I see why Hollywood is afraid of firearms - Alec Baldwin kills set employee

[Lead Belly]

You can go on Amazon and get .22 Ramset loads which work great in the Heritage Rough Riders...

Doubt a .22 barrel bore would look quite right for the camera. I just meant .45 cal blanks for camera and .22 for live plink rounds. No chance the Uberti could take a live .22lr by mistake.

Seeing live .45 colt ammo on set should have set-off alarm bells for armorer.

 

[Havok1]

That's not the rule.

Its an oversimplified model that can help safety in most cases.

Ever removed the bolt and looked down the bore?

Think of things you do when cleaning... would you put a cleaning rod or bore snake down the barrel of a loaded rifle? I sure wouldn't.

I'd like to see you load a muzzle-loader without sweeping at least some fingers...

Just this week I dropped a sim-bolt in my AR and pointed my rifle at real live people... along with other folks pointing their rifles and pistols at peope we did not actually wish to harm or kill.

No, the "every firearm is always loaded" is as accurate as as Earth, Wind, Fire, Water being the elements, or the plum-pudding atomic model, or a hand-sketched map... they will usually get you to the place you are going, but not accurately or with precision. There are certainly times when you treat a firearm as not deadly/loaded.

"Every firearm is always loaded" is a silly fudd "rule" and too simplistic to actually work in the real world.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

And how many people checked your rifle, ammo, and other gear before pointing and firing at other people?

 

[cycleguy2300]

And how many people checked your rifle, ammo, and other gear before pointing and firing at other people?

Its either a rule or its not. It sounds like its not if certain conditions are met...

But to answer the question about my rifle: Myself and one other person checked it.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[benenglish]

Its either a rule or its not. It sounds like its not if certain conditions are met...

Bingo. Even Jeff Cooper admitted to simultaneously disregarding a couple of the rules he wrote under certain circumstances.

 

[Havok1]

Its either a rule or its not. It sounds like its not if certain conditions are met...

But to answer the question about my rifle: Myself and one other person checked it.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

So your gun, which had at that point been modified to run sim, had been safety checked by two people prior to use, yet you were making excuses for why it’s ok for Baldwin to skip safety checks when picking up a random .45lc on the table, prior to pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger.

I wonder if they ever found out his supposed reason for pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger.

 

[jrbfishn]

I have heard various versions of the " rule of pointing guns". Too many to remember. And too many want to expand it even to toy guns. We had toy guns, and REAL guns. And we new the difference between them and real guns. And we were required to treat BB guns as real guns.
The version I was tought, and seems to me to be more realistic than some versions;

Treat ALL REAL guns as if they are loaded unless you personally verify that they are not. And NEVER take someone else's word for it. Check it yourself.

Baldwin knew it was a REAL gun, not a fake prop gun or toy, and failed to verify it was safe. He should not have depended on someone else. If he did not know how, he should have never touched it. Let alone aimed it at someone.
He would not want me on his jury.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

So your gun, which had at that point been modified to run sim, had been safety checked by two people prior to use, yet you were making excuses for why it’s ok for Baldwin to skip safety checks when picking up a random .45lc on the table, prior to pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger.

I wonder if they ever found out his supposed reason for pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger.

I am expected to be something of a firearms expert, wheras Baldwin pretends for a living. It was not his personal responsibility to inspect a prop he is given becaise 1) he likely wouldn't know what to look for 2) he could cause it to become unsafe.

What part of a sim gun isn't "real" same reciever, same trigger, same hammer falling onto a primered cartridge that expels a projectile from my barrel to where my sights are pointing... was it my responsibility to pull each sim bullet and weigh the powder to make sure it was in spec? Was it even my responsibility to check each sim round to make sure the projectile had not been altered? No, its not my responsibility. I was given the loaded mag of sims by a reliable person responsible for that task and I can trust their actions.

So many discussions with you follow this pattern: You state A, I refute with B. You state C, I refute with D, then you state A again...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

I am expected to be something of a firearms expert, wheras Baldwin pretends for a living. It was not his personal responsibility to inspect a prop he is given becaise 1) he likely wouldn't know what to look for 2) he could cause it to become unsafe.

What part of a sim gun isn't "real" same reciever, same trigger, same hammer falling onto a primered cartridge that expels a projectile from my barrel to where my sights are pointing... was it my responsibility to pull each sim bullet and weigh the powder to make sure it was in spec? Was it even my responsibility to check each sim round to make sure the projectile had not been altered? No, its not my responsibility. I was given the loaded mag of sims by a reliable person responsible for that task and I can trust their actions.

So many discussions with you follow this pattern: You state A, I refute with B. You state C, I refute with D, then you state A again...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

The important thing was that after downplaying the importance of firearm safety in a weak attempt to defend Baldwin, you had not one, but two safety checks on your own equipment prior to training.

Nobody said that the receiver, trigger, etc on your gun wasn’t real. What was said was that it was converted to run sim.

Nobody said anyone should pull bullets and weigh the powder.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

I am expected to be something of a firearms expert, wheras Baldwin pretends for a living. It was not his personal responsibility to inspect a prop he is given becaise 1) he likely wouldn't know what to look for 2) he could cause it to become unsafe.

