However, I know a large number of people under 18 who know that the first thing to do on receipt of a firearm is to check it.
There is no reason for anyone handling a real firearm not to have the (very basic) safety training required to ensure negligent discharges cannot happen. Nor for actors not to perform simple checks for themselves, over and above what the armourer or equivalent does. There is no reason at all to abdicate responsibility here.
I'd be surprised if the actor in this instance has not had very basic safety training. He's still not legally responsible (in his role of actor) for what happened.
Either he hasn't had the training, or he ignored it for some reason, which may or may not relate to complacency or arrogance.
You seem fixated with whether Baldwin was legally responsible; it seems better to me to work out how to avoid such an event, which won't be achieved by denying responsibility.
I'm not fixated on anything. Prohibiting live rounds on set would probably reduce the risk of such an incident. It also seems more realistic and feasible than making the actor or extra responsible for gun safety
Yes, the whole point was that a live round may have been introduced because of the act of loading being filmed in close-up. Where you *would* see the primer.
Just because you wouldn't know the difference doesn't mean "next to no-one" would. In the USA, the main market for such a Western, there are more firearms than there are people.
I don't expect my images to show properly, as I've never added any on NPR before and am happy to admit I might get that wrong. It's a shame I can't use my own pics too, as I don't keep ammunition (whether purchased or handloaded) at home.
Feel free at any point BTW to apologise for your insulting first line quoted above.
In my case, this
Similar to the ones we used to start this
on Saturday.
You see, they aren't only used in applications for people with an unhealthy interest in guns.
That's a bit of a leap. I would expect anyone entitled to "concealed carry" (very much the minority) to be acutely safety conscious.
Film crew who call a real firearm a "prop gun" though, not so much...
Yeah nah! The US has a very high unintentional firearm fatality rate. About 430 deaths per year. I suspect that there is no correlation between lax gun laws and responsibility of use. Its like using a table saw, ironically most injuries occur amongst experienced woodworkers. Over familiarity results in a lowering of caution.
That figure would be less than 1.5 per million firearms.
Unintentional fatalities in the USA tend to be in the home and usually result from insufficient security keeping firearms and non-shooters apart.
In this instance, the anti-gun actor is unlikely to have been lax because of overfamiliarity with guns - quite the contrary. He even seems to have thought it was someone else's job to check the firearm for him. It's not - even if it's been checked before, it's the recipient's responsibility to check it himself. That's how trained shooters behave, and that's how accidents are eliminated.
The vast majority of firearm owners in the USA will have minimal training in their use. There are probably millions of purse guns owned by people who will have visited the range maybe once.
Baldwin probably made the same assumption that you're making. That firearm users in the USA are trained and responsible.
Yes, the whole point was that a live round may have been introduced because of the act of loading being filmed in close-up. Where you *would* see the primer.
Just because you wouldn't know the difference doesn't mean "next to no-one" would. In the USA, the main market for such a Western, there are more firearms than there are people.
I don't expect my images to show properly, as I've never added any on NPR before and am happy to admit I might get that wrong. It's a shame I can't use my own pics too, as I don't keep ammunition (whether purchased or handloaded) at home.
Feel free at any point BTW to apologise for your insulting first line quoted above.
In my case, this
Similar to the ones we used to start this
on Saturday.
You see, they aren't only used in applications for people with an unhealthy interest in guns.
You do understand that we are discussing a gun, not a plane, right?
Like I said, feel free to apologise for the erroneous insult. Or don't, if you prefer to be that sort of person.
FalseBayFC wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:57 pm
Yeah nah! The US has a very high unintentional firearm fatality rate. About 430 deaths per year. I suspect that there is no correlation between lax gun laws and responsibility of use. Its like using a table saw, ironically most injuries occur amongst experienced woodworkers. Over familiarity results in a lowering of caution.
That figure would be less than 1.5 per million firearms.
Unintentional fatalities in the USA tend to be in the home and usually result from insufficient security keeping firearms and non-shooters apart.
In this instance, the anti-gun actor is unlikely to have been lax because of overfamiliarity with guns - quite the contrary. He even seems to have thought it was someone else's job to check the firearm for him. It's not - even if it's been checked before, it's the recipient's responsibility to check it himself. That's how trained shooters behave, and that's how accidents are eliminated.
The vast majority of firearm owners in the USA will have minimal training in their use. There are probably millions of purse guns owned by people who will have visited the range maybe once.
