Derren Brown Trick or treat

[Azrael 5]

The gun Derren held could not fire live rounds, since such a gun would require Derren to have at least a firearm permit, but he didn't.

Round and round we go.....

Did I ever tell you the time I was hiking in the Burma jungle.....?

 

[Bob Klase]

The gun Derren held could not fire live rounds, since such a gun would require Derren to have at least a firearm permit, but he didn't.

How do you know he didn't lie and really had a permit? Or maybe he was just breaking the law by having such a gun without a permit?

 

[DJM]

I read in the paper
(14 hammer in your head, Dani with the Case, 14)
that Derren hypnotised the
(14, where's Dani with the case)
police in thinking he had a permit that allowes him use the gun
(Daily)
for a few minutes
(Mail 14)

It was written in The Sun I believe.

 

[Azrael 5]

I read in the paper
(14 hammer in your head, Dani with the Case, 14)
that Derren hypnotised the
(14, where's Dani with the case)
police in thinking he had a permit that allowes him use the gun
(Daily)
for a few minutes
(Mail 14)

It was written in The Sun I believe.

That settles it then.If it was in The Sun we can officially close this thread.

 

[DJM]

That settles it then.If it was in The Sun we can officially close this thread.

Check page number 14 of a Koontz book that is closest to you.. You will find the word "Dog" in the second line there.


(David Blaine stare)

 

[skipjack]

1) Even if Derren considers that he has a foolproof way of knowing that he pulls the trigger with the gun pointed at himself only when the current chamber is empty, there is still a risk of making a mistake and injuring himself. It's possible that Derren would take that risk, but we know he didn't because the police stated that they knew there was no risk of injury.

2) Therefore, either there was no blank (or live round) in the gun when he did the stunt or there was a blank, but one made with so little gunpowder that it couldn't possibly cause injury and could be fired in a gun with a blocked barrel, so that it didn't matter where it was pointed! Such a gun wouldn't require a firearm permit, since it can't fire live ammunition.

 

[Garrette]

1) Even if Derren considers that he has a foolproof way of knowing that he pulls the trigger with the gun pointed at himself only when the current chamber is empty, there is still a risk of making a mistake and injuring himself. It's possible that Derren would take that risk, but we know he didn't because the police stated that they knew there was no risk of injury.

2) Therefore, either there was no blank (or live round) in the gun when he did the stunt or there was a blank, but one made with so little gunpowder that it couldn't possibly cause injury and could be fired in a gun with a blocked barrel, so that it didn't matter where it was pointed! Such a gun wouldn't require a firearm permit, since it can't fire live ammunition.

This would seem like good logic, but it misses some things.

1. A gun with a blocked barrel cannot fire a blank. It can fire a cap. There is a significant difference.

2. You've no idea what standard the police used to determine "no risk." It is entirely possible that they determined there was no risk because Derren demonstrated to their satisfcation that he would know which chamber the bullet/blank/whatever was in.

I say this without knowing how Derren did it. I know two ways of doing Russian Roulette, one of which can be used with either bullets or blanks (the audience is told which) in a real gun, and one of which uses a real pellet in a real pellet gun. From what I saw of this, though, Derren uses neither method.

Skipjack, it seems to boil down to you needing to be able to analyze this thoroughly. All that most here are saying is that you cannot analyze it accurately with the information provided. You can speculate on possibile methods, but even some of your speculations are internally inconsistent.

 

[skipjack]

1. A gun with a blocked barrel cannot fire a blank.

If the amount of explosive is reduced enough, even a blank could be fired without damaging a gun with a blocked barrel. However, what is essentially a cap could certainly be modified to resemble a live round to an inexperienced observer, such as the loader.

2. You've no idea what standard the police used to determine "no risk."

Certainly, Derren thought there was no risk. However, a few magicians have managed to think that when performing using a real gun and yet make a mistake which results in disaster. I would expect the magician to be even more cautious than the police.

Since the "live" ending was actually shown in delay, a few seconds of what occurred could have simply been edited out, and the delay correspondingly reduced. That would allow Derren time to make sure of which chamber was loaded by the spectator (whilst briefly putting his body between the spectator and the gun, so that the spectator doesn't know) or even to switch the gun with a separate, preloaded gun.

