Even gun unloaded, Even if checked by everyone & Baldwin, never aim and fire at a person - Alec Baldwin Discussion

[–] DesertDingo (36) 3 years ago

So true. I can not get past that he is such a huge anti-gun activist but makes movies using them.

It's kind of like me protesting against abortions, then getting one anyway to ease my burdened life. Or I am such an anti-vaccine, I refuse my children to get it. BUT, when I need one to get on a plane to Vegas I am ok to acquire a fake proof of vax or even get the actual shot as I can not get the fake. I could go on and on. Sadly his poor unjustified reason is all about making more dang money. SAD

reply

[–] brux (14837) 3 years ago

>> I can not get past that he is such a huge anti-gun activist but makes movies using them.

Oh, pul-leaze

reply

[–] SilenceByWolf (1868) 3 years ago

I agree. That's a stretch.

reply

[–] brux (14837) 3 years ago

It's like saying you cannot eat meat unless you kill the animal yourself.
If that was the case there'd be a hell of a lot more vegetarians. ;-)

reply

[–] DesertDingo (36) 3 years ago

Far from it as I do not protest against killing animals for food. As a matter of fact, I have hunted for food. You won't win if you don't understand the battle.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

You're right. A lot of people will not understand your personal battle.

reply

[–] DesertDingo (36) 3 years ago

Did you work all night on that? Your mama basement dwelling is showing. Tootles

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Nice

reply

[–] DesertDingo (36) 3 years ago

How is "I can not get past that he is such a huge anti-gun activist but makes movies using them.' a stretch? Anyone with such convictions as he does against guns ( I could post millions of times he has protested, donated, tweeted against, and more) is beyond hypocritical to make movies just using them as a means of violence or resolution or even sometimes glamorizing guns.

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 3 years ago

So true. I can not get past that he is such a huge anti-gun activist but makes movies using them.

Why would that be a problem? It's not like pro gun people are pro gun violence, either. Action movies which glorify violence are very popular - which should not be taken as an ideological statement. Or what would that say of the producers of the Mad Max movies? Or hell, Quentin Tarantino?

reply

[–] AzureSeb (510) 3 years ago

So true. I can not get past that he is such a huge anti-gun activist but makes movies using them.

A lot of lefties are hypocritical morons. Take Maxine Waters and Jamaal Bowman, for example. They want to defund the police, yet they both use police protection. Then there's Alexandra "Tax the Rich" Ocasio-Cortez. It's comical at this point.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

Do antique Colt 45s have a safety? If so, did Baldwin release it, or someone else?

But regardless of that, and of everyone Relse's mistakes, by all accounts Baldwin ignored the film industry's basic safety standards. You don't point prop guns at people, and you don't pull the trigger, and you DO have a safety meeting before filming and you DO change how things are done on the set if there's a previous safety issue, or people are goofing off with the guns.

reply

[–] DoctorThirteen (15260) 3 years ago

and you DO have a safety meeting before filming and you DO change how things are done on the set if there's a previous safety issue, or people are goofing off with the guns.

I've been involved with many safety meetings (nothing to do with movies). Meticulous records have to be kept, including detailed minutes, actions arising and details of how/when those actions have been completed. So they can be examined by investigating bodies if something goes wrong. Like this.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

I've discussed this issue with some people who claim to know how things are done on movie sets, or how they're supposed to be done according to industry standards. According to them there are numerous safety protocols that were completely ignored, and it's not clear whose fault it is but ultimately the producers are responsible for now following industry-wide safety standards... even after they were informed of problems and asked to make changes.

Baldwin seems to be in a dreadful position, legally.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I've read the same.

Ignoring his part as a producer or owning a production company that was involved, just looking at it as an actor, Baldwin should have known better, if what we've been told so far is true about him rehearsing the scene while the DP was behind the camera, in the line of fire. Most of the blame should be on the producers and others responsible for the whole situation in the first place. I get the impression that the prop master wasn't even on the set when they were filming a scene involving guns, when she should have been the one doing the checks and handing the gun to the actor, showing the actor the guns clear.

wouldn't say Baldwin - the actor - is totally innocent, though.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

There's such a wealth of blame to go around that it's impossible to say who's going to be penalized for what, by whom. OSHA, the local legal system, the film industry trade unions, the movie's insurance, are all going to have a say and mete out whatever penalties are appropriate.

Face it, the only people who win here are the lawyers.

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Yes, that's something a lot of people don't realize, it seems.

