Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

I actually agree with all the gun safety rules that you posted. I disagree that once the weapons master has declared a gun cold on a movie set that the actor then is required to have the same level of gun skills and responsibility in handling the gun as the gun master.

BUT more importantly: you just judged me and my gun skills by my viewpoints in this thread. I believe Jinnistan had done the same sort of thing to you by judging your views on the shooting against his perceived views of you. Really not cool to do.

You take this way too seriously. No one is trying to dismiss you that I can see, I sure wasn't. I'm just not into pissing matches.

HOWEVER you did ask for justification of my viewpoint, fair enough...But I believe I have stated it at least three times so far.

So please go back and read my posts and if you have a specific question about my viewpoint that I haven't addressed, ask me and I will try to answer.

What is BS is this false dichotomy that you're trying to squeeze the disagreement into. The "Baldwin has some responsibility" versus "no he doesn't" is a ludicrous reduction. Corax gives Baldwin primary responsibility (because of his stated axe with Baldwin's previous anti-gun comments and the perceived hypocrisy of his statements about those involved in gun accidents), whereas I give Baldwin some responsibility (I've questioned why his finger was on the trigger for an unholstering rehearsal and why the hammer was apparently cocked). The disagreement lies in the professional responsibility of those (at least two) whose job requirements involve ensuring the safety of firearm props. Corax has dismissed the culpability (now referring to it as "gossip") of those who have this professional responsibility. If all actors are responsible for the safety of the props they use, then why even hire people on the set whose sole responsibility is to be responsible for prop safety? This is what's being discussed, and only Corax, as far as I can tell, is pushing for an either/or to blame or not to blame Baldwin.


The sufficiency of the protocol is irrelevent because, by evidence of a mass walk-off of the film crew over lax gun safety, these protocols were clearly not being implemented. Blaming the protocols (as Corax is doing) is another way of deflecting the blame for those who were neglecting the protocols.


There was a link to a professional armorer who stated clearly that the fault is not with the actor but with those members of the crew entrusted with making sure that at no time is there a live gun on set.


I do believe that Corax has a sincere distaste for Alec Baldwin and other Hollywood liberals. I also believe that he's been trying to stir things up. Talking about escalation, I still think it's worth noting that the most escalated post was Corax's response to Flicker, which was entirely political in nature, btw. By contrast, I think my interaction here with Corax has been quite mild.

We do not disagree here. The weapons master should have a deep knowledge of the function of all these items. My only demand is that actors learn and abide by the same rules everyone else is expected to follow (not absolute mastery, but basic safety, such as "Huh, is this thing loaded?").

I am not judging for having an agenda, but of being too comfortable in your lack of experience. This is perhaps the only time when such skills and familiarity matter. All else is make-believe. I have had, for example, friends flag me with guns and then roll their eyes when I tell them not to do that, as it seems anyone who picks up a guns seems to congenitally think that they know well enough how they work not to be a threat. I am not saying that you would do this, however, I would be mortified at thought of someone handing you a gun and saying, "Yep, it's safe, play with it" and you taking that as being good enough to handle it loosely.

I can appreciate that and I must admit that I can be especially "game" for extended arguments. That stated, however, there is a point here. Just about anyone injured or killed by a negligent discharge was made that way by an "empty" gun.

Hey, I have an idea. Let's talk about everything other than the issue at hand. Is Baldwin to blame? Or is Hollywood to blame? Whatever it takes not to blame a couple of specific crew members on a specific (nonunion, non-studio) set who were ignoring very specific and basic safety protocols.

I’ll say this again, he is aware of this, since he and I spoke about this, privately. But you seem to be using that as an excuse for your own behavior, here.
Let’s not turn a blind eye to your antagonistic responses either, and I can highlight a post of yours that was clearly meant as a somewhat trolling response to Corax.
Add to the way you responded to Yoda when he got involved, and I wonder how you can’t tell that you are clearly being unnecessarily antagonistic.
I will also point out that your responses toward Corax are absolutely due to a past between you two, deserved or not being irrelevant to me, and I know this because you yourself have expressed this months ago when Yoda stepped in between a similar argument between the two of you.
This went from a simple disagreement to a personal attack.

There is plenty of blame to go around. This is not an either/or situation, but a both/and.