 

[DJM]

It wasn't shown because of the 6 hours delay, but there was indeed a disaster there during the effect, and that participant got killed.

Fortunately they had thought of this problem before the show, and so they had his twin just in case something went wrong.

You only got to see the second try.

 

[Garrette]

If the amount of explosive is reduced enough, even a blank could be fired without damaging a gun with a blocked barrel.

Without claiming any special expertise, I disagree heartily.

Firing a blank causes powder and bits of casing to exit the barrel with sufficient force kill at close range. Reconfiguring the blank to avoid the discharge means making it into something that is no longer a blank.

---

A machinist can make a fake gun that appears real which can fire modified blanks but not caps or actual bullets. A machinist can make a fake gun that appears real which can fire actual blanks or modified bullets and real caps. An armorer can make a real gun that can fire bullets that look real but aren't.

It is within the realm of possibility that somewhere in your posts you have an actual, definable conjecture which I have simply missed.

It is further within the real of possibility that your conjecture matches the reality.

Both cases are far more likely to be wrong than true, though.

On the off chance I have truly missed something, can you please restate for me in a brief paragraph what you are proposing?

However, what is essentially a cap could certainly be modified to resemble a live round to an inexperienced observer, such as the loader.

I won't close the door on this possibility, but I will insist that the observer must be very inexperienced and unobservant.

Certainly, Derren thought there was no risk.

You have no way of knowing this. In the two methods I know, there is risk. The performers control it and minimize it, but there is risk nonetheless.

However, a few magicians have managed to think that when performing using a real gun and yet make a mistake which results in disaster.

???

I would expect the magician to be even more cautious than the police.

If I were performing, I would be. What has this to do with whatever your point is?

Since the "live" ending was actually shown in delay, a few seconds of what occurred could have simply been edited out, and the delay correspondingly reduced.

Theoretically possible. Why should we consider it more likely than the alternatives that real life magicians have assured you exist?

That would allow Derren time to make sure of which chamber was loaded by the spectator (whilst briefly putting his body between the spectator and the gun, so that the spectator doesn't know) or even to switch the gun with a separate, preloaded gun.

Again, theoretically possible. Again, why should we consider it likely?

 

[Garrette]

It wasn't shown because of the 6 hours delay, but there was indeed a disaster there during the effect, and that participant got killed.

Fortunately they had thought of this problem before the show, and so they had his twin just in case something went wrong.

You only got to see the second try.

You've sussed the method I know! How'd you do that?

 

[DJM]

It's elementary, my dear Watson.

 

[Azrael 5]

Derren didn't have a firearms permit

Am I bovvered?

It was a fake gun

Face bovvered!

If the amount of explosive is reduced enough, even a blank could be fired without damaging a gun with a blocked barrel. However, what is essentially a cap could certainly be modified to resemble a live round to an inexperienced observer, such as the loader.

Look at my face! Look at my face,do I look bovvered? I ain't bovvered!

 

[skipjack]

Firing a blank causes powder and bits of casing to exit the barrel with sufficient force to kill at close range. Reconfiguring the blank to avoid the discharge means making it into something that is no longer a blank.

That must depend on the amount of powder used. A normal blank wouldn't look like a live round, so what was used wasn't a normal blank. However, the police would probably still call it a blank.

the observer must be very inexperienced and unobservant.

Well, he seemed to be one of the youngest of the candidates shown.

You have no way of knowing this.

It's reasonable to suppose that Derren would not take needless risk. For a one-off televised performance, the main thing is for it to "work"; it's desirable, but not essential, that the loader doesn't know how it works.

Again, theoretically possible. Again, why should we consider it likely?

Because it's very cheap and very reliable.

 

[AgeGap]

the observer must be very inexperienced and unobservant.

Outside of Manchester the vast population of the UK is ignorant when it comes to revolvers.

 

[Azrael 5]

Skipjack I think when brains were given out you were given a blank.You are boring.
ANswer me this one simple question:Can you categorically state how Derren achieved this effect?

 

[Garrette]

Outside of Manchester the vast population of the UK is ignorant when it comes to revolvers.