Baldwin probably made the same assumption that you're making. That firearm users in the USA are trained and responsible.
Funnily enough, the "assumption" I always make is "It doesn't matter how well trained this person is nor how much I trust them, it's my responsibility to check." Quite the opposite of Baldwin.
You seem to like the word "probably". Is that used by people who make assumptions?
Calculon wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:08 pm
I'd be surprised if the actor in this instance has not had very basic safety training. He's still not legally responsible (in his role of actor) for what happened.
Either he hasn't had the training, or he ignored it for some reason, which may or may not relate to complacency or arrogance.
You seem fixated with whether Baldwin was legally responsible; it seems better to me to work out how to avoid such an event, which won't be achieved by denying responsibility.
I'm not fixated on anything. Prohibiting live rounds on set would probably reduce the risk of such an incident. It also seems more realistic and feasible than making the actor or extra responsible for gun safety
Such a prohibition would be logical (if feasible against the background of 2nd Amendment rights etc.).
It is incredibly easy, however, to require anyone handling a firearm to do a basic safety check. They are not toys!
In this instance, the anti-gun actor is unlikely to have been lax because of overfamiliarity with guns - quite the contrary. He even seems to have thought it was someone else's job to check the firearm for him. It's not - even if it's been checked before, it's the recipient's responsibility to check it himself. That's how trained shooters behave, and that's how accidents are eliminated.
From what I've read the actor is specifically not allowed to manipulate the firearm before filming, so it would be against the rules and regulations for him to have checked the gun
That's not their job. They're not trained to. They're not allowed to.
If an actor started messing with a gun it'd be taken from them and production would be halted until everyone sat down for extra safety training and the unions cleared everything to continue.
It's VERY regulated, on any set -- film, play, tv, anything. Anything dangerous. You can't have an open flame, even a match, unless you've got safety protocols clearing it and followed.
There's a chain of handling, checking, oversight and it doesn't involve or rely on the actor in any way.
Can't vouch for the veracity of this particular quote but I have seen several similar.
That's a bit of a leap. I would expect anyone entitled to "concealed carry" (very much the minority) to be acutely safety conscious.
Film crew who call a real firearm a "prop gun" though, not so much...
Hmmm.
And not a single concealed carry amongst them!
Seriously though, have you been to the US? In the 28 states I've visited, such scenes have been so rare as to have completely escaped my sight.
You were the one who brought "concealed carry" into it.
I said this:
"probably the product of an over-familiar gun culture where firearms are routinely carried when out shopping. "
If you want to argue that guns are never carried when out shopping, then fine: my comment was less about quoting statistics than it was about the routine handling of guns.
I stand by my point about over-familiarity breeding a careless attitude towards firearms, though.
If you are half as experienced in the use of firearms as you want us to think you are, you'd probably understand that that isn't a fallacy.
However, having worked with Americans in the oil industry, I can attest that they tend to have an almost stereotypical willingness to cut corners when it comes to Safety issues, so it may well be a general characteristic rather than specifically related to gun culture.
In this instance, the anti-gun actor is unlikely to have been lax because of overfamiliarity with guns - quite the contrary. He even seems to have thought it was someone else's job to check the firearm for him. It's not - even if it's been checked before, it's the recipient's responsibility to check it himself. That's how trained shooters behave, and that's how accidents are eliminated.
From what I've read the actor is specifically not allowed to manipulate the firearm before filming, so it would be against the rules and regulations for him to have checked the gun
That's not their job. They're not trained to. They're not allowed to.
If an actor started messing with a gun it'd be taken from them and production would be halted until everyone sat down for extra safety training and the unions cleared everything to continue.
It's VERY regulated, on any set -- film, play, tv, anything. Anything dangerous. You can't have an open flame, even a match, unless you've got safety protocols clearing it and followed.
There's a chain of handling, checking, oversight and it doesn't involve or rely on the actor in any way.
Can't vouch for the veracity of this particular quote but I have seen several similar.
I'd not be happy with that. As soon as I pick up a weapon I'm in charge of it and want to know the state of that weapon for myself.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:19 pm
by Calculon
Would think most people with a military background would feel the same. I did once handle a firearm on set, was just an extra, spent two days learning to march and present arms with the firearm, and one very long day on set doing a few scenes. Didn't have to pretend to shoot at anyone so nothing at all like this tragic incident
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:47 pm
by fishfoodie
If you think about the number of tv show, films, music videos etc; where guns are props; the small number of deaths suggests that the established processes are almost always, absolutely brilliant !