What part of a sim gun isn't "real" same reciever, same trigger, same hammer falling onto a primered cartridge that expels a projectile from my barrel to where my sights are pointing... was it my responsibility to pull each sim bullet and weigh the powder to make sure it was in spec? Was it even my responsibility to check each sim round to make sure the projectile had not been altered? No, its not my responsibility. I was given the loaded mag of sims by a reliable person responsible for that task and I can trust their actions.

So many discussions with you follow this pattern: You state A, I refute with B. You state C, I refute with D, then you state A again...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Same behavior, different topic.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

The important thing was that after downplaying the importance of firearm safety in a weak attempt to defend Baldwin, you had not one, but two safety checks on your own equipment prior to training.

Nobody said that the receiver, trigger, etc on your gun wasn’t real. What was said was that it was converted to run sim.

Nobody said anyone should pull bullets and weigh the powder.

The important thing is, whether inspecting a bore or dropping a cleaning rod down a barrel or shooting sim-rounds at someone or popping off blanks on a movie set, there are times when we do not treat firearms as if they are loaded or dangerous within a envelope of use and while using, or believing you are using a firearm within that envelope does not make the behavior criminal, simply because it "violates" a fuddy "rule".

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

The important thing is, whether inspecting a bore or dropping a cleaning rod down a barrel or shooting sim-rounds at someone or popping off blanks on a movie set, there are times when we do not treat firearms as if they are loaded or dangerous within a envelope of use and while using, or believing you are using a firearm within that envelope does not make the behavior criminal, simply because it "violates" a fuddy "rule".

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I didn’t suggest otherwise.

 

[cycleguy2300]

I didn’t suggest otherwise.

Not so sure that's the case...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[DoubleDuty]

I am expected to be something of a firearms expert, wheras Baldwin pretends for a living. It was not his personal responsibility to inspect a prop he is given becaise 1) he likely wouldn't know what to look for 2) he could cause it to become unsafe.

What part of a sim gun isn't "real" same reciever, same trigger, same hammer falling onto a primered cartridge that expels a projectile from my barrel to where my sights are pointing... was it my responsibility to pull each sim bullet and weigh the powder to make sure it was in spec? Was it even my responsibility to check each sim round to make sure the projectile had not been altered? No, its not my responsibility. I was given the loaded mag of sims by a reliable person responsible for that task and I can trust their actions.

So many discussions with you follow this pattern: You state A, I refute with B. You state C, I refute with D, then you state A again...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Bullshit he has been around real guns in most of his movies. He also was aware that people on set had been shooting live ammo in it. He was negligent period. The other problem is completely relying on an armorer. It should be reinforced on everyone on the set how to handle a firearm and to also never to allow live ammunition to be used in prop guns. There is no reasonable excuse for what happened.

 

[Johnny Diamond]

Bullshit he has been around real guns in most of his movies. He also was aware that people on set had been shooting live ammo in it. He was negligent period. The other problem is completely relying on an armorer. It should be reinforced on everyone on the set how to handle a firearm and to also never to allow live ammunition to be used in prop guns. There is no reasonable excuse for what happened.

I have never accepted a firearm handed to me without checking to verify if it's loaded or otherwise ever and I am only 61 years old, take that as you will.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

Not so sure that's the case...

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk no

Because your reading comprehension sucks. I didn’t say that when cleaning a gun you don’t do things that you wouldn’t do with a loaded gun. I said Baldwin violated both industry and basic firearm handling rules when he committed manslaughter. I was right about that. Your post is a fail of an attempt at taking what I said out of context.

 

[Wudidiz]

Well, we know that he aimed the pistol at her and he pulled the trigger. He's an idiot and should be taken off the streets before he assumes that a speeding dump truck is going to stop at a red light because it's "supposed" to.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Of course, he claimed that he didn't pull the trigger....

 

[cycleguy2300]

I said Baldwin violated both industry and basic firearm handling rules when he committed manslaughter.

This was my point, that you are saying because Baldwin "violated" a made up "rule" the event must be criminal.

As I have explained ad nauseum, violating simplistic fudd "rules" that must be violated innumerable times when handling firearms doesn't make the event a crime.

I suggest you re-read my recent posts on the matter if this concept escapes you.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[Havok1]

This was my point, that you are saying because Baldwin "violated" a made up "rule" the event must be criminal.

As I have explained ad nauseum, violating simplistic fudd "rules" that must be violated innumerable times when handling firearms doesn't make the event a crime.

I suggest you re-read my recent posts on the matter if this concept escapes you.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

I don’t think anyone said it was criminal because of the safety rules. It was criminal because he pulled the trigger of a loaded gun and killed an innocent person.

 

[DoubleDuty]

This was my point, that you are saying because Baldwin "violated" a made up "rule" the event must be criminal.

As I have explained ad nauseum, violating simplistic fudd "rules" that must be violated innumerable times when handling firearms doesn't make the event a crime.

I suggest you re-read my recent posts on the matter if this concept escapes you.

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

He violated 3 of the rules that you think so little of.