They don't actually point the guns at actors or crew when filming gunfight scenes. It's usually not necessary. They avoid it.

reply

[–] wrlord (1224) 3 years ago

So.... you've never watched a movie, have you?

reply

[–] brux (14837) 3 years ago

I keep hoping to find out what watching a movie is like by posting here and listening to what people say ... what's it like? Do they have sound ... and even color?

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Yes, they have characters who can fly, and shoot laserws out of their eyes, and lift trucks like they are cardboard boxes, or get put headfirst into a woodchipper.

They can also make it look like actors are firing guns at people without them even pointing the gun at an actual person aon the movie sets. Amazing stuff. Highly recommend.

reply

[–] chrichrichri (184) 3 years ago

I never saw a movie where it was necessary for an actor to aim at the cinematographer.

reply

[–] wrlord (1224) 3 years ago

http://network9.biz/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Bond_gunbarrel-1.jpg

https://freerangeamerican.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/DirtyHarry1-scaled.jpeg

https://cdn.outdoorhub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/03/John-Wayne-in-Big-Jake-2.jpg

The very first commercial movie:

https://garrettzecker.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/robberytrain.gif

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 3 years ago

Those are instances of guns being pointed at the camera. How do you know where the cameraman is? Certainly in that gif you posted, I can guarantee you that the cameraman was not directly behind it. Even with blanks, particles may cause significant damage to skin and eyes - not to mention the lens, so they would definitely have set up the shot - of the shot - to minimise risk to both equipment and crew.

reply

[–] wrlord (1224) 3 years ago

"Certainly in that gif you posted, I can guarantee you that the cameraman was not directly behind it. "

That movie was made in 1903. The cameraman could have been nowhere BUT behind the camera, cranking it manually.

reply

[–] hyperjet (751) 3 years ago

Judge, I believe you should acquit Mr. Baldwin because in 1903 someone shot at a camera and there might have been a man behind it cranking it because it was so long ago! I rest my case"

reply

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

It's the smarter move.

reply

[–] Kendricks (2241) 3 years ago

Same and this will be his downfall.

If you pick up a real fire arm you pick up the responsibility that comes with it.
He is completely guilty of involuntary manslaughter just because of this alone and it baffles me all these leftists go out of their way and try to blame someone or something else.

It was Baldwin who AIMED A REAL GUN AT A REAL PERSON and a split second later we all learned WHY THE FUCK YOU DON'T EVER DO THAT.

reply

[–] strntz (12773) 3 years ago

It was Baldwin who AIMED A REAL GUN AT A REAL PERSON and a split second later we all learned WHY THE FUCK YOU DON'T EVER DO THAT.

If you've ever watched a TV show movie, you've seen it done a hundred times or more. It's not against the law (right now) and it's been an acceptable practice in films for a hundred years (right now).

The gun was pointed at the camera because that's what the movie scene called for.

reply

[–] degray9 (1126) 3 years ago

If you’ve ever been on a movie set you’d know that you’re never supposed to aim a firearm at another actor or the director. When they’re aiming at the camera it usually means there’s people off to the side out of the line of fire.

reply

[–] Kendricks (2241) 3 years ago

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about and everything you said is completely wrong and even dangerous misinformation.

NO. WHAT you aim at people on movie sets are props, like rubber guns or any type of "gun" that looks real but is fake and cannot, under no circumstances, shoot.
As soon as real guns are used, real gun safety applies, movie set or not. Why would being on a movie set make any fucking difference, are you insane?

For shots "into the camera" - no one stands behind the camera.
For shots where they "aim at other people" angles are used to make it seem they aim at people, but they really don'T they aim past them.

You do not aim real guns at people, ever, under no circumstances. Period.

reply

[–] strntz (12773) 3 years ago

You do not aim real guns at people, ever, under no circumstances. Period.

And people aren't supposed to drive 100 mph through the streets of San Francisco in a Mustang chasing a Charger, or jump a car 200 feet off a dock onto a ferry, or slam the top of cars with helicopters to stop them. You aren't supposed to do those things under any circumstances either.

I think you have a problem separating real life from movies.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4831) 3 years ago

"And people aren't supposed to drive 100 mph through the streets of San Francisco in a Mustang chasing a Charger, or jump a car 200 feet off a dock onto a ferry, or slam the top of cars with helicopters to stop them."

You fail Analogies 101 forever.