I'll bet there have been multiples of the numbers of actors/extras & stunt people, killed in car/horse related incidents.
In this case; there just seems to have been a breakdown in the systems to stop anyone ever getting handed a live weapon.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:53 pm
by Gumboot
Donald Trump jnr is using a tragedy to mock the actor who skewered his father on Saturday Night Live.
A T-shirt that reads “Guns Don’t Kill People, Alec Baldwin Kills People” is selling for $US27.99 on a merchandise site linked to the former president’s namesake son.
Seriously though, have you been to the US? In the 28 states I've visited, such scenes have been so rare as to have completely escaped my sight.
You were the one who brought "concealed carry" into it.
I said this:
"probably the product of an over-familiar gun culture where firearms are routinely carried when out shopping. "
If you want to argue that guns are never carried when out shopping, then fine: my comment was less about quoting statistics than it was about the routine handling of guns.
I stand by my point about over-familiarity breeding a careless attitude towards firearms, though.
If you are half as experienced in the use of firearms as you want us to think you are, you'd probably understand that that isn't a fallacy.
Not never, but not commonly/routinely either.
I don't want you to think anything about me. If I did, I'd have presented my credentials.
I can vouch for every person I've ever shot with being extremely safety conscious. It never goes away. It is so very easy not to be careless and to maintain safety that, to my kmowledge, nobody ever fails in that duty. The Americans I've shot with and against have also always demonstrated the right attitude to safety, and many are among the most prolific shots out there. They were competing on ranges though, not on a film set.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:25 am
by Dismal Pillock
What happens next?
- the film will never be finished/released.
- any subsequent Netflix doco about the shooting will get 100x more attention than the film ever would have.
- the tiktok daddy's girl armourer will never work in this town again. She will perhaps fake a suicide attempt in order to garner public sympathy.
- her father will never work in this town again
-the dipshit crew member who went shooting with the gun on the previous day will off themselves and no one will care.
Baldwin will have this convo with His People: "Alec, just lay low for 6 or 7 years. Do the acting when you allow yourself to get photographed at the supermarket pretending to be all disconsolate. This will help keep your acting chops honed. Then after 7 years we'll have worked out how to make you reemerge like a phoenix from the flames, somehow, as the real hero of the narrative".
"Make it 4 years, shitheads".
Seriously though, have you been to the US? In the 28 states I've visited, such scenes have been so rare as to have completely escaped my sight.
You were the one who brought "concealed carry" into it.
I said this:
"probably the product of an over-familiar gun culture where firearms are routinely carried when out shopping. "
If you want to argue that guns are never carried when out shopping, then fine: my comment was less about quoting statistics than it was about the routine handling of guns.
I stand by my point about over-familiarity breeding a careless attitude towards firearms, though.
If you are half as experienced in the use of firearms as you want us to think you are, you'd probably understand that that isn't a fallacy.
Not never, but not commonly/routinely either.
I don't want you to think anything about me. If I did, I'd have presented my credentials.
I can vouch for every person I've ever shot with being extremely safety conscious. It never goes away. It is so very easy not to be careless and to maintain safety that, to my kmowledge, nobody ever fails in that duty. The Americans I've shot with and against have also always demonstrated the right attitude to safety, and many are among the most prolific shots out there. They were competing on ranges though, not on a film set.
The Americans I have met in SA have all been great with firearms, but then again they've been hunters.
As of January 1, 2020, six states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring individuals to undergo some sort of safety training prior to being able to purchase, or in the case of Connecticut, carry, a firearm. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-polic ... ments.html
With 40% of households in the USA owning guns and knowing that a small but significant percentage will have mental health, drug, crime or other issues, it stands to reason that over familiarity with weapons is an issue.
download.jpg (5.72 KiB) Viewed 2023 times
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:24 am
by Torquemada 1420
charltom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:56 pm
You do understand that we are discussing a gun, not a plane, right?
Like I said, feel free to apologise for the erroneous insult. Or don't, if you prefer to be that sort of person.
You still digging? Last round (see what I did there?) for me on this one.
1) I highlighted the postulate that a live round had been used because it had been suggested this might have been done because a close up of loading would have exposed
the noticeable difference between it and a blank.
2) I queried why dummies weren't used and that was the opportunity for you to do the "I'm a smug gun afficionado" routine.
