Movies Kill People Ban All Movie Production

[DBMJR1]

One undisputable fact remains:

Mr. Baldwin was handed a real firearm, that he failed to check. He then pointed the firearm at people. He cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger.

He killed a Wife, Mother, Daughter. He wounded another man.

A simple NRA safety class would have prevented this negligent homicide.

He broke at least three of Col Cooper's safety rules.

I know of no other hobby where the members are so rabid about safety, as the gun community.

 

[991GT3]

I'm still trying to figure out how he shot two people.

Through and through with black Powder ?

Scattergun?

Do you believe if a .45 Long Colt bullet is fired thru someone’s stomach it would not fully penetrate and hit someone standing behind them with enough velocity to seriously injure them, too???

They would not be using expanding, lightweight JHP. It would be semi-wadcutters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DBMJR1]

Do you believe if a .45 Long Colt bullet is fired thru someone’s stomach it would not fully penetrate and hit someone standing behind them with enough velocity to seriously injure them, too???

They would not be using expanding, lightweight JHP. It would be semi-wadcutters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My .45 Cold handloads have enough velocity to through and through a brown bear. I don't use black powder.

I'm guessing that the projectile that Baldwin fired was propelled by modern smokeless powder, which would have no value on a movie set in the late 1800's.

A .45 Colt propelled by BP would be a 250gr LRN moving at about 860 fps. I doubt that would pass through, but she may have been a thin gal, and the bullet might not have struck any bone.

 

[Jstudz220]

My .45 Cold handloads have enough velocity to through and through a brown bear. I don't use black powder.

I'm guessing that the projectile that Baldwin fired was propelled by modern smokeless powder, which would have no value on a movie set in the late 1800's.

A .45 Colt propelled by BP would be a 250gr LRN moving at about 860 fps. I doubt that would pass through, but she may have been a thin gal, and the bullet might not have struck any bone.

I would think a 250gr LRN moving at roughly 900 fps could easily pass through soft tissue if it didn’t hit bone.

 

[Jstudz220]

The Sheriff said in his news conference that the 500 rds was a mixture of live rds and blanks . They were sent to Quantico along with the guns .

My mistake, you’re correct. It was a mixture of live, blanks, and dummy’s. At least one of the reporters finally said quit calling it a prop gun. I thought the same thing from the beginning how is it a prop gun if it’s able to fire live projectiles? That would be a firearm in my books.

 

[dantheman]

A firearm used as a prop ...

 

[Gus McCrae]

I would think a 250gr LRN moving at roughly 900 fps could easily pass through soft tissue if it didn’t hit bone.

It'll go through more than that.

Lead, hardcast, ball..... 250 gn at 900fps will go through a lot. I believe John Linebaugh has stated it would go longways through an elk.... I haven't shot an elk with one to say he's wrong.

JHP changes the dynamics.

 

[JB-Glock21]

One undisputable fact remains:

Mr. Baldwin was handed a real firearm, that he failed to check. He then pointed the firearm at people. He cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger.

He killed a Wife, Mother, Daughter. He wounded another man.

A simple NRA safety class would have prevented this negligent homicide.

He broke at least three of Col Cooper's safety rules.

I know of no other hobby where the members are so rabid about safety, as the gun community.

The media spin has been about the live ammo and the loaded gun.....Why has no one addressed the hard question as to "WHY" he pointed the gun, (point of aim being Halyna Hutchins chest) cocked it and pulled the trigger!!??

 

[dantheman]

The media spin has been about the live ammo and the loaded gun.....Why has no one addressed the hard question as to "WHY" he pointed the gun, (point of aim being Halyna Hutchins chest) cocked it and pulled the trigger!!??

It's been addressed on every thread I've seen on other forums .

 

[JB-Glock21]

It's been addressed on every thread I've seen on other forums .

it may be within the gun community. Although, I have not seen it in the news broadcasts.

 

[Old School]

Imagine how horrible he must of felt having to go to work and hold a mean old gun thats always killing people. He prob gonna need councling for that!

 

[Jstudz220]

it may be within the gun community. Although, I have not seen it in the news broadcasts.

They were filming a movie as I’m sure you know by now. Rehearsal for an upcoming scene they were about to shoot. No pun intended

 

[DBMJR1]

They were filming a movie as I’m sure you know by now. Rehearsal for an upcoming scene they were about to shoot. No pun intended

In preparation for said shot, Baldwin was practicing a cross draw. He was probably pointing the gun in the general direction of the camera, (and people obviously).

Can any of y'all imagine John Wayne, or Clint Eastwood not knowing the condition of a firearm they were in possession of on a movie set?

Don Knotts was more responsible with a firearm.

 

[AustinBR]

In preparation for said shot, Baldwin was practicing a cross draw. He was probably pointing the gun in the general direction of the camera, (and people obviously).

Can any of y'all imagine John Wayne, or Clint Eastwood not knowing the condition of a firearm they were in possession of on a movie set?

Don Knotts was more responsible with a firearm.

Solely playing devil's advocate here, but yes, I can imagine anyone on a movie set used to handling prop firearms not knowing the condition of a firearm they were in the possession in. This is a guy who doesn't like guns. It's another prop to use in filming the movie. He'd have placed trust in the armorer or whoever handed him the gun to do their thing just as he'd trust a valet to park his car or a chef to cook his steak correctly.

Does it make it okay or right? Absolutely not! But, it's really easy to see how it's happened. It's really easy to get complacent on a set like that. Think about it, he's probably fired hundreds of these "toys" that go boom at other humans. Maybe thousands. They've likely never gone bang and injured someone else. They also likely are normally firearms that are not capable of firing a real bullet, similar to a Sim gun.

