Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

America's Gun Violence #2

2456711

Comments

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,575
    OnWis97 said:
    It looks like he intentionally pointed and pulled the trigger...I suspect out of ignorance of the impact of such things. I find it amazing that a guy who's been acting for decades would not realize it. I suppose other possibilities is that he pointed it without intent to pull the trigger and twitched or that it was a ruse to commit murder (maybe I watched too many Monk episodes).

    Damn. Terrible.
    I read a very good explanation on prop guns. there is always a risk it will misfire, but if it's loaded properly, it shouldn't, and he wasn't wrong to point and pull the trigger, as far I as read. But this will be unspeakably traumatizing for him. I feel for the family of the deceased, but holy shit, I can't imagine living with accidently killing someone. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 3,966
    OnWis97 said:
    It looks like he intentionally pointed and pulled the trigger...I suspect out of ignorance of the impact of such things. I find it amazing that a guy who's been acting for decades would not realize it. I suppose other possibilities is that he pointed it without intent to pull the trigger and twitched or that it was a ruse to commit murder (maybe I watched too many Monk episodes).

    Damn. Terrible.
    I read a very good explanation on prop guns. there is always a risk it will misfire, but if it's loaded properly, it shouldn't, and he wasn't wrong to point and pull the trigger, as far I as read. But this will be unspeakably traumatizing for him. I feel for the family of the deceased, but holy shit, I can't imagine living with accidently killing someone. 
    Admittedly, I don't know anything about prop guns. I suppose if the gun was meant to fired in filming, then the risk is generally low. His pointing it and shooting at someone between takes as a joke (I think) is unnecessary. Had he not, would it have been likely to have done the same thing while filming or rehearsing?

    And, I totally agree that while you feel for the victim and her loved ones, I first put myself in his place. I can't imagine...
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2021 Asbury Park
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    OnWis97 said:
    It looks like he intentionally pointed and pulled the trigger...I suspect out of ignorance of the impact of such things. I find it amazing that a guy who's been acting for decades would not realize it. I suppose other possibilities is that he pointed it without intent to pull the trigger and twitched or that it was a ruse to commit murder (maybe I watched too many Monk episodes).

    Damn. Terrible.
    I read a very good explanation on prop guns. there is always a risk it will misfire, but if it's loaded properly, it shouldn't, and he wasn't wrong to point and pull the trigger, as far I as read. But this will be unspeakably traumatizing for him. I feel for the family of the deceased, but holy shit, I can't imagine living with accidently killing someone. 
    I thought the whole point of a prop gun was that it can’t fire real bullets? Why not use real guns then?
    This reminded me of The Crow. Been a while, but if I remember that was a string of bad events and no one person was blamed. I think the real looking bullets they used had the powder emptied and the primers discharged. Then they load it up with blanks for the shootout. One of the primers was still live, which was just enough power to dislodge the bullet and get it stuck in the barrel. Then when they used switched over to use the blanks that had enough power to actually fire the bullet. 
    Curious how close this case is. Seems incredibly stupid they’re still using objects that can be fired though. 

  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,356
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
  • nicknyr15nicknyr15 Posts: 4,975
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    Both. 
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,196
    nicknyr15 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    Both. 
    whoever pushed that the necessary protocols were relaxed or disgarded

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,575
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    depends who is found to be negligent. the armory person most likely, but it depends on Baldwin or whether he was acting reckless in pointing the gun at the cinematographer or not or if he was rightly pointing it at the camera for a legit shot (not sure the chain of events). 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,356
    edited October 25
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    depends who is found to be negligent. the armory person most likely, but it depends on Baldwin or whether he was acting reckless in pointing the gun at the cinematographer or not or if he was rightly pointing it at the camera for a legit shot (not sure the chain of events). 
    In any other case, the “I didn’t know it was loaded” excuse wouldn’t protect the shooter from liability.  Maybe actors shouldn’t be pretending with real guns….
    As far as law goes, Alec chose to point a real gun (regardless of not knowing whether or not it was loaded with “real” bullets) at a woman and chose to pull the trigger.  I feel bad for him, but I feel bad for anyone that accidentally kills someone with a gun…that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have charges brought up against them for negligence.  Alec himself was negligent in inspection of the gun.  Anyone that does not know how to inspect a firearm has no business holding a real one, including actors.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,356
    edited October 25
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,575
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 19,201
    not related to current times, but i am reading this book called A Strange and Blighted Land, Gettysburg The Aftermath of a Battle.

