Tragic event in which Alec Baldwin 'discharged' prop gun that left cinematographer dead.

Halifax2TheMax

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

Only on movie sets. Actors need to be “responsible.” More so than a real gun owner.

Do I detect just a hint of sarcasm here?

It’s hard to take those advocating more forcefully for restrictions on gun handling and safety protocols on movie sets when only 6 states require any type of “training “ prior to becoming a “responsible” gun owner. It seems that almost every day someone is shot and/or killed, many of them children, in ‘Murica by a “responsible” gun owner or via their behavior. Crickets. A waning actor who is gifted in his abilities but apparently an asshole lib in his personal life and the advocacy for all kinds of consequences and “training” and “responsibility,” etc. from those who normally are fine with the status quo is laughable. It’s a joke.

Why is Alec Baldwin any different than the thousands that came before him since 1990, when the last death from a gun occurred on a movie set? But I bet those movie sets do make changes and it’ll be another 20 years before it happens again while outside in ‘Murica, it’ll probably happen tomorrow and nothing will change.

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

Only on movie sets. Actors need to be “responsible.” More so than a real gun owner.

Do I detect just a hint of sarcasm here?

It’s hard to take those advocating more forcefully for restrictions on gun handling and safety protocols on movie sets when only 6 states require any type of “training “ prior to becoming a “responsible” gun owner. It seems that almost every day someone is shot and/or killed, many of them children, in ‘Murica by a “responsible” gun owner or via their behavior. Crickets. A waning actor who is gifted in his abilities but apparently an asshole lib in his personal life and the advocacy for all kinds of consequences and “training” and “responsibility,” etc. from those who normally are fine with the status quo is laughable. It’s a joke.

Why is Alec Baldwin any different than the thousands that came before him since 1990, when the last death from a gun occurred on a movie set? But I bet those movie sets do make changes and it’ll be another 20 years before it happens again while outside in ‘Murica, it’ll probably happen tomorrow and nothing will change.

I’d be fine if all states required a safety test before purchasing a gun. Most gun owners here seem to be open to some improved measures. Better background checks, no gun show loop holes, etc. 

brianlux

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

Only on movie sets. Actors need to be “responsible.” More so than a real gun owner.

Do I detect just a hint of sarcasm here?

It’s hard to take those advocating more forcefully for restrictions on gun handling and safety protocols on movie sets when only 6 states require any type of “training “ prior to becoming a “responsible” gun owner. It seems that almost every day someone is shot and/or killed, many of them children, in ‘Murica by a “responsible” gun owner or via their behavior. Crickets. A waning actor who is gifted in his abilities but apparently an asshole lib in his personal life and the advocacy for all kinds of consequences and “training” and “responsibility,” etc. from those who normally are fine with the status quo is laughable. It’s a joke.

Why is Alec Baldwin any different than the thousands that came before him since 1990, when the last death from a gun occurred on a movie set? But I bet those movie sets do make changes and it’ll be another 20 years before it happens again while outside in ‘Murica, it’ll probably happen tomorrow and nothing will change.

It's very likely to have happened already.

Yeah, a lot of hammering on Alec Baldwin going on here.  I get the feeling some are thinking, "Well, what the heck, it's a western, surely the must have a gallows set up somewhere." 

PJPOWER

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

I’m with ya, very reasonable.  I have always been an advocate of more training and safety courses.  Everyone handling a firearm should take at least a basic safety class.  Who here has not?  I just think that any laws related to negligence with a firearm or negligent homicide that apply to other citizens should apply to Alec Baldwin as well.  

I think it’s negligent not to have some basic understanding of firearm safety if you are handling one, whether in the general public or on a movie set.
I had to take a “Hunter’s Safety” class before hunting and am supposed to keep the certification card on me any time I’m hunting, so maybe actors should be required to take a “Actor Safety” class before using a gun on set?
As mace pointed out, they have plenty of time to work on their appearance, they have a few hours to spare on a safety class.
OSHA should require it…
The hypocrisy from the gun control crowd here is astounding…

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

Only on movie sets. Actors need to be “responsible.” More so than a real gun owner.