3) Trouble is for you, no-one really cares about the differences between blanks and live in this context. It's like me highlighting the error in Dunkirk where the Spitfire has a rear view mirror. BTW, have you ever noticed how gun lovers always use the term "percussion primer" whilst the rest of us just use the term "cap". Always assumed that was one of those small willy things as you try to distance yourselves from the toy association of cap.
4) Further trouble for you is we handle exactly the same principles in all cartridge starter planes (i.e. not avpin which is slightly different and a lot more dangerous) although much bigger (so your willies look inconsequential) and so your assumption that only you gun loving boys know how the mechanics of these things work transpired to be wrong too.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:29 am
by Rinkals
charltom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:48 pm
I don't want you to think anything about me. If I did, I'd have presented my credentials.
Alright, I'll bite.
When you say this:
charltom wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:10 pm
Yes. And I do have some.knowledge in the area.
You are trying to claim expertise which you may or may not have.
If you'd simply "presented your credentials", then those of us engaging with you would have a better idea of whether you were a bullshittter or not.
By hinting at expertise, but not specifically giving any reference, you remove all doubt.
If you are South African (or Rhodesian/Zimbabwean), and of a certain age, (which, I'm guessing you are) you will be reasonably familiar with all sorts of weaponry, but that doesn't necessarily make you an expert.
In any case, my point is about whether "familiarity breeds contempt", as the saying goes. "Contempt" is probably the wrong word with reference to guns, Maybe "carelessness" would be a better fit.
charltom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:48 pm
I don't want you to think anything about me. If I did, I'd have presented my credentials.
Alright, I'll bite.
When you say this:
charltom wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:10 pm
Yes. And I do have some.knowledge in the area.
You are trying to claim expertise which you may or may not have.
If you'd simply "presented your credentials", then those of us engaging with you would have a better idea of whether you were a bullshittter or not.
By hinting at expertise, but not specifically giving any reference, you remove all doubt.
If you are South African (or Rhodesian/Zimbabwean), and of a certain age, (which, I'm guessing you are) you will be reasonably familiar with all sorts of weaponry, but that doesn't necessarily make you an expert.
In any case, my point is about whether "familiarity breeds contempt", as the saying goes. "Contempt" is probably the wrong word with reference to guns, Maybe "carelessness" would be a better fit.
I suspect he competes in international shooting competitions. No idea what caliber until he tells us.
charltom wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:56 pm
You do understand that we are discussing a gun, not a plane, right?
Like I said, feel free to apologise for the erroneous insult. Or don't, if you prefer to be that sort of person.
You still digging? Last round (see what I did there?) for me on this one.
1) I highlighted the postulate that a live round had been used because it had been suggested this might have been done because a close up of loading would have exposed
the noticeable difference between it and a blank.
2) I queried why dummies weren't used and that was the opportunity for you to do the "I'm a smug gun afficionado" routine.
3) Trouble is for you, no-one really cares about the differences between blanks and live in this context. It's like me highlighting the error in Dunkirk where the Spitfire has a rear view mirror. BTW, have you ever noticed how gun lovers always use the term "percussion primer" whilst the rest of us just use the term "cap". Always assumed that was one of those small willy things as you try to distance yourselves from the toy association of cap.
4) Further trouble for you is we handle exactly the same principles in all cartridge starter planes (i.e. not avpin which is slightly different and a lot more dangerous) although much bigger (so your willies look inconsequential) and so your assumption that only you gun loving boys know how the mechanics of these things work transpired to be wrong too.
Oh dear. 1 and 2 are dealt with below. 3 is an odd point; clearly the film crew appeared to care enough about the difference to use the live round. Additionally, i have never heard either "percussion primer" or "cap" used by anyone; just "primer". Point 4 had the potential to be interesting but seems to be another attempt at insult.
In fact, you said: "But you didn't comprehend the claimed explanation so I'll try in words of limited syllables in case you are struggling.
1) Blanks and live look entirely different (although many would not know the absence of the bullet itself). Dummies are exactly the same as live in appearance: just empty cartridge."
But I did understand, and I also explained how dummies differ from live in a visible manner to aid your understanding. You should not feel threatened by someone helping enhance your knowledge.
Your line "But you didn't comprehend the claimed explanation so I'll try in words of limited syllables in case you are struggling" was the one I found insulting. I accept that you may not have the balls to apologise for it, but please stop with the continuing insults.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:43 am
by charltom
Sandstorm wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:30 am
I suspect he competes in international shooting competitions. No idea what caliber until he tells us.
