3 ms·

If you're going to pick up a weapon, point it at someone, and pull the trigger, what happens next is your responsibility, regardless of any other context. If y

If you're going to pick up a weapon, point it at someone, and pull the trigger, what happens next is your responsibility, regardless of any other context. If you aren't willing to learn the difference between dummy rounds, blanks, and live rounds, then you shouldn't be pointing firearms at people and pulling the trigger.

seanw444 4y ago
Agreed. If he wanted to have real firearms there, he needs to know how to operate real firearms. If he hired the armorer (or another person dedicated to firearms safety) to teach him how to do that, and they failed at that job, then the they should get their fair share of blame / repercussions. Which it sounds like they did, with a "negligent handling of a deadly weapon" or something. Ultimately, though, as someone that is very familiar with guns, I have a hard time sympathizing with Baldwin. You brought real guns onto the set, and you pointed them at people. Primarily people that had no business having the guns pointed at them. It wasn't even another actor during filming, which I would have at least understood to some degree. It seems like the perfect storm of things had happened for him to "accidentally" kill this person he didn't like. At the end of the day, any actors / set workers handling real firearms should have thorough training before using them. Trigger discipline, how to check the chamber, identifying cartridge types, emptying the chamber before setting it down, not aiming at people who aren't even actors...
- RansomStark 4y ago
  > you pointed them at people. Primarily people that had no business having the guns pointed at them. It wasn't even another actor during filming, which I would have at least understood to some degree. the scene involved pointing the gun towards the camera, which means the gun is pointing towards the crew. > Trigger discipline How do you maintain trigger discipline when the scene requires you to point a gun at someone, or in someones general direction, with your finger on the trigger? > check the chamber, identifying cartridge types, emptying the chamber before setting it down If an actor tries to check the chamber, messes with the cartridges, the gun immediately goes back to the armorer to be made safe before being handed back to the actor, if the actor check again, guess what happens? It's very important to understand that on a film set the standard rules do not apply, or more precisely the rules apply in different ways.
- matt-attack 4y ago
  Don’t forget that Baldwin (who I adore as an actor) has been vocally and voluntarily ignorant of guns and safe gun handling. He’s been one of these “I want nothing to do with them because they’re so dangerous, so I refuse to even learn about them and how to handle them safely”. I hope this tragedy serves as a lesson for those who are “anti-gun” who seem to think there’s nobility in being willfully ignorant about a simple mechanical device.
hackinthebochs 4y ago
What law is there that defines this responsibility? Modern society operates on the idea of outsourced responsibility. Why are guns uniquely different? Why should we expect an actor to personally know about firearm safety and have a personal responsibility to ensure a firearm is in a safe state? A strange pattern I've seen in discussions around guns over the years, those with gun knowledge assume everyone has or should have the same knowledge. But this is unreasonable.
- matt-attack 4y ago
  The way I see it, it’s not unlike the expression “Workplace safety rules are written in blood”. It’s taken a century of fatalities and refinement of procedures to come to the modern set of 4 gun safety rules. They exist because of those countless deaths over the years by those who didn’t follow them. The morality of it speaks for itself. Given how much thought, refinement and bloodshed are behind those rules, to not follow them seems immoral. Anyone handling a gun has a moral obligation to following the safety rules. Do to otherwise is criminal negligence.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    The issue isn't morality, but one of legal responsibility. What is the legal theory for an actor's personal responsibility to ensure the safety of a prop gun before using it?
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      It wasn't a prop gun. It was a real gun being used as a prop.
      - hackinthebochs 4y ago
        I'm not sure why you thought honing in on the least informative word in my comment was useful.
        4y ago
mattpallissard 4y ago
He broke the first two of "The Four Rules of Gun Safety" * All guns are always loaded * Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. * Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot). * Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

seanw444 4y ago

Agreed. If he wanted to have real firearms there, he needs to know how to operate real firearms. If he hired the armorer (or another person dedicated to firearms safety) to teach him how to do that, and they failed at that job, then the they should get their fair share of blame / repercussions. Which it sounds like they did, with a "negligent handling of a deadly weapon" or something. Ultimately, though, as someone that is very familiar with guns, I have a hard time sympathizing with Baldwin. You brought real guns onto the set, and you pointed them at people. Primarily people that had no business having the guns pointed at them. It wasn't even another actor during filming, which I would have at least understood to some degree. It seems like the perfect storm of things had happened for him to "accidentally" kill this person he didn't like. At the end of the day, any actors / set workers handling real firearms should have thorough training before using them. Trigger discipline, how to check the chamber, identifying cartridge types, emptying the chamber before setting it down, not aiming at people who aren't even actors...

RansomStark 4y ago
> you pointed them at people. Primarily people that had no business having the guns pointed at them. It wasn't even another actor during filming, which I would have at least understood to some degree. the scene involved pointing the gun towards the camera, which means the gun is pointing towards the crew. > Trigger discipline How do you maintain trigger discipline when the scene requires you to point a gun at someone, or in someones general direction, with your finger on the trigger? > check the chamber, identifying cartridge types, emptying the chamber before setting it down If an actor tries to check the chamber, messes with the cartridges, the gun immediately goes back to the armorer to be made safe before being handed back to the actor, if the actor check again, guess what happens? It's very important to understand that on a film set the standard rules do not apply, or more precisely the rules apply in different ways.
matt-attack 4y ago
Don’t forget that Baldwin (who I adore as an actor) has been vocally and voluntarily ignorant of guns and safe gun handling. He’s been one of these “I want nothing to do with them because they’re so dangerous, so I refuse to even learn about them and how to handle them safely”. I hope this tragedy serves as a lesson for those who are “anti-gun” who seem to think there’s nobility in being willfully ignorant about a simple mechanical device.

hackinthebochs 4y ago

What law is there that defines this responsibility? Modern society operates on the idea of outsourced responsibility. Why are guns uniquely different? Why should we expect an actor to personally know about firearm safety and have a personal responsibility to ensure a firearm is in a safe state? A strange pattern I've seen in discussions around guns over the years, those with gun knowledge assume everyone has or should have the same knowledge. But this is unreasonable.

matt-attack 4y ago
The way I see it, it’s not unlike the expression “Workplace safety rules are written in blood”. It’s taken a century of fatalities and refinement of procedures to come to the modern set of 4 gun safety rules. They exist because of those countless deaths over the years by those who didn’t follow them. The morality of it speaks for itself. Given how much thought, refinement and bloodshed are behind those rules, to not follow them seems immoral. Anyone handling a gun has a moral obligation to following the safety rules. Do to otherwise is criminal negligence.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  The issue isn't morality, but one of legal responsibility. What is the legal theory for an actor's personal responsibility to ensure the safety of a prop gun before using it?
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    It wasn't a prop gun. It was a real gun being used as a prop.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      I'm not sure why you thought honing in on the least informative word in my comment was useful.
      - 4y ago

mattpallissard 4y ago

He broke the first two of "The Four Rules of Gun Safety" * All guns are always loaded * Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. * Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot). * Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.