I'll say this: I've taken quite a few Simunition classes where I've trusted that the bright blue gun the instructor handed me that looks and feels like a Glock 19 is in fact not a Glock 19. I've trusted that it's incapable of firing a real bullet and isn't loaded with a real bullet.

 

[KDerekT83]

When it comes to firearms, and safety, trust has no place in the workplace, so to speak. Learn how, and always check a weapon when it's handed to you. No matter what. Plain ignorance is what got one person killed and another injured. Why haven't charges been filed yet, is what I want to know.

 

[rcm192]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-bullet-gun-fired-alec-baldwin-fatal-movie/story?id=80813700

Heres a couple quotes from the article:

"He also said investigators were looking into statements and rumors that crew members were allegedly taking target practice on the set and that there had been reports of drinking on the set."

"We are aware of those statements and we are investigating whether or not that is true or isn’t true," Mendoza said. "I would encourage anybody that has any information that any target practicing or any firearm was discharged away from the movie set or for practice or for whatever reason to contact the sheriff’s office."

 

[Jstudz220]

Solely playing devil's advocate here, but yes, I can imagine anyone on a movie set used to handling prop firearms not knowing the condition of a firearm they were in the possession in. This is a guy who doesn't like guns. It's another prop to use in filming the movie. He'd have placed trust in the armorer or whoever handed him the gun to do their thing just as he'd trust a valet to park his car or a chef to cook his steak correctly.

Does it make it okay or right? Absolutely not! But, it's really easy to see how it's happened. It's really easy to get complacent on a set like that. Think about it, he's probably fired hundreds of these "toys" that go boom at other humans. Maybe thousands. They've likely never gone bang and injured someone else. They also likely are normally firearms that are not capable of firing a real bullet, similar to a Sim gun.

I'll say this: I've taken quite a few Simunition classes where I've trusted that the bright blue gun the instructor handed me that looks and feels like a Glock 19 is in fact not a Glock 19. I've trusted that it's incapable of firing a real bullet and isn't loaded with a real bullet.

This wasn’t a prop gun. It was capable of firing live ammunition which makes it a firearm not a prop gun. The plastic gun they had on set was a prop gun. You don’t need to run a background check to buy a prop gun. If prop guns were capable of firing live rounds don’t you think this would be an easy loophole for criminals to easily access guns? Easier than they already do off of the streets anyway.

 

[krotsman]

Solely playing devil's advocate here, but yes, I can imagine anyone on a movie set used to handling prop firearms not knowing the condition of a firearm they were in the possession in. This is a guy who doesn't like guns. It's another prop to use in filming the movie. He'd have placed trust in the armorer or whoever handed him the gun to do their thing just as he'd trust a valet to park his car or a chef to cook his steak correctly.

From my somewhat jaded perspective, it's also a matter of liability. If he safety checks the weapon, he has just incurred full responsibility for what happens with that weapon, unless there is an unforeseen malfunction. If someone else assumes responsibility for the state of the weapon, he has some plausible deniability for what happens with it.

That being said, if he feels like he doesn't know enough about the equipment he is using, it makes some sense to "leave it to the experts". Although, to that, I'd say, take a safety course.

So many points/counterpoints to this...

 

[DBMJR1]

I recieve transfers almost weekly for the local movie industry.

They always come with a real firearm, and a prop gun. IE a fake, non functioning firearm.

It would be difficult, for even an idiot like Baldwin, to confuse the two.

 

[Magdump]

From my somewhat jaded perspective, it's also a matter of liability. If he safety checks the weapon, he has just incurred full responsibility for what happens with that weapon, unless there is an unforeseen malfunction. If someone else assumes responsibility for the state of the weapon, he has some plausible deniability for what happens with it.

That being said, if he feels like he doesn't know enough about the equipment he is using, it makes some sense to "leave it to the experts". Although, to that, I'd say, take a safety course.

So many points/counterpoints to this...

I guess I must be jaded as well because I agree.
Also, there are literally too many movie scenes to count that show point blank firing of some type of gun (prop or blank or whatever) being pointed directly at another actor or person in the movie. The primary reason there are people on set to ensure all guns being used are harmless is so nobody gets shot because they know guns will be pointed at people and fired. Because it’s make believe. It’s the movies. It’s not real so they portray things in as realistic a way as possible (or try at least). While Alec Baldwin ain’t no John Wick (and definitely not Keanu Reeves) he’s likely been conditioned into comfortably pointing and pulling the trigger on these prop guns for years with zero consequence. He’s likely done so every time as DIRECTED. By the DIRECTOR. I can imagine the director saying something like, ‘ok Alec, in this scene you’ll spit a wad of tobacco juice, wipe your chin and then draw your weapon and point it at the camera and shoot, then give a loud YEE-HAA!’ So, it’s actually possible that one or both persons shot called in the shot on their position.
The most likely scenario: somebody on set handed Baldwin a ‘gun’ for a scene, likely just as has happened many times over his career. Only this time it was a loaded firearm. Whoever handled that firearm just prior to the handoff would have been tasked with the inspection and assertion that it was not loaded with live ammo. Whomever bore that responsibility failed and if any charges are filed, I’m thinking they’ll be filed against the person employed in that position. I don’t believe the DA will pursue any charges against Baldwin and I don’t think he’s responsible. He was being directed and was handed the gun by staff who were supposed to assure a safe environment. Baldwin’s job was to act out the scene. His job does not include being the armorer or safety person. You can’t charge him with negligence when it was not his job to ensure a safe environment.
I don’t even believe the wrongful death lawsuit will include Baldwin as a defendant.