Baldwin says he doesn't feel guilty for 'Rust' shooting: Someone else 'is responsible'

And those are called dummies, and at a glance you can see there are no primers in the back of the cartridge..

WOW! This subject is really not your forte Bro

 

No, you're not. Not when it comes to gun safety. If you want an example of why you're wrong....i present to you...this story. Baldwin checks = she lives. He didn't and she died.

Multiple people are at fault and Baldwin is one of them. He ignored basic gun safety (or more likely had no clue about it).

None of what you're saying is acceptable practice for handling firearms. You're simply trying to excuse someone because they agree with you politically.

 

Nope. Since guns on sets are frequently loaded with all kinds of ammo. You got 100% real looking bullets without powder. You got bullets who are shells filled with all kinds of % of power to make a flash happen to even recoil. That's where the expert comes in on what the use when to get that effect that is required. An actor simply wouldn't know.

 

You can go anal about the exact label on a certain type of bullet that's not a real bullet. The bottom line remains, there are plenty of things to load a weapon with on a set. An actor checking if the gun is loaded, as you said that should have been done, still won't tell the actor a thing. You can't even distinguish a dummy from a real bullet by looking at it. That's the whole point.

 

LMAO, way out of your expertise, and it shows badly

 

Well if you can't even take the time to educate ones self on the correct name of what you are talking about, just what does that prove about the person

 

Your idea that the basic training of never point a gun at somebody and always assume it's loaded,... still is not how it works on any filmset. You're delusional. I posted a massive picture of a lot of people pointing their guns at an actor. And you suddenly previously showed to be aware that they have all kinds of different bullets on set. That shows just ill will... to accept the fact that checking a gun to see if it's loaded doesn't mean a thing on a set.

 

I just dumbed it all down. While it was not needed, since you apparently also know there is an expert on a set who loads all kinds of weapons to get all kinds of certain effects. So your claim that Baldwin had to check his weapon to see if the weapon was loaded, would not have raised any red flags one bit.... since it's custom to have an expert gives actors loaded guns with some kind of fake ammo.

 

Experts on a filmset load weapons with all kinds of fake ammo. From bullets that look exactly like the real thing to shells with certain % of power to give flashes to even recoil. Them experts are there to produce exactly what is needed without CGI. And this is the norm that experts do what they do since they are educated to know what they are doing. An actor checking a gun loaded with whatever fake bullet, and seeing whatever kind of bullet ... would mean exactly jack sh** to them.

Your idea that they are using empty guns, which you can check to see if they are indeed empty, and using CGI to add the effect is simply not what goes on at all.

 

Clearly..

Maybe if you read for yourself?


EXPLAINER: Guns on movie sets: How does that work? - ABC News (go.com)

Negligence. I don't know how many different ways you need to be told how gun safety works, but at this point you really and simply don't get it bro

 

I was thinking of dummy rounds not blanks. Either way the crimp is pretty obvious, and pistol cartridges tend to not even have that, just a flat plastic top.





As to plastic gun: I can notice that its a dummy gun and it looks stupid as ****. Plus then you have to have the actor do the recoil themselves and well.... most of them are bad actors with good connections so it also looks stupid as hell.
These people are being paid millions of dollars a movie, the least they can do is have the basic amount of prudence and intelligence required to clear a firearm yourself before you point it at someone and pull the trigger.

 

UNBELIEVABLE

he pointed a gun at another person and pulled the trigger.

Did he check the chamber to make sure it wasn't loaded?

you defend him why? Is it because you both vote Democrat and we cannot let good gun practices get in the way of a fellow Democrat voter

I am disgusted

 

There were 6 producers. I doubt he was involved in all the hiring.

 

You would think? But this thread alone screams how and why this happened.

 

It does involve checking the levels in the fuel tanks though, to make sure the ****ing thing doesn't randomly fall out of the air.

 

Perfect Pre flight check..

 

I stand by my statement. If they want to make that kinda money, they get to be responsible for their actions just like any other person who picked up or was handed a 'cold' gun and pulled the trigger killing someone. I don't give a **** that they were playing pretend, a **** up like this is an official **** up where someone died and should be punished as such as either recklessness or negligence. The only question to decide is was he reckless IE thought he might kill her and didn't care, or was he negligent IE normally that would be reckless but he's legitimately too ****ing stupid to have known it was reckless so he catches negligence instead.

 

Again: They look a certain way, completely different from a live round regardless of powder charge. Blanks look like blanks and live rounds look like live rounds.
A few seconds using your monkey brain (we're apes. we like to inspect things) to inspect the object would tell you that.

 

I read this thread and simply go HUH? I just bought a S&W 40cal SD40VE tactical. First firearm I have owned with NO SAFETY other than consciously not cycling a round in when needed or leaving one in the pipe all the time.. It's tripping me out knowing the only thing between a discharge and not is not pulling the trigger

People think owning a gun is easy-peasy and someone else should do all your thinking for them, when that's the very reason accidents happen. Can you imagen handing that firearm over to a layman? They'd for sure shoot their foot off!

 

It doesn't have a trigger safety or a grip safety involved?

 

I think so. If I were in a position to use a firearm for ANY job I would not be insulted by having to take a firearm course. Even an ex policeman should not be offended.

 

Nope, and it's weird as hell to man.. I have a hammerless 38+p but thats different you have to roll the cylinder, you know, but the new glocks and S&W tactical are no safeties other than how I posted..

 

Hell to be honest with you I don't even know if I could pass it.. The bit about climbing over a fence I think would fail me I have never even read the test and you can do it online..

 

Normally glocks have a trigger safety, a little bar on the trigger that disengages only if you wrap around it

 

If it were a court case for me I would have no idea. Someone wiser than me should decide. But it should never happen again. But of course Murphy's law.....design a foolproof system and a fool will use it.