Correct, and have won two team world championships (not for ten years though). I've also made .308 ammo for a different discipline, but generally prefer to have someone else do it for me as it is boring and time consuming.
Incidentally, the need to check the loaded/unloaded status of a rifle that is given to you is known from day one by all the youngsters I coach.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:08 am
by ASMO
I just don't understand why live ammunition was on or indeed anywhere near the set at all, what possible purpose?
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:30 am
by inactionman
ASMO wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:08 am
I just don't understand why live ammunition was on or indeed anywhere near the set at all, what possible purpose?
I'm lost on that point as well. I'd assume for 'realism', but it's supposed to be make believe.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:31 am
by charltom
ASMO wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:08 am
I just don't understand why live ammunition was on or indeed anywhere near the set at all, what possible purpose?
There was a claim that it was to look real in a close-up loading shot.
But that isn't all that hard to simulate, if you can be bothered.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:27 pm
by Ymx
Well, and because people were using the gun for off set target practice.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:48 pm
by FalseBayFC
This is a dumb thread. A couple of individuals were incredibly negligent. It was an industrial accident, same shit happens with fork lifts, heavy machinery etc every day somewhere. Hangovers, drug use, poor or no training, equipment failure. Happens all the time. Just because its a famous person and a gun in America its a controversy.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:15 pm
by inactionman
FalseBayFC wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:48 pm
This is a dumb thread. A couple of individuals were incredibly negligent. It was an industrial accident, same shit happens with fork lifts, heavy machinery etc every day somewhere. Hangovers, drug use, poor or no training, equipment failure. Happens all the time. Just because its a famous person and a gun in America its a controversy.
Someone got shot. I've worked in all sorts of heavy industries and that hasn't happened.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2021 9:58 pm
by Happyhooker
FalseBayFC wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:48 pm
This is a dumb thread. A couple of individuals were incredibly negligent. It was an industrial accident, same shit happens with fork lifts, heavy machinery etc every day somewhere. Hangovers, drug use, poor or no training, equipment failure. Happens all the time. Just because its a famous person and a gun in America its a controversy.
You really are capable of taking the worst possible take on any topic, aren't you.
charltom wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:10 pm
Yes. And I do have some.knowledge in the area.
But you didn't comprehend the claimed explanation so I'll try in words of limited syllables in case you are struggling.
1) Blanks and live look entirely different (although many would not know the absence of the bullet itself). Dummies are exactly the same as live in appearance: just empty cartridge.
2) One explanation was that a live round was chambered because the loading was part of the filming and it was exactly because gun geeks/snobs would say " I do have some.knowledge in the area. That's wrong." that is was done for realism.
But someone forgot to switch.
3) Hence my point that a dummy not only would have sufficed but that live should not be permitted on set ever.
Torq you are right with point 2 (your "realism" is my "verisimilitude" above).
However, you are wrong with 1, and thus with 3. Dummy rounds have no primer, so they are not "the same as live in appearance". The primer is the bit that causes ignition when struck by the firing pin, and it is an externally visible part of a round.
I applaud your attempt so far to understand this issue and hope that this helps in the process.
There would be no need to real bullets for realism during loading just have ‘real looking ‘ rounds with no charge. There is absolutely no reason for live rounds on a film set!
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:12 am
by Blackmac
ASMO wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:08 am
I just don't understand why live ammunition was on or indeed anywhere near the set at all, what possible purpose?
Yeah, I'm the same. Just highlights the yanks attitude to firearms. There is not a cat in hells chance a real firearm is getting used on a film set in the UK, or Europe I would imagine.
ASMO wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:08 am
I just don't understand why live ammunition was on or indeed anywhere near the set at all, what possible purpose?
Yeah, I'm the same. Just highlights the yanks attitude to firearms. There is not a cat in hells chance a real firearm is getting used on a film set in the UK, or Europe I would imagine.
I don't understand it. Some sort of collective addiction...
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:42 am
by Calculon
Real firearms are sometimes used on film sets on the continent, and I suspect the UK as well, for cost reasons. Real ammunition not so much.
In this instance, the anti-gun actor is unlikely to have been lax because of overfamiliarity with guns - quite the contrary. He even seems to have thought it was someone else's job to check the firearm for him. It's not - even if it's been checked before, it's the recipient's responsibility to check it himself. That's how trained shooters behave, and that's how accidents are eliminated.