    it tells one story of a 3 year old boy who was accidently shot and killed by his 5 or 6 year old brother who found a loaded rifle near the battlefield a few days after the battle. it is sad, but it showed me that these kinds of things have been happening here for  over a century and a half.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 15,277
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it

    Apparently there were crew members that raised concerns, and subsequently walked off the set, in the first few days of shooting (the movie). 

    Crew on Baldwin film raised prop gun concerns before fatal shooting | Alec Baldwin | The Guardian
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now.

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,575
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it

    Apparently there were crew members that raised concerns, and subsequently walked off the set, in the first few days of shooting (the movie). 

    Crew on Baldwin film raised prop gun concerns before fatal shooting | Alec Baldwin | The Guardian
    yes, I had read that. I'm unfamiliar with what the official role of the producer is; that would make a difference in culpability. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 19,201
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it

    Apparently there were crew members that raised concerns, and subsequently walked off the set, in the first few days of shooting (the movie). 

    Crew on Baldwin film raised prop gun concerns before fatal shooting | Alec Baldwin | The Guardian
    yes, I had read that. I'm unfamiliar with what the official role of the producer is; that would make a difference in culpability. 
    producers are the money people. they are the ones that put up the funding to make the movie.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,356
    edited October 25
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,575
    edited October 26
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's not just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    Post edited by HughFreakingDillon on
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 6,356
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    From what I’ve read, it’s a far cry from “a ton of training and expertise”:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2021/10/24/baldwin-rust-shooting-armorer/

    “ In particular, the incident has put a spotlight on the role of a set’s armorer, or a firearms specialist — and the lack of formal training required to become one.” 

    “There is no standard test to become an armorer, according to Tristano, and training mainly consists of internships or other work under master armorers, the industry term for experienced armorers who oversee those with less experience.”

  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434
    PJPOWER said:
    PJPOWER said:
    mace1229 said:
    PJPOWER said:
    So who should be charged with firearm negligence?  Alec?  The armory person?  
    I wouldn’t think Baldwin would or should be charged if the industry standard was to have a firearms expert on site and trust his knowledge. I would also think that standard might change to make anyone handling a gun (if they even use real guns after this) be trained and responsible for the final inspection. 
    I get many actors probably don’t own or use guns and just trust the experts working with them. But honestly, even if I was anti-gun, I’d want to take a safety training course and be able to inspect any firearm someone just hands me and says to go point it at someone and pull the trigger, it’s fine. 
    If my first sentence is true, I think the standard should change to include anyone who held the gun in the chain of events be held responsible. Don’t just trust someone a gun is empty and take their word for it.
    If someone gave you a gun and said “don’t worry, it’s not loaded”, and you pointed it at someone and shot them, who would be liable?  In the end, it’s always (with adults anyway)the person holding/pointing/shooting the gun that is responsible for where that bullet lands and the damage it does.  I don’t give him a pass just because he is an actor.  
    But this isn't just any old backyard shenanigans. this is a controlled setting with real experts knowing what is inside the gun and what isn't. Baldwin wouldn't have known just by looking at it. this is one of those cases where the liability, in my view, would only fall on him if:

    a) as the producer, knowingly cut corners with the union and safety protocols
    b) as an actor, pointed it somewhere he shouldn't have been pointing it
    It doesn’t even sound like the person in charge of the guns was very knowledgeable of them.  Not sure about “real experts”…
    And the actor was obviously pointing it at someone’s mid-section.
    My argument is that Baldwin shouldn’t have even had it in his hands if he doesn’t know how to operate it and do his own safety check.
    Simple firearm basic safety rules:
    ”treat every gun as if it were loaded”
    ”never point at something you do not wish to destroy”
    no, there are real experts in this field. from what I've read, there are many variables involved in a prop gun being used safely, so there's a ton of training and expertise involved. 

