Originally Posted by splatbass:
Have you ever watched a movie?
Non-sequitur much?
My original statement was that anti-gun zealots are usually very ignorant about guns and gun safety. Everything you say supports my claim that those people are ignorant of gun safety. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
How hard is it to understand that they take actors out of the equation when it comes to safety? Their job is to act. It's someone else's job to make sure the props aren't going to kill anyone.
Why on earth would anyone trust actors who, by and large, have never held a real gun in their lives, with gun safety?
Why on earth are you arguing with me when all you say supports my thesis that those anti-gun zealots know nothing about gun safety? [Reply]
‘Rust’ crew members detail on-set gun safety issues, decision to walk off before fatal shooting
Safety protocols standard in the industry, including gun inspections, were not strictly followed on the “Rust” set near Santa Fe, the sources said. They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set.
Three crew members who were present at the Bonanza Creek Ranch set that day said they were particularly concerned about two accidental prop gun discharges on Saturday.
Baldwin’s stunt-double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks, two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.
Originally Posted by DaFace:
How hard is it to understand that they take actors out of the equation when it comes to safety? Their job is to act. It's someone else's job to make sure the props aren't going to kill anyone.
Why on earth would anyone trust actors who, by and large, have never held a real gun in their lives, with gun safety?
Baldwin is a big fat hypocrite just like Liam Neeson when it comes to guns, and yes I detest his overall politics... but yeah, I'm just not seeing the culpability here from a legal standpoint
At least not yet
Alec the actor had every right to expect that his crew took the basic precautions of making sure there were no obstructions in the barrel or chamber... and most certainly that no actual rounds were somehow being used
The only caveat is to what extent did his decisions as one of several producers, create an unsafe environment?
Thats a legal question that we'll see play out... but as an actor he has the right to expect that what he's been handed is safe to point in ANY direction [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Are you under the impression that most actors take gun safety courses before handling fake guns on a set?
Actually in one of those articles posted they do require safety training on set which includes safe handling of prop firearms. That was the actors union who of course wasn't on the set and one of the reasons for the walkout. [Reply]
They should require actors using prop guns to pass a course in safe gun handling safety given by the NRA. This is something they do very well regardless of your political views. Noone does safety better than the NRA including the military. [Reply]
In one of the posts gifs above show a picture ad of a movie Alec was in. In it he is holding a fully cocked 45 up near his temple with his finger resting on the trigger. You never rest your finger on the trigger unless you intend to pull it.
Perhaps this young Director of Photography would still be alive today if Alec had an accidental discharge into his temple. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ClevelandBronco:
We’ll never know. He’ll say that he’s torn up about it, and he’ll probably look horror stuck and even manage to pass a few tears. But he’s a pretty good actor.
Perhaps, and it may be one and the same to some people, to me being a liberal doesn't mean being a sociopath. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I think you're oversimplifying this quite a bit and making a lot of assumptions based on your dislike of the guy. He's one of six producers among five production companies. While it's remotely possible that he has some responsibility for decisions related to the crew, it's a pretty big leap to assume that he personally made the decision that they didn't need a union armorer on set. And even if he did, unless they knowingly hired someone who wasn't qualified, it still comes down to whoever's job it was to make sure the guns on set were safe.
Where it gets dicey for Baldwin himself, all these considerations aside, is when assessing what duty he assumed as a person handling a firearm in the course of his professional duties to confirm/verify various elements of the status of said firearm, particularly when that handling involved pointing it in the direction of other persons and pulling the trigger.
That's where it comes to brass tacks, when you specifically are pointing an instrument that is CAPABLE of deadly force in the direction of other people, where does your duty to verify the specifics of the nullification of that capability first fall. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Where it gets dicey for Baldwin himself, all these considerations aside, is when assessing what duty he assumed as a person handling a firearm in the course of his professional duties to confirm/verify various elements of the status of said firearm, particularly when that handling involved pointing it in the direction of other persons and pulling the trigger.
That's where it comes to brass tacks, when you specifically are pointing an instrument that is CAPABLE of deadly force in the direction of other people, where does your duty to verify the specifics of the nullification of that capability first fall.
Or, to put it another way, does it cross the threshold of gross negligence to point ANY firearm at a person on a set? [Reply]
Originally Posted by JohnnyV13:
Or, to put it another way, does it cross the threshold of gross negligence to point ANY firearm at a person on a set?
It's tough either way, because on one hand you ostensibly have all these safeguards worked up in the industry to make certain that what is handed to the actor is what they say it is [apparently, but currently unverified, he was handed the firearm with a simultaneous on-set announcement 'cold gun'].
OTOH, how in the world do you successfully set up safeguards that remove the standard duty of someone handling a firearm to exercise first-person care in said handling.
I get the exigencies of having actors rely on the protocols of professionals around them, but when a dangerous instrumentality is in your hands, and you are POINTING IT AT PEOPLE, is it even possible to delegate that first-person duty of care away? [Reply]