America's Gun Violence #2

mickeyrat

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

a movie,  set in the old west..... not sure I buy it, although the times could be quite violent by gun

if it were more modern then I could see that argument

HughFreakingDillon

mickeyrat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

a movie,  set in the old west..... not sure I buy it, although the times could be quite violent by gun

if it were more modern then I could see that argument

this is what I mean; sure, no one is being torn in half by a military grade rifle, but my entire childhood was mimicking these types of movies, pretending to shoot my friends with toy guns. that's all I mean. 

hedonist

HughFreakingDillon said:

hedonist said:

HughFreakingDillon 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. 

You were indeed incorrect. I appreciate the apology. 

gimmesometruth27

static111 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-jr-is-hawking-shockingly-tacky-alex-baldwin-kills-people-t-shirts

Wow

is anybody really surprised by this?

if someone would have asked me who on planet earth would be the first to sell such a shirt i would have picked junior.

HughFreakingDillon

gimmesometruth27 said:

static111 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-jr-is-hawking-shockingly-tacky-alex-baldwin-kills-people-t-shirts

Wow

is anybody really surprised by this?

if someone would have asked me who on planet earth would be the first to sell such a shirt i would have picked junior.

he is such a despicable piece of garbage. 

gimmesometruth27

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

static111 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-jr-is-hawking-shockingly-tacky-alex-baldwin-kills-people-t-shirts

Wow

is anybody really surprised by this?

if someone would have asked me who on planet earth would be the first to sell such a shirt i would have picked junior.

he is such a despicable piece of garbage. 

he only did it because baldwin probably won an emmy for his portrayal of daddy trump.

OnWis97

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

static111 said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-jr-is-hawking-shockingly-tacky-alex-baldwin-kills-people-t-shirts

Wow

is anybody really surprised by this?

if someone would have asked me who on planet earth would be the first to sell such a shirt i would have picked junior.

he is such a despicable piece of garbage. 

he only did it because baldwin probably won an emmy for his portrayal of daddy trump.

SNL's been mimicking presidents since Ford (Nixon?). And nobody complained about it...not even for Ronnie, the most popular president in my memory. But our Alpha Male 45th President, who is tough as nails, can't deal with it. Nobody is softer than the Fuck Your Feelings crowd.

Meltdown99

Well the thread is titled American gun violence?  Not American intentional gun violence.  Anyone shot and killed by a gun is dying a violent death.  This lady is a victim of gun violence in America…

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

nicknyr15

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

I can’t stand Alec. I think he’s insufferable and a notorious hot head. I think it’s so  stupid to defend or go against him based on his fuckin politics. Not saying it’s happening here but it’s definitely happening on he internet. Can people form an opinion without their political
alignment interfering? I personally think it’s ridiculous to put the blame on him for this. 

tempo_n_groove

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

Yeah, I agree w you.

Like in any other setting where a trained professional is doing the main work for you, you would be relying on his expertise.

HughFreakingDillon

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

Yeah, I agree w you.

Like in any other setting where a trained professional is doing the main work for you, you would be relying on his expertise.

exactly. 

HughFreakingDillon

nicknyr15 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

I can’t stand Alec. I think he’s insufferable and a notorious hot head. I think it’s so  stupid to defend or go against him based on his fuckin politics. Not saying it’s happening here but it’s definitely happening on he internet. Can people form an opinion without their political
alignment interfering? I personally think it’s ridiculous to put the blame on him for this. 

leaving a voice mail on your daughters cell phone calling her a pig shows who you really are. 

same with the traffic ticket incident. I agree with you. He seems like a real piece of work. 

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

Agree.  That is nonsense.  The actors are professionals in regards to firearms and explosives, etc.  The movie has them...they are responsible as well as leadership for the movie set to ensure a safe environment.  The actors shouldn't be careless, and it doesn;t seem like he was, but they shouldn;t be responsible for gun safety on set either.  Nightmare scenario with more issues then the current setup.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

I would say that the police would probably look at everyone, from the pyrotechnics professional, to the person that pushed the button to determine who was culpable.  I’m not familiar with bombs, but I know firearm laws pretty well and in any other case, accidental or intentional, the person pulling the trigger is responsible for what happens next.  It’s why the “I didn’t know it was loaded” never holds up in court.  You are responsible for checking that gun yourself.  Once a firearm is placed in your hands, you are responsible for it.  Firearm safety 101 is never assuming a gun is not loaded with live rounds. We agree, though, that the easiest solution to this is to avoid using real guns on set.
Question, are there any reasonable actions Alec could have taken to avoid this tragedy?  If yes, then I think he could face negligent homicide charges at least.

cblock4life

nicknyr15 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon 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.”

more evidence has come out that Alec was handed the gun, was practicing removing it from his holster to point at the camera when it discharged. 

Saw that, and also a rumor swirling that some were using the guns to plink prior and that there will most likely be criminal charges sought (not sure who for).  

What a mess, but it really does just boil down to negligence with a firearm.  Still sounds like the armorer was inexperienced and not very well trained.  Maybe they need to re-evaluate the training requirements for anyone handling firearms on movie sets.  There are plenty examples of Hollywood not knowing how firearms work on the big screen alone.  

I will still hold that Alec should not be handing a real firearm unless he knows basic firearm safety (eg: not pointing at anyone or anything, treat every real gun that is capable of firing real bullets as if it were loaded with real bullets).  Otherwise they should probably stick to rubber prop guns and CGI…
Honestly, I hope the film industry is hammered over their negligent portrayal and use of firearms. 

in any industry, there's a certain level of trust that goes with inherent risks that are posed. you trust those that are tasked with the safety of any given instrument/action. I don't see how Alec is at all to blame for this. 

But yes, there is simply no reason to use real firearms anymore, with the technology to make it look like a real firearm is within financial reach of especially big budget films. 

I’ll agree to disagree on the culpability of Alec.  In any other situation where an adult accidentally shoots someone, the person pulling the trigger is ultimately responsible for the damage caused by that action.  The “he’s just an actor” excuse is non-withstanding in my opinion.  If you handle a real firearm, you are responsible for what happens with it.  Alec had a choice to not use a real firearm, had a choice whether or not to check the chamber himself, made the decision as to where the gun was pointed, and made the decision to pull the trigger.  Once the firearm was in his possession, he was responsible for whatever happened to it.  Yes, the armorer is also to blame, but she did not point the gun or pull the trigger.  There are multiple points of irresponsible behavior, but I do think Alec is partly to blame.  The industry should change its protocols or use fake guns if they want to avoid this type of accident, plain and simple. 

Is there another example where the person pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger would not be held at least partially liable for what happens when that trigger is pulled?

so if I'm playing a terrorist in a movie, strap a bomb to my kidnap victim, being assured that, while the bomb looks real, it absolutely is not, and I click the little red button, and it somehow explodes, I'm culpable for homicide? gimme a break. 

I can’t stand Alec. I think he’s insufferable and a notorious hot head. I think it’s so  stupid to defend or go against him based on his fuckin politics. Not saying it’s happening here but it’s definitely happening on he internet. Can people form an opinion without their political
alignment interfering? I personally think it’s ridiculous to put the blame on him for this. 

I agree with you about the politics bullshit but get used to it because I don’t see it changing soon no matter what the subject is. As for how the investigation goes they’ll have to look at his FF’s portrayal as motive/revenge.  As for blame I believe there’s only been one (felony?) conviction rendered in all the sets using guns that had issues. But I’m gonna double check that myself.  So based on that (if I’m correct) baldwin may face harsher charges more so as one of the producers but may never see any charges filed.