    it's just the costume guy moonlighting as a prop gun guy. 

    doing a "safety check", as I said, would have been moot if it had been baldwin, or even a trained firearm enthusiast. As I stated, a layman wouldn't know the difference between a real loaded gun and a prop gun loaded with blanks, even opening the chamber, it looks the same apparently; it is virtually indistinguishable just to look at. only the person loading it would know, and you have to trust they did their job correctly. 
    Since this was a western. I’m assuming it’s all old cowboy style revolvers. Would be the worst western ever if they were running around with a 9mm. It’s very easy to check a revolver. Not that difficult to check the chamber of a pistol either, but that doesn’t apply here.
    Anyway, my point is that it’s not difficult. With 3 minutes I could teach anyone to check for a live bullet or a blank. It’s just a matter of someone not doing their job as part of a safety check.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 6,434


    You can literally see the bullets on most revolvers like that. And if not, if you’re the safety guy in charge, take the 5 seconds to remove each round and check for yourself.
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 29,155
    static111 said:
    Who’s Alex Baldwin? Friend of Brandon? Fucking idiot be idioting.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 23,878
    Funny, all this Alec speculation, and nothing about two people killed and four injured during a mall shooting in Idaho today. 

    Ho hum…just another day, folks. 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 29,155
    hedonist said:
    Funny, all this Alec speculation, and nothing about two people killed and four injured during a mall shooting in Idaho today. 

    Ho hum…just another day, folks. 
    It was only two killed. Need 10Xs that to get attention. Ho hum is right. Make it 100X that and you still wouldn’t get meaningful firearms regulation.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,575
    hedonist said:
    Funny, all this Alec speculation, and nothing about two people killed and four injured during a mall shooting in Idaho today. 

    Ho hum…just another day, folks. 
    so talk about it. i certainly don't hear about every single shooting in the US. a famous actor killing a person on set of a movie is big news, like it or not. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 23,878
    hedonist said:
    Funny, all this Alec speculation, and nothing about two people killed and four injured during a mall shooting in Idaho today. 

    Ho hum…just another day, folks. 
    so talk about it. i certainly don't hear about every single shooting in the US. a famous actor killing a person on set of a movie is big news, like it or not. 
    Whoa, reading into my post or just defensive? I’m allowed to opine too, dangnabbit. It IS just another day here.

    Ho hum!
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 23,196
    personally not sure the baldwin thing belongs here. yes a terrible thing happened. its missing a critical element. intent.

    aside from the events involving little kids as shooters, the rest involve harm intentions
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,575
    mickeyrat said:
    personally not sure the baldwin thing belongs here. yes a terrible thing happened. its missing a critical element. intent.

    aside from the events involving little kids as shooters, the rest involve harm intentions
    true, I wondered the same thing myself if it should be here. I suppose one could argue that it's relevant because of the pervasiveness of gun culture and how that might be somewhat intertwined with this incident, but fair point. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon HeadstoniaPosts: 28,575
    hedonist said:
    hedonist said:
    Funny, all this Alec speculation, and nothing about two people killed and four injured during a mall shooting in Idaho today. 

    Ho hum…just another day, folks. 
    so talk about it. i certainly don't hear about every single shooting in the US. a famous actor killing a person on set of a movie is big news, like it or not. 
    Whoa, reading into my post or just defensive? I’m allowed to opine too, dangnabbit. It IS just another day here.

    Ho hum!
    not defensive at all, but quite possible I read it wrong. I took as you lamenting that we weren't talking about what you thought would be more important. If I was wrong, I apologize. 
    (Track 10 of The Headstones' Nickels For Your Nightmares)


Sign In or Register to comment.