Caps

Assortment of Blanks

Assortment of Real Bullets

 

[Garrette]

That must depend on the amount of powder used.

No. A blank cannot be used in a gun with a blocked barrel.

A normal blank wouldn't look like a live round,

See above respose to AgeGap.

so what was used wasn't a normal blank.

As a theoretical exercise, you may be right. As a firm assertion you are wrong.

However, the police would probably still call it a blank.

Now you're making things up.

Well, he seemed to be one of the youngest of the candidates shown.

Age has little to do with it. Again, see my response to AgeGap above.

It's reasonable to suppose that Derren would not take needless risk.

Absolutely. But you did not say he took no needless risk. You said "Derren thought there was no risk." Bolding mine.

Are you just playing around here? Trolling for attention?

For a one-off televised performance,

You think this is the only time DB has done this? I don't know if he has or not, but why do you assume so?

the main thing is for it to "work";

For DB the primary thing is for it to work safely. For the networks, the primary thing is ratings.

it's desirable, but not essential, that the loader doesn't know how it works.

Since you admit it is desirable the loader doesn't know, why do your explanations assume he does?

Because it's very cheap and very reliable.

You have no idea if:

1. This is true

2. This is more true for your proposal in comparison to the methods actual magicians have discussed.

 

[skipjack]

A blank cannot be used in a gun with a blocked barrel.

Why? A blank containing hardly any powder may not make much of a bang, but it certainly doesn't require the barrel to be unblocked. Even a toy gun firing a cap makes an appreciable bang - it doesn't take much explosive to accomplish that.

As a theoretical exercise, you may be right. As a firm assertion you are wrong.

It's the illusionist's responsibility to create the illusion (not just good theatre), not mine to prove what happened.

Now you're making things up.

It would still be a blank for legal purposes, so why would the police call it anything else?

Age has little to do with it.

The older you are, the longer you've had to gain knowledge. Also, older people may have fired live rounds before the UK law changed.

Absolutely. But you did not say he took no needless risk. You said "Derren thought there was no risk." Bolding mine.

There was no need to take any risk, so he didn't. He (or the production company) also convinced the police there was no risk.

You think this is the only time DB has done this?

It's reasonable to assume he hadn't done it before. It's irrelevant whether he might do it again.

For DB the primary thing is for it to work safely. For the networks, the primary thing is ratings.

No. "Lots of viewers, but stunt fails" wouldn't be satisfactory for them.

Since you admit it is desirable the loader doesn't know, why do your explanations assume he does?

They don't.

You have no idea if: 1. This is true.

It's the illusionist's responsibilty to create an illusion, not mine to provide absolute proof of the cost or reliability of a simple edit.

Incidentally, I don't think firing the gun off-screen was accidental. It would be absurd to use unmanned cameras and not ensure they'll give adequate views.

 

[Bob Klase]

It's the illusionist's responsibility to create the illusion (not just good theatre), not mine to prove what happened.

Brown met that responsibility. You assume it's his responsibility to create the illusion to the satisfaction of every nitpicking jerk that happened to watch. It's not, and I can't imagine that he cares about the one-to-three people who are like you.

There was no need to take any risk, so he didn't.

You state that as a known fact. It's not and you don't know what, if any, risk there was. It is a known fact (among magician's who have a clue) that just about any trick that involves a gun being fired at the magician has some risk and (according to the current issue of Magic magazine) a magician in Ghana was killed attempting one just 6 weeks ago.

It's reasonable to assume he hadn't done it before.

It's also reasonable to assume that he had done it before. Nothing makes your assumption more reasonable.

Originally Posted by Garrette
For DB the primary thing is for it to work safely. For the networks, the primary thing is ratings.

No. "Lots of viewers, but stunt fails" wouldn't be satisfactory for them..

Of course it would. Two of the more spectacular failures in television- Evil Knievil's failure to make the jump over Snake River in the 70's and David Blaine's failure to break the breath-holding record last year got lots of viewers, which means more advertising dollars, and the networks involved were very satisfied with the money they made. But it's nice to see that your ignorance extends to areas other than just magic methods and disclaimers.