seem to have all of the other weapons correct, but I can't really tell about the Sawed-Off. --Clonehunter (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2016 (EDT)

It's a Savage/Springfield 67F, given by the pump design and the cut out on the receiver for the operating rod. Give them some credit, they got all the weapons and such fairly accurate, let's just hope the rest of this stays in a similar fashion. -- PaperCake 00:17, 27 April 2016 (EST)

Well, I was talking about the double-barreled shotgun labeled Sawed Off. But otherwise yah, it seems that they did their research on the equipment (Though the TEC is missing its strap). --Clonehunter (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2016 (EDT)

Thought you meant the others. As for the sawed off, I'm certain it's just a generic sawed off shotgun. A Savage 311 is pretty similar to a number of other shotgun models so we really can't judge them for getting a different make. -- PaperCake 18:30, 27 April 2016 (EST)

I'm feeling that this could be the case, but they could have also grabbed any old pump-shotgun that looked vaguely similar and didn't. Odds are, we won't be able to definitively tell until the film is released, and even then the film would have to have a clearer shot of it. Thanks anyways. --Clonehunter (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2016 (EDT)

Interesting...

I'm just kinda surprised that a movie focusing mostly on Rachel Scott accurately depicts the weapons used by the Columbine shooters. Don't see that kind of attention to detail every day. --PyramidHead (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2016 (EDT)

• Given what I've heard about this film so far, the attention to detail regarding the shooters may be the only "Hi Point" about the film. (Too soon?) Regardless, I just placed a hold on the film from my Library, so I'll finish this page then. I'm curious as to whether or not they depicted the duct-tape grip on the pump-action. --Clonehunter (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

My friend, it's never too soon to make jokes. Ever. (Then again, maybe taking advice from me isn't the greatest idea). Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2017 (EDT)

Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised too, considering there was a documentary made a while back that got the weapons inaccurate (Zero Hour). Laqueesha (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2022 (EDT)

Archival section

Whelp boys and girls, that's it. I'm only making a note here because I'm sort of torn on the last section of the article. I'm wondering if the archival footage from the film should be included, as it could be seen as sensitive. Yet, given the context of the film (regardless of how it was a pretty badly made film), I feel that it still proves useful in a contextual (and strictly educational) manner. Also, given that the film-makers apparently put some effort in making Chapman and Errigo look the part right down to the guns and clothing, I'd hate to lose the photos of the actual crime scene guns. I'm simply wondering if there were any other thoughts, given the subject matter. --Clonehunter (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

We have several films and shows which the whole piece is what many would feel is sensitive, even contentious subject matter. Not to mention of course we have many other films with archival footage that we document: news bits showing coups and/or executions/assassinations, and yes, actual crime scene photos/video shots of perpetrators and their weapons even 'in the act'. Though I get where you're coming from, we make it very clear we are here primarily to chronicle firearms in these pieces of media and to focus on being as accurate and informative as possible on that aspect and anything directly related, along with occasional pieces of trivia perhaps not-so-directly related but worthy of note for film/TV buffs. We're not here to intentionally provoke anybody. Long story short, I'd say you could include it on that basis, but that said I don't think merits inclusion on technical grounds; The actual shot of Klebold and Harris is a pretty poor image that doesn't really highlight the firearms all that well and really adds nothing given you have images of the actual firearms themselves, just seems unnecessary - and the SWAT shots are again so poor quality the firearms therein can't really be definitively ID'd. But that's one thing, I see no reason to omit it otherwise. Maybe have it here on the talk page perhaps. StanTheMan (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

Given what's on the site already (Like that soldier rape movie I'd pipelink to if I could remember the name of it), I wasn't so much concerned about that as I was crime scene photos, such as the bloodied guns (Eric's shotgun in particular) and the In-School footage. Given that I haven't come across it yet (Or I just don't recall it), I didn't realize we actually had stuff on here like that already. And no, you're right that the footage is blurry and doesn't add much for any actual IDs (Save for the TEC-9, which is the only vaguely recognizable gun), but my thoughts there was that given how I tried to set it up--The real weapons placed above the Dylan/Eric shot in a vague "Real Life" ID scenario, much like the rest of the page ID'ing the film's weapons (Note that I originally had the weapon photos under each of the actual headers)--it created a kind of continuity and narrative to the page itself. Or, that was the intention. The talk page wouldn't be a bad place to move it though, as it would still keep the contextual purpose. Thanks, though. --Clonehunter (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

In regards to the lead officer - I think a 'bullpup' would be unlikely. That and also see a streak which may be a forward-placed pistol-caliber sub-gun mag, making me think this is actually (more likely) a full-stock SMG such as an MP5A2. StanTheMan (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2017 (EDT)