Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Being kind of a gun nut this Alec Baldwin “accident” has had my attention. The story did not add up. Then I came across this piece that sheds a lot of light on the accident.

I would like to hear Cog’s take on this incident.

PIERS MORGAN: The more we learn about Alec Baldwin's deadly shooting 'accident', the more culpable he looks for being executive producer of a chaotic, dangerous sh*t-show run by amateurish cowboys that made the tragedy an accident waiting to happen

From my perspective I was shocked to learn that functioning firearm were EVER allowed onto a set. That right there violates my training. Why? For what purpose? Makes no sense. It you are not going to shoot it then why does it need to shoot? That goes double for live ammunition. “Blanks” are bad enough and have killed folks in the past.

In the scope of world issues this is a minor pin point in time, a terrible tragedy of very limited scope. It has upset me because of my personal history. No one else need be upset about it, its just my burr in my saddle.

It seems to me that Baldwin must personally bear some of the blame for this accident.

Baldwin was the person in charge of the entire film production.

Then there is the fact that there had previously been accidental discharges of firearms on his movie set.

You'd think that would've alerted them of the need be more careful and to change procedures.

And then....perhaps the most basic rule of firearms is to NEVER point a firearm at another person.

Sure...you think you know that the firearm is empty...but accidents happen.

One of the only times I ever got really mad at one of my graduate students was when we were in the field in the Alaska Range near Denali and we had a rifle and a 45 caliber pistol in camp for bear protection. The graduate student pointed the 45 at me....just clowning around.....and I made it clear we don't do that in the field. I know people who have been involved in accidental shootings. Good people. Competent people. But accidents happen, especially if you're handling a gun that isn't your own gun.

And thats what happened to Baldwin. He accidentally shot a woman while he was practicing his "quick draw" with a gun that someone had just handed to him. Ohmigosh.

What a tragedy.


Baldwin NEVER SHOULD"VE POINTED THAT GUN AT ANYONE. Especially since he wasn't personally totally sure of what was going on with the gun he was messing around with.

Many types of guns are used as prop weapons while filming movies, as well as VFX guns. The gun Alec Baldwin was using was a 100% REAL gun. The crew at the movie set had been using that same gun for target practice using 100% REAL bullets earlier. That has to be at least criminal negligence. Even if the gun was supposed to be cold (not loaded with bullets) when Baldwin was using it, he should have never, ever pointed it at other people while practicing or fooling around with it; that was beyond stupid. How stupid do you have to be to be handed a real weapon and not check to see if it is loaded before pointing it to a person in a movie set? I consider Baldwin to be at least partially responsible for this incident, both as producer and shooter. This could NEVER have happened to me.

There are multiple reports of staff complaints about safety and working conditions and walk outs on this movie set. Several people had quit altogether.

I'm sure the NRA would have provided him with a safety monitor gratis, had he asked. It would be great PR for the NRA.

On the other hand, why is such a 2nd Amendment hater even making a movie with guns in it??

Gun Safety courses need to be mandatory for all sixth graders in government schools.

PEACE

Yeah, that's funny. When I was with a friend of mine, we came across his gun in an old dresser. I was helping him do something in his house. The first thing I did, when he handed it to me, was to assume it was loaded. Then, I checked it. It was not a gun I was familiar with, so I asked where everything was. All the while I pointed the thing in a safe direction. In this case, at the ground, as there was an apartment next door.

Another friend of mine once put a round into his apartment wall. He was lucky he didn't kill somebody. For months he had been infatuated with the idea of owning a gun. When he bought his Browning High Power, he couldn't stop fondling it. Supposedly, he was cleaning it, when it went off. I think he was playing with it, and is still too embarrassed to admit it to this day.

JuanP wrote: How stupid do you have to be to be handed a real weapon and not check to see if it is loaded before pointing it to a person in a movie set?

Not necessarily stupid. Just gun ignorant, which for some folks might be absolute.

Newfie wrote:

PIERS MORGAN: The more we learn about Alec Baldwin's deadly shooting 'accident', the more culpable he looks for being executive producer of a chaotic, dangerous sh*t-show run by amateurish cowboys that made the tragedy an accident waiting to happen

From my perspective I was shocked to learn that functioning firearm were EVER allowed onto a set. That right there violates my training. Why? For what purpose? Makes no sense. It you are not going to shoot it then why does it need to shoot? That goes double for live ammunition. “Blanks” are bad enough and have killed folks in the past.