Do I detect just a hint of sarcasm here?

It’s hard to take those advocating more forcefully for restrictions on gun handling and safety protocols on movie sets when only 6 states require any type of “training “ prior to becoming a “responsible” gun owner. It seems that almost every day someone is shot and/or killed, many of them children, in ‘Murica by a “responsible” gun owner or via their behavior. Crickets. A waning actor who is gifted in his abilities but apparently an asshole lib in his personal life and the advocacy for all kinds of consequences and “training” and “responsibility,” etc. from those who normally are fine with the status quo is laughable. It’s a joke.

Why is Alec Baldwin any different than the thousands that came before him since 1990, when the last death from a gun occurred on a movie set? But I bet those movie sets do make changes and it’ll be another 20 years before it happens again while outside in ‘Murica, it’ll probably happen tomorrow and nothing will change.

It's a controlled environment where actors are relying on someone w training to guide them through the movie.  They aren't handling a gun to protect themselves, it's acting.

Of course there is a difference.  

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

Only on movie sets. Actors need to be “responsible.” More so than a real gun owner.

Do I detect just a hint of sarcasm here?

It’s hard to take those advocating more forcefully for restrictions on gun handling and safety protocols on movie sets when only 6 states require any type of “training “ prior to becoming a “responsible” gun owner. It seems that almost every day someone is shot and/or killed, many of them children, in ‘Murica by a “responsible” gun owner or via their behavior. Crickets. A waning actor who is gifted in his abilities but apparently an asshole lib in his personal life and the advocacy for all kinds of consequences and “training” and “responsibility,” etc. from those who normally are fine with the status quo is laughable. It’s a joke.

Why is Alec Baldwin any different than the thousands that came before him since 1990, when the last death from a gun occurred on a movie set? But I bet those movie sets do make changes and it’ll be another 20 years before it happens again while outside in ‘Murica, it’ll probably happen tomorrow and nothing will change.

It's a controlled environment where actors are relying on someone w training to guide them through the movie.  They aren't handling a gun to protect themselves, it's acting.

Of course there is a difference.  

similar to a parent leaving a weapon just laying around accessable. they arent geld accountable when a child finds and fires said weapon. killing or injuring others. THEN its an accident. 

mickeyrat

or those parents who thought it wise and cool to take young daughter to range to fire a fucking uzi. AND dumbfuck instructor who did it and lost his life in the process. were the parents held to account? the range owner?

dankind

mickeyrat said:

or those parents who thought it wise and cool to take young daughter to range to fire a fucking uzi. AND dumbfuck instructor who did it and lost his life in the process. were the parents held to account? the range owner?

Those things weigh a ton.

https://youtu.be/UMv5R2ioitU

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

Only on movie sets. Actors need to be “responsible.” More so than a real gun owner.

Do I detect just a hint of sarcasm here?

It’s hard to take those advocating more forcefully for restrictions on gun handling and safety protocols on movie sets when only 6 states require any type of “training “ prior to becoming a “responsible” gun owner. It seems that almost every day someone is shot and/or killed, many of them children, in ‘Murica by a “responsible” gun owner or via their behavior. Crickets. A waning actor who is gifted in his abilities but apparently an asshole lib in his personal life and the advocacy for all kinds of consequences and “training” and “responsibility,” etc. from those who normally are fine with the status quo is laughable. It’s a joke.

Why is Alec Baldwin any different than the thousands that came before him since 1990, when the last death from a gun occurred on a movie set? But I bet those movie sets do make changes and it’ll be another 20 years before it happens again while outside in ‘Murica, it’ll probably happen tomorrow and nothing will change.

It's a controlled environment where actors are relying on someone w training to guide them through the movie.  They aren't handling a gun to protect themselves, it's acting.

Of course there is a difference.  

similar to a parent leaving a weapon just laying around accessable. they arent geld accountable when a child finds and fires said weapon. killing or injuring others. THEN its an accident. 