And yes, we should talk about that so-called prop master and nepotism and age and laziness and evolving industry standards.

But if an actor handles a gun we also need to talk about trigger discipline, clearing weapons, pointing them in safe directions, etc.

Are you done yelling at Yoda?

Film sets are not "playtime". Just because films are fiction, artificially staged with actors performing as people they are not doesn't make their profession on par with children playing make believe. Actors do not play with guns like they are toys. This is a job. A stunt person is working for a living. They have responsibilities and risks. Again, I think the stray barbs about Hollywood elites and Baldwin's vanity and privilege are very telling of the kind of disdain that's being capitalized on here.

Please do.

Not until you apologize to Flicker.

How do you know what my gun skill levels are? How do you know I have a lack of experience?

I see your responses to me, as being frustrated that you can't make me agree with you, so you insult my gun skills. Not that I care, not at all, but it's not really cool to be doing.

Thai is what I’m talking about it was clearly meant to stir things up.

For whatever it's worth, I'm reading Corax' comments mostly to be that the individual holding the weapon has a level of responsibility. It just happens to be Baldwin in this example. I would believe the arguments would be the same with any other actor. I'm not seeing direct attack on him personally, just that whoever is holding a firearm should by some standard assume some level of responsibility.

If I'm reading that correctly, I think it's reasonable but not ...hm. Defining? Some gigs require firearms safety training to even be eligible for the job. Other industries, I mean. I don't think it's out of line to at least ask if something like that should be regulated here or even argue for it. That said, it seems on-set deaths like this are few and far between and perhaps the legality of it all is already defined, placing responsibility on the weapons master, the producers, the actors, or a combination. I would guess that a minimal level of experience and certification (and insurance!) would be required for the weapons master position, and perhaps production contracts already define who is to be held liable in this situation. That would make most of this thread moot. Probably more so in that none of us know anyway and are probably, in one degree or another, using this instance to wedge in our own individual biases on politics and gun control. I type that lightly btw.

To the heart of what I'm reading though, I truly believe the arguments would have been the same regardless of what actor held the weapon, I guess is my point.

Back to the broader topic, I'm curious what laws, regulations, or contracting exists that should define roles and responsibilities in all of this. surely that already exists.

To gun safety in general, I think I agree with Corax (at least as a broad brush stroke here) that anyone handling a firearm should be the last line of defense in safety protocols. I personally would expect a basic level of weapons safety training during pre-production for any cast that will need to handle a firearm. I have no idea if that happens or not. Maybe it does. I've read that members of production were using this (or other?) firearms with live ammunition outside of production. That would be the ideal time that such training could have made a difference. Knowing what's right and wrong (as defined by some binding contractual obligation upon receiving safety training) then anyone at that point could have, and should have, thrown a red flag.

I also get an argument that if you have a weapons master whose role it is to make this safety check, then the cast member holds no responsibility. Fair argument too, as what experience does the actor have to make that judgment? This goes back to what I have to assume should already have been defined (and likely is) within contracting or whatever production laws may exist that define specific instances through which that responsibility is transferred. Maybe it is all on the weapons master? Past that, it's probably on the producers to confirm the qualifications of any contracted weapons master. All just guessing, of course.

Has anyone seen any articles yet digging into that side of things? Of contracting and law? Else we're all just spinning our wheels of opinion. Which is cool too.

Alright. Back to work for me. Just wanted to jump in before this gets locked

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Corax had already been stirring things up. That post was a response to his meltdown in Flicker for daring to refer to "gun nuts". Corax had already cited Baldwin's anti-gun remarks prior to that as his rationale for calling out Baldwin's so-called hypocrisy. There's nothing I've implied that can't be directly inferred from his posts.

Well, this statement was my first clue,

If there was a blank lined up for the next shot (of the gun) then spinning the cylinder by anyone without knowledge of firearms would be stupid as it could misaligned the blank with the firing pin.

This statement shows ignorance (no offense, this is non-pejorative use) of how revolvers work, in general. You can't just spin the cylinder against the firing pin. Revolvers lock up. If they didn't they would blow up in your hand as the bullet leaving the chamber would be misaligned with the barrel. Revolver-lovers get antsy about there even being a little "play" in the lock-up of a revolver, because that can mean lead shavings coming off a bullet (and possibly into your hand).