Yes. I read a few articles on this because I was SHOCKED that prop guns could actually fire live rounds.

From what I read, they want realism for shows guns are used in. So it needs to LOOK like a functional gun. And the trigger hardware needs to move like with a real gun. And apparently for blanks, they want such guns to be able to fire blanks (and make a good bang, flash and discharge smoke, etc), and yes, blanks can be dangerous at close distances.

But if you are going to be pointing a weapon, even a prop gun at people, there need to be SERIOUS safety protocols. I'd prefer that they use all that fancy tech. for special effects to come up with a way to make prop guns completely incapable of firing a live round, but fire some sort of special blank with, say, a modified firing pin.

And I'd think the NRA, being supposedly so safety conscious, would strongly be pushing for something like that and be very public about it

...

Every time some idiot shoots someone "accidentally", I always ask "Why the hell was the gun POINTED at someone?" And when someone shoots themselves cleaning their gun, I ask "Why the hell wasn't the gun confirmed to be unloaded before cleaning it? AND why the hell were they aiming the gun toward their body?"

If my dumb ass could understand and follow these principles as an 8-10 year old at day camp where we routinely shot 22 rifles at targets, safely, it's beyond me that functioning adults can't figure this out.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Yes. I read a few articles on this because I was SHOCKED that prop guns could actually fire live rounds.

My impression is that normally a genuine gun being used as prop would be modified so it could not to be able to chamber a live round. However what I found mind boggling about this case is that not only were they using unmodified genuine guns but it has also been suggested that the crew were shooting those guns with live rounds during their time off for fun!

AND there are credible reports of 3 prior firings.
AND there are reports THIS gun was used for target practice over lunch.

I see there are some calling for additional legislation. Not needed or advisable. Just let the civil suits role and then the insurance companies will take care of it.

While working construction I got to see a competitors insurance rates, which were a multiple of ours. That company had 2 fatalities in 2 unrelated in idents some years before and were still paying a huge premium. That money comes right out of profit because you are competing against those without the handicap. That is why all the hard hat rules, insurance companies. Their enforcement has teeth, where it hurts, in the pocketbook.

I saw one article that more that suggested prosecution would he light because the State would not want to seem unfriendly to the film industry, they would loose money.

yellowcanoe wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Yes. I read a few articles on this because I was SHOCKED that prop guns could actually fire live rounds.

My impression is that normally a genuine gun being used as prop would be modified so it could not to be able to chamber a live round. However what I found mind boggling about this case is that not only were they using unmodified genuine guns but it has also been suggested that the crew were shooting those guns with live rounds during their time off for fun!

The initial reports from the film set that a "prop gun" was used were totally false.

Baldwin was using a real gun loaded with real ammunition to practice his "quickdraw" when he accidentally discharged the firearm.

The latest reports are saying that Alec Baldwin and the others who may face criminal charges due to this killing have now "lawyered up."

NO doubt the wealthy and politically well-connected Mr. Baldwin will find a very very good lawyer to represent him.

Cheers!

Any object used on the set of a play or a movie to create or enhance a desired effect is a prop, whether it's real or fake. A real gun being used on a movie set is a prop gun.

Plantagenet wrote:

yellowcanoe wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Yes. I read a few articles on this because I was SHOCKED that prop guns could actually fire live rounds.

My impression is that normally a genuine gun being used as prop would be modified so it could not to be able to chamber a live round. However what I found mind boggling about this case is that not only were they using unmodified genuine guns but it has also been suggested that the crew were shooting those guns with live rounds during their time off for fun!

The initial reports from the film set that a "prop gun" was used were totally false.

Baldwin was using a real gun loaded with real ammunition to practice his "quickdraw" when he accidentally discharged the firearm.

The latest reports are saying that Alec Baldwin and the others who may face criminal charges due to this killing have now "lawyered up."

NO doubt the wealthy and politically well-connected Mr. Baldwin will find a very very good lawyer to represent him.

Cheers!