Not even close to being the same thing.

PJPOWER

mickeyrat said:

or those parents who thought it wise and cool to take young daughter to range to fire a fucking uzi. AND dumbfuck instructor who did it and lost his life in the process. were the parents held to account? the range owner?

I thought about this one and there are some key differences.  One, the range probably should have had a minimum age requirement (like amusement park rides).  The business was specifically designed to let people shoot firearms that are difficult to obtain.    Who was responsible for the minor at that point, the parents or the range owners?  If the minor was in considered in temporary care of the range owner, then the range owner should be held responsible.  If the parents signed something saying they are liable for any damages, they are responsible and should have been charged with negligence or neglectful supervision at least (in my opinion).

PJPOWER

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

brianlux said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

Only on movie sets. Actors need to be “responsible.” More so than a real gun owner.

Do I detect just a hint of sarcasm here?

It’s hard to take those advocating more forcefully for restrictions on gun handling and safety protocols on movie sets when only 6 states require any type of “training “ prior to becoming a “responsible” gun owner. It seems that almost every day someone is shot and/or killed, many of them children, in ‘Murica by a “responsible” gun owner or via their behavior. Crickets. A waning actor who is gifted in his abilities but apparently an asshole lib in his personal life and the advocacy for all kinds of consequences and “training” and “responsibility,” etc. from those who normally are fine with the status quo is laughable. It’s a joke.

Why is Alec Baldwin any different than the thousands that came before him since 1990, when the last death from a gun occurred on a movie set? But I bet those movie sets do make changes and it’ll be another 20 years before it happens again while outside in ‘Murica, it’ll probably happen tomorrow and nothing will change.

It's a controlled environment where actors are relying on someone w training to guide them through the movie.  They aren't handling a gun to protect themselves, it's acting.

Of course there is a difference.  

similar to a parent leaving a weapon just laying around accessable. they arent geld accountable when a child finds and fires said weapon. killing or injuring others. THEN its an accident. 

I would go as far as to say that all firearm accidents result from negligence on someone’s part.  When it is a minor, the parents are ultimately responsible for their children’s actions and should face charges if they leave a firearm out for a child to find.  

I’m all for people owning firearms, but will always hold that they should be held accountable if unsafe with them.
Alec Baldwin is an adult and is responsible for the safety of a firearm in his hands…period.  

Meltdown99

You’d think every US State would have mandatory gun safety course.

Thats just common sense…

Just shows how many politicians have been bought off by the gun lobby…

I

tempo_n_groove

Meltdown99 said:

You’d think every US State would have mandatory gun safety course.

Thats just common sense…

Just shows how many politicians have been bought off by the gun lobby…

I

I think they should. 

It's a whole new way to make people safer and make money.  Being a firearms instructor would be a dream job for me.

Spiritual_Chaos

Do it like one of the top 5-6 Countries in the world does it:

To apply and obtain a gun license, the perspective gun owner approaches the local police. The applicant must be in good standing and at least 18 years old. There may be exceptions for a younger aged applicant to be granted a license. The applicant must be a member of an approved shooting club for at least six months or have passed a hunting examination (jägarexamen). Being a member of a shooting club is the most utilized route to legally acquire pistols for sport shooting, while passing a hunting exam, is for hunting rifles. Note: a gun registered for sport shooting may not be used in hunting. However a licensed gun user is allowed to hunt without passing a hunting exam, if you are chaperoned (accompanied and guided) by someone that has passed that exam.

From the age of 15 years, one may take the hunting exam. It is lawful for a person with a gun license to lend his or her gun to a person at least 15 years and older, under supervision. A Swede may be given a license to own up to six hunting rifles, ten pistols or a combination of eight rifles and pistols. There would need to be a valid reason for ownership of more firearms. It is stipulated that all firearms are to be stored/kept in an approved gun safe.