Everyone involved in stunts like that are aware of the risks involved, and they are people with experience/training which minimizes the risk, and they also make it as safe as possible by installing roll cages in stunt cars, racing harnesses, wearing helmets and fire-retardant clothing, and so on. The woman that Baldwin dusted didn't agree to risk being shot; no one in their right mind would agree to that, and even if you find someone crazy enough to knowingly/willingly risk it, they'd at least want to wear body armor, unless their particular flavor of craziness involves being suicidal.

"You aren't supposed to do those things under any circumstances either."

Says who?

"I think you have a problem separating real life from movies."

Making movies is real life, obviously. If it weren't real life, Baldwin couldn't have iced that woman, because bullets only kill in real life.

reply

[–] strntz (12773) 3 years ago

It's sad watching you squirm with your failed logic. Very sad.

reply

[–] MaximRecoil (4831) 3 years ago

Your non sequitur is dismissed and since you have no arguments, your tacit concession is noted.

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

NO. WHAT you aim at people on movie sets are props, like rubber guns or any type of "gun" that looks real but is fake and cannot, under no circumstances, shoot.

Not true at all, not even close. Real guns are used regularly in scenes so that the recoil of the gun is as authentic as possible and to see the empty bullet ejected.

For shots "into the camera" - no one stands behind the camera.

Again. Not true and you have no way of knowing this statement as you were not on the set of every movie or tv show. I've seen movies where the gun barrel is literally in front of the camera so you can see down the barrel.

You do not aim real guns at people, ever, under no circumstances. Period.

In movies this has been done since the dawn of cinema. Westerns used real guns and blanks and real ammunition to shoot scenes, all done very safely. In fact ( please correct me if i'm wrong) there have been 3 or 4 deaths that were from a gun in the history of cinema.

If this woman had been killed by a car on set no one would even be talking about it. It is only because it involved a gun.

reply

[–] Kendricks (2241) 3 years ago

Not true at all, not even close. Real guns are used regularly in scenes so that the recoil of the gun is as authentic as possible and to see the empty bullet ejected.

I did not say real guns aren't being used for fucks sake.
Also, recoil... with blanks...? Good joke. Tell me more about guns, you seem to be one of these e-experts...
And no, live ammo is NOT used in movies, don't even try to go down that bullshit avenue.

Again. Not true and you have no way of knowing this statement as you were not on the set of every movie or tv show. I've seen movies where the gun barrel is literally in front of the camera so you can see down the barrel.

"You cannot know this but I can because reasons!"
And you do not know if the gun you looked into was real, nor if someone was behind the camera for that scene!

In movies this has been done since the dawn of cinema. Westerns used real guns and blanks and real ammunition to shoot scenes, all done very safely. In fact ( please correct me if i'm wrong) there have been 3 or 4 deaths that were from a gun in the history of cinema.

And all of these cases had live ammo involved despite live ammo not being part of the production.

How can you seriously believe for just one second LIVE AMMO is being used in movies, what the fuck?

If this woman had been killed by a car on set no one would even be talking about it. It is only because it involved a gun.

If Baldwin would have mowed her over and it would have been his fault, yes, yes people would talk about it. Are you seriously going to pretend no one would talk about Alec Baldwin killing someone in any case?

And well he didn't kill her with a car, he killed her with a real gun because he was as negligent as he could have been with it. He aimed a real gun at her and he even pulled the trigger.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

This US culture has become so saturated with guns, thanks to the NRA and all the 2nd Amendment worshipers, that we now assume we should all have Gun Safety as part of our nascent education. No one should be naive to the danger of guns ! They are only in every entertainment we want to enjoy, more regions pushing for open carry, and you don't think things will get out of hand? Carrying a gun is not a sacred trust in this country, it's a freeking joke where any dope with the lack of judgement to refrain from displaying gun mastery is protected.
Guns, guns, guns, they're like peanuts. They're everywhere and we encourage it. Nothing bad will ever happen if we all know the rules. Just like lethal drugs, we trust everyone to use them safely.

reply

[–] brux (14837) 3 years ago

That sounds reasonable, but I have to admit I do not like the idea of people being able to carry guns around in public. Same with knives. The problem is that you are forced to be in proximity to people whose sanity you have no idea about ... who literally have your life in their hands.

Same situation with people walking their dogs in public. You have no idea how well trained someone's dog is. I love dogs, but I don't want to have to come on contact with a strange dog I don't know owned by a person I don't know.

Similar to the pandemic when you cannot know the virus status of someone who might be breathing, coughing or sneezing on you or near you.

reply

[–] Kendricks (2241) 3 years ago

"Bla bla guns are bad!"