So why not supplant your opinion with, say, a few posts from CREDIBLE news sources supporting this?

Or is drive-by claims that EV's cause cancer just too tempting for your ilk, than actually documenting that your opinion has credibility?

BTW, doing a 5 second google search, you may well be right, re hits I got. Is it SO difficult to act like an adult and substantiate your claims, just a bit?

Outcast,

You know you DO have the option of just not reading the post and ignoring it if it upsets you.

I am sorry that so many posts upset you so much.

It might be a better strategy to describe exactly what is so upsetting.

I mean, sometimes people say things I disagree with, or I think are wrong, but I just let it go. Then there are times when people upset me and I feel a need to say something. The interesting thing is understanding why some particular post upset me, that tells me something about myself. Then I may or may not respond.

I think my opening post in this thread is an example of that process.

the Hollywood guild of Armorers and Set Weapon Masters released a statement yesterday that is very informative about this whole debacle. The last on set weapon fatality in Hollywood was in 1984 when an actor named Jon-Erik Hexum picked up a pistol loaded with blanks as a joke pretending to shoot himself in the head and caused brain death from the impact of the blank cartridge driving skull fragments into his brain. He was an organ donor and five other lives were saved by his donation as he was 25 years old in peak physical health before the accidental shooting. The letter is two pages long links to each page below.

https://twitter.com/EddieMcClintock/sta ... 00/photo/1
https://twitter.com/EddieMcClintock/sta ... 00/photo/2

Alec Baldwin was using a real gun loaded with a real bullet to practice his "quick draw" technique when he fatally shot his own female employee.

The gun was a fully functioning and unmodified historic 45 caliber colt long revolver.

NYT: Rust-shooting-investigation

Some prop guns are fake plastic guns, or they may be real guns modified so they can't fire or they might be modified so they can only take and fire blank rounds.

In Baldwin's case, he was using a fully functioning and completely unmodified historic 45 caliber colt long revolver loaded with at least one live round.

The bullet that killed the photographer was a 45 caliber lead bullet.

In fact, some members of the film crew had been using this very real gun to plink away at very real beer cans with very real live rounds shortly before the very real fatal shooting.

So everyone knew this was a real gun and everyone knew it was quite capable of firing live rounds.

Ironically, Baldwin himself is a well-known advocate for gun control.

And yet Baldwin violated just about every rule of gun safety there is in the course of his own movie production....and unfortunately a woman died because of Baldwin's carelessness with firearms.


Bang!

Newfie wrote:Outcast,

You know you DO have the option of just not reading the post and ignoring it if it upsets you.

I am sorry that so many posts upset you so much.

It might be a better strategy to describe exactly what is so upsetting.

I mean, sometimes people say things I disagree with, or I think are wrong, but I just let it go. Then there are times when people upset me and I feel a need to say something. The interesting thing is understanding why some particular post upset me, that tells me something about myself. Then I may or may not respond.

I think my opening post in this thread is an example of that process.

I reread my post. If it's too complex for you to understand, then respectfully, I don't know what to tell you.

Your post is not too complex, it is too snarky.

Newfie wrote:Your post is not too complex, it is too snarky.

When you're always completely objective in all of your posts, respectfully, be sure and get back to me.

Outcast,

You are not getting it pal.

You have a long history of being nasty to folks, making uncalled for personal attacks.

I was trying to give you some advice in a polite manner.

If that does not sink in and the attacks continue then other measures will be put into effect.

I hope it does not get there, you can he a good and thoughtful poster. Just try to also be polite and respectful.

Nuf said.

Newfie wrote:Outcast,

You are not getting it pal.

You have a long history of being nasty to folks, making uncalled for personal attacks.

I was trying to give you some advice in a polite manner.

If that does not sink in and the attacks continue then other measures will be put into effect.

I hope it does not get there, you can he a good and thoughtful poster. Just try to also be polite and respectful.

Nuf said.

You have the power. You have to do what you will, given that power. If kicking lots of folks you admit are "thoughtful posters" off this site is what you think is good for the site, then that's what you'll have to do.

In the meantime, respectfully, I'll honestly call things as I see them, as I always have.

Honestly, I think this site needs honest posters like me more than I need you, but as always, I'll admit that I could be wrong.