It is illegal for a civilian in Sweden to carry a firearm, unless for a specific, legal purpose;such as hunting or attending shooting ranges. To transport firearms, there are rules to adhere to;the general regulations are that the gun must be unloaded, hidden and transported in a safe and secure way under supervision.

HughFreakingDillon

mickeyrat said:

care to keep kicking or is the horse dead yet.

what is with this nonsense of you telling people they can't/shouldn't respond or post about a subject but you can?

The Juggler

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

And I don’t remember anyone excusing gun owners from basic gun safety. Pretty much all gun owners here are for that. No one is expecting more from Alec than anyone else. Just “I’m an actor” isn’t an excuse to not know.

I’m actually really surprised it doesn’t fall under common sense gun law to require anyone handling a gun to have basic knowledge of a gun and be able to check if it’s loaded. Sounds like a terrible idea to me to tell someone to point a real gun at someone and pull the trigger to not be able to check for himself if it’s loaded or not. Pretty sure they wouldn’t give the keys to a car to an actor who knows nothing about driving and expect them to drive on set. We’re not talking about being a gunsmith expert here, but to be able to check if it’s loaded? Why is that such a terrible idea?

Agreed. And like with passing a test to earn a drivers license all gun owners should also be required to carry a license. Seems reasonable. 

mickeyrat

HughFreakingDillon said:

mickeyrat said:

care to keep kicking or is the horse dead yet.

what is with this nonsense of you telling people they can't/shouldn't respond or post about a subject but you can?

when its the same point ovet abd over wtc there realky is no need to respond yet again.

and who the fuck are you to question?

if you read  a couple posts further , your post might not have needlesly happened.

Halifax2TheMax

The Juggler said:

mace1229 said:

The Juggler said:

Lots of talk about basic gun safety shit. Almost makes me think one should have to pass a gun safety test/course before being able to purchase and/or handle a deadly weapon. We do that with cars. Why not guns? Seems reasonable. 

And I don’t remember anyone excusing gun owners from basic gun safety. Pretty much all gun owners here are for that. No one is expecting more from Alec than anyone else. Just “I’m an actor” isn’t an excuse to not know.

I’m actually really surprised it doesn’t fall under common sense gun law to require anyone handling a gun to have basic knowledge of a gun and be able to check if it’s loaded. Sounds like a terrible idea to me to tell someone to point a real gun at someone and pull the trigger to not be able to check for himself if it’s loaded or not. Pretty sure they wouldn’t give the keys to a car to an actor who knows nothing about driving and expect them to drive on set. We’re not talking about being a gunsmith expert here, but to be able to check if it’s loaded? Why is that such a terrible idea?

Agreed. And like with passing a test to earn a drivers license all gun owners should also be required to carry a license. Seems reasonable. 

And suffer the consequences when they’re not “responsible.” That NFL player would have been better off if he “accidentally” discharged his firearm and killed that woman and her dog rather than driving 154 mph while drunk. As it is, think he loses his gun privileges? Further, just what you want, someone ir”responsible” enough to drive 154 mph while drunk owning a firearm. Clearly they’re fit.

Can’t wait for the Supremes to strike down NY’s concealed carry law. That’ll surely make the place safer. Maybe they should just declare the whole state a movie set?

static111

As long as this is still going, how is anyone questioning that anyone holding a real gun anywhere should not be responsible for at minimum a cursory safety inspection? I don't care if it is alec baldwin on a movie set with a revolver or kyle rittenhouse on the street with a rifle, if you don't have basic gun safety education you have no place near a gun.  That isn't to say that actors should be held to a higher standard, just that everyone should be held to the same standard.

The Juggler

static111 said:

As long as this is still going, how is anyone questioning that anyone holding a real gun anywhere should not be responsible for at minimum a cursory safety inspection? I don't care if it is alec baldwin on a movie set with a revolver or kyle rittenhouse on the street with a rifle, if you don't have basic gun safety education you have no place near a gun.  That isn't to say that actors should be held to a higher standard, just that everyone should be held to the same standard.

Isn't that part of the problem then? The laws need to be stricter