I believe it's already been pointed out that Baldwin has an anti-gun stance and it makes no sense to expect that he knows how to spin a cylinder in a 19th century firearm

This is a second clue. You appear to think that spinning a cylinder of a Colt Single Action Army is arcane knowledge, when it is one of the simplest platforms invented (i.e., people are often first taught to shoot on an SAO Colt-style, because it is so easy) and the most common revolver featured in Westerns. If you only watched the movies you'd think that 98% of the Old West was Colt revolvers. As an actor, Baldwin would/should be quite familiar with the procedure for operating the simplest pistol or revolver featured in film and TV.

My third clue was that you were doubling down against the basic rules as covering anyone and everyone who handles a gun. If you've properly handled firearms, you have had those rules relentlessly hammered into your conscience.
On the contrary, I find that I am being "gunsplained" to by people who don't have a basic understanding of firearms safety of function and that these people want to argue the laws of physics and prudence as if these were negotiable or fell under a subjectivist standard. I am pointing out ignorance so that you might profit from the hard earned wisdom of the people who paid for that wisdom with tragedies.

If I am wrong, I apologize, but I must confess that the alternative would be even more distressing (i.e., that you do know better, but still maintain that a person has no personal responsibility just so long as a more experienced person tells them that a deadly weapon is perfectly safe).

When I took a gun safety course, I was always taught that I am ultimately responsible for any firearm I take into my hands/under my control, and that I should always clear it, check it and "make it safe" immediately. I was also taught that the law would consider me responsible for any projectile fired while the firearm was under my control.

__________________

Yes, Corax had already, which again, was already acknowledged, especially by me. But the rest is disingenuous, as you clearly made a comment toward the person himself, rather then any specific post of his by refuting his claims. (Those came later, but only after taking this dig at him).
His actions do not excuse your own.

You just made a big mistake my friend.

I did NOT say one could spin the cylinder of a SAA with the hammer down on the firing pin. You just assumed that's what I meant. Prove to me that's what I said. You can't because you rushed to criticize and made a mistake.

I was referring to: Baldwin supposedly spinning the cylinder to check for a loaded gun and thus causing the 1 blank in one of the cylinder chambers to be misaligned for the next shot, which can be done by pulling the hammer back partially and opening the gate so that the cylinder can spin. This is how one loads the gun.

By the way I'm a very safe person with a gun, you know nothing about me. But even if I knew nothing about SAAs that would not make me dangerous, you're just throwing hash.

So who was responsible for bringing live ammunition to a movie set?

I think what's most important here is that Corax is having a good time. Maybe someone can get him a drink? A towel? Bag of nuts?

No worries. If I have made an error, I must own it.

Well, you did say this in response to me. When I pointed out your error (I said, "Don't take this the wrong way, but you don't know how guns work. You can't just spin the cylinder of a revolver when it is locked up, nor is this how you inspect to see if they are loaded.") you said in reply:

Then you just made my point for me, if I don't know how to check a 19th century revolver for safe handling, what makes you think Baldwin would know?

If I was wrong, why didn't you correct me? Rather, your response gives all appearance of confirming not only that you are ignorant of how guns work, but that you were guilty of the particular presupposition of which I accused you.

This looks like proof to me.


Yes, I posted a video demonstrating this. We should note that if he was using a Ruger-style pistol, the only thing he needed to do was open the loading gate.

At any rate, the revolver locks at the half-cock position, right? And when we close that loading gate the revolver must lock into battery before you can fire it, yes? This is a design feature, right?

So, how is this statement (below) of any import?

If there was a blank lined up for the next shot (of the gun) then spinning the cylinder by anyone without knowledge of firearms would be stupid as it could misaligned the blank with the firing pin.

Again, if Baldwin saw a blank round (!!!) in any of the cylinders he should or would have known that the gun was NOT safe to play with, and certainly not to point at a person (blanks kill within 20 yards).

And if I read your comment wrong and you were, in fact, arguing that the gun could be fired with a misaligned cylinder, this also demonstrates your misapprehension of how revolvers work. Your correction shows that you are still in the wrong, because a functioning revolver won't discharge with a cylinder out of battery.