Meanwhile it was a blatant anti gun person who neglected the most basic rules of gun safety ending up killing Huthins, not a guy with a MAGA cap and a 2A t-shirt.

Here's a simple fact: If Baldwin would have been responsibly pro gun instead of irresponsibly anti-gun, Hutchins would still be alive. Because then he

a) would have known the exact condition of his gun instead of blindly believing someone else and
b) he would not have aimed at her, or anyone, in any case for any reason whatsoever and
c) he would have had the required trigger discipline to not cause an accidental discharge

He did not fuck up in one way, he fucked up in many ways. Respecting just ONE of the above would have been enough and she'd still be alive... but now she is dead, because an anti-gun imbecile PLAYED with a real firearm.... AND YOU PEOPLE SERIOUSLY BLAME GUNS! *facepalm*

reply

[–] Karl Aksel (1498) 3 years ago

Here's a simple fact: If Baldwin would have been responsibly pro gun instead of irresponsibly anti-gun, Hutchins would still be alive.

If he had been responsibly anti-gun she would also still be alive.

And if the armourer had been responsibly anti-gun instead of irresponsibly pro-gun, this would also have been avoided.

Anti or pro gun has nothing to do with this.

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

never aim and fire at a person

I'm guessing you have never seen a single action movie ever. You know when actors point guns at each other and shock horror even pull the trigger.

reply

[–] christomacin (4729) 3 years ago

Has this ever been tested in court post-Brandon Lee? I guess it will be now. I'm specifically talking about pointing a "prop gun"(hate that term) in someone's direction and firing. I realize it's in the movie safety manuals and is similar to normal gun safety guidelines, but have there been any successful lawsuits dealing with this issue since 1993? What about an actor not checking their "prop gun" ? Post-Brandon Lee, actors have had the right to ask to check that the gun is cold. But are they legally required to do so? And if they don't, has an actor ever faced legal procedures for not doing so? What legal maneuvers and arguments do you think the defense will use if this comes to trial? I'm just curious if there are any court precedents for this situation in show business. I'd be interested to read some of the court cases.

reply

[–] sokar (2098) 3 years ago

A quick google search shows this is the 1st fatality involving a gun since Brandon Lee so I doubt it.

The job of the armourer is to make sure all weapons are safe to use, cleaned and stored correctly. They also are required to show actors how to handle them properly and safely. The fact this is the first fatality in 30 years with a gun would suggest safety protocols have been working. BUt once the gun is handed to the actor they shouldn't have to check it again themselves that seems counter productive becausew then the armourer would have to recheck it to make sure nothing had been tampered with.

We don't expect actors to check the mechanics fo a car or scuba gear or climbing gear. This is why they pay good money for supposed experts.

reply

[–] christomacin (4729) 3 years ago

Also, a deranged actor could very easily but a bullet in the gun themselves. Sure, they'd go to jail and it would be an open and shut case, but no studio wants to deal with that problem, so I could see why they wouldn't want the actor (or anybody else) to touch the gun more than necessary. It sounds like "the actor may inspect the gun upon request" was designed to protect the actor, on the assumption that the armorer would be competent and take their job seriously. I don't think it was intended to create a legal liability for the actor if they chose not to check it. This is what I think people are assuming, and it may be true out in "the world", but does the same standard apply? Whether it SHOULD apply or not isn't what I'm asking. It certainly wasn't designed as a get out of jail free card for the armorer either. If the actor checked the weapon, but not very thoroughly, and it went off anyway it would still be the armorer's fault, in the eye's of the industry at least. This is why I think the chances of Baldwin being charged due to not checking the gun is a non-starter. His pointing the gun and firing it is much more problematic, but my gut feeling is that won't get any future prosecution past the finish line either. Also, it bears pointing out that the ballistic report hasn't come out yet, meaning all of these things are still technically allegations. I'm not expected any major surprises... but you just never know.

reply

[–] brux (14837) 3 years ago

Most of the time that is not what happens.
When it does, and some of the links that I have posted about this, it is under the strict control of a professional union armorer, who prepares prop guns, keeps them under lock and key until time to shoot the scene, then goes to each actor and triple checks the gun, explains what the actor is supposed to do, where to point the gun and blocks out the scene so it is safe.
Dutch Merrick has lately done a lot of interviews about how this is supposed to work and how they use millions of blank rounds every year to simulate gunfire.

reply