From what I've read the actor is specifically not allowed to manipulate the firearm before filming, so it would be against the rules and regulations for him to have checked the gun
That's not their job. They're not trained to. They're not allowed to.
If an actor started messing with a gun it'd be taken from them and production would be halted until everyone sat down for extra safety training and the unions cleared everything to continue.
It's VERY regulated, on any set -- film, play, tv, anything. Anything dangerous. You can't have an open flame, even a match, unless you've got safety protocols clearing it and followed.
There's a chain of handling, checking, oversight and it doesn't involve or rely on the actor in any way.
Can't vouch for the veracity of this particular quote but I have seen several similar.
I'd not be happy with that. As soon as I pick up a weapon I'm in charge of it and want to know the state of that weapon for myself.
Are you an expert in every weapon every made? Somebody gives an actor a AK-47, then a glock, then a 1917 luger? And the actor is supposed to be the person responsible for checking each and everything? Impossible. There should be cast iron protocols to prevent the non-expert getting involved in the process.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:26 am
by Rinkals
As I understand it, the AD stated that the gun was "cold".
Of course, Baldwin should not have taken that at face value and should have checked it himself.
However, it strikes me that shouting "cold gun" when handing over a weapon is, in itself, a psychological disincentive to make another check, and the protocols were flawed.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:31 am
by Sandstorm
Rinkals wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:26 am
As I understand it, the AD stated that the gun was "cold".
Of course, Baldwin should not have taken that at face value and should have checked it himself.
However, it strikes me that shouting "cold gun" when handing over a weapon is, in itself, a psychological disincentive to make another check, and the protocols were flawed.
Meh, most Hollywood actors are liberal lefties (Regards Fox News) and likely don’t own or shoot their own guns. They probably don’t know much about them and need a trained expert to make the process of handling it safe for them.
In this case the bint armourer and lazy assistant producer failed the actor and the victims.
Rinkals wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:26 am
As I understand it, the AD stated that the gun was "cold".
Of course, Baldwin should not have taken that at face value and should have checked it himself.
However, it strikes me that shouting "cold gun" when handing over a weapon is, in itself, a psychological disincentive to make another check, and the protocols were flawed.
Meh, most Hollywood actors are liberal lefties (Regards Fox News) and likely don’t own or shoot their own guns. They probably don’t know much about them and need a trained expert to make the process of handling it safe for them.
In this case the bint armourer and lazy assistant producer failed the actor and the victims.
What do you do if it's a child actor?
There needs to be a system and it can't be all on the actor.
Rinkals wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:26 am
As I understand it, the AD stated that the gun was "cold".
Of course, Baldwin should not have taken that at face value and should have checked it himself.
However, it strikes me that shouting "cold gun" when handing over a weapon is, in itself, a psychological disincentive to make another check, and the protocols were flawed.
Meh, most Hollywood actors are liberal lefties (Regards Fox News) and likely don’t own or shoot their own guns. They probably don’t know much about them and need a trained expert to make the process of handling it safe for them.
In this case the bint armourer and lazy assistant producer failed the actor and the victims.
What do you do if it's a child actor?
There needs to be a system and it can't be all on the actor.
Rinkals wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:26 am
As I understand it, the AD stated that the gun was "cold".
Of course, Baldwin should not have taken that at face value and should have checked it himself.
However, it strikes me that shouting "cold gun" when handing over a weapon is, in itself, a psychological disincentive to make another check, and the protocols were flawed.
Meh, most Hollywood actors are liberal lefties (Regards Fox News) and likely don’t own or shoot their own guns. They probably don’t know much about them and need a trained expert to make the process of handling it safe for them.
In this case the bint armourer and lazy assistant producer failed the actor and the victims.
What do you do if it's a child actor?
There needs to be a system and it can't be all on the actor.
Nobody is saying it would all be on the actor. Many have said that the actor should check the firearm *in addition to* any checks that have already been made.
As for child actors, that depends. Lots of children shoot, so would also be able to perform such a check. It may be easier not to give them firearms, though.
Meh, most Hollywood actors are liberal lefties (Regards Fox News) and likely don’t own or shoot their own guns. They probably don’t know much about them and need a trained expert to make the process of handling it safe for them.
In this case the bint armourer and lazy assistant producer failed the actor and the victims.
What do you do if it's a child actor?
There needs to be a system and it can't be all on the actor.
