Do guns shoot people on their own?

TXDirt wrote:

I think Alec Baldwin production company is culpable.

I don’t think Alec Baldwin the actor who was handed a prop that’s checked by professionals is responsible.

ToolMaker wrote:

But would you agree he negligent in handling the gun now that we know he actually pointed another gun at another staffer and pulled the trigger...

But would you agree he negligent in handling the gun now that we know he actually pointed another gun at another staffer and pulled the trigger firing a blank at said staffer?

TXDirt wrote:

I think the production company, producer, director, are all culpable in creating and fostering an unsafe work environment. The armorer is also highly highly culpable. I...

I think the production company, producer, director, are all culpable in creating and fostering an unsafe work environment. The armorer is also highly highly culpable.

I don’t believe the “actor” is at fault here.

Little confusing because they are ultimately the same person/entity. We need to separate the actions of the actor from the actions of the production team that created and allowed an unsafe work environment.

ToolMaker wrote:

But would you agree he negligent in handling the gun now that we know he actually pointed another gun at another staffer and pulled the trigger...

But would you agree he negligent in handling the gun now that we know he actually pointed another gun at another staffer and pulled the trigger firing a blank at said staffer?

TXDirt wrote:

I think the production company, producer, director, are all culpable in creating and fostering an unsafe work environment. The armorer is also highly highly culpable. I...

I think the production company, producer, director, are all culpable in creating and fostering an unsafe work environment. The armorer is also highly highly culpable.

I don’t believe the “actor” is at fault here.

Little confusing because they are ultimately the same person/entity. We need to separate the actions of the actor from the actions of the production team that created and allowed an unsafe work environment.

Gworm wrote:

I understand where you’re thinking, but there’s no way I would point a weapon at someone without checking it myself. With a revolver, it’s pretty easy...

I understand where you’re thinking, but there’s no way I would point a weapon at someone without checking it myself. With a revolver, it’s pretty easy to do. 
 

I still can’t believe they use real weapons, when EVERYTHING else is fake. 

FLmxer wrote:

I always taught my daughter to believe every weapon is loaded and treat it as so. I taught her that if she is at a party...

I always taught my daughter to believe every weapon is loaded and treat it as so. I taught her that if she is at a party and someone takes out a gun to show or brag, do not say " you shouldn't do that"  because that person will aim it at you thinking it's funny. Just leave. A lot of kids will take out the magazine and think it's unloaded and pull the trigger, a lot will try and spin on finger and get shot or accidentally shoot someone near by. I love guns but they destroy anything in it's path with out prejudice. Respect it. 

TXDirt wrote:

I think the production company, producer, director, are all culpable in creating and fostering an unsafe work environment. The armorer is also highly highly culpable. I...

I think the production company, producer, director, are all culpable in creating and fostering an unsafe work environment. The armorer is also highly highly culpable.

I don’t believe the “actor” is at fault here.

Little confusing because they are ultimately the same person/entity. We need to separate the actions of the actor from the actions of the production team that created and allowed an unsafe work environment.

Gworm wrote:

I understand where you’re thinking, but there’s no way I would point a weapon at someone without checking it myself. With a revolver, it’s pretty easy...

I understand where you’re thinking, but there’s no way I would point a weapon at someone without checking it myself. With a revolver, it’s pretty easy to do. 
 

I still can’t believe they use real weapons, when EVERYTHING else is fake. 

TXDirt wrote:

There is lots of conjecture here and my opinion is based off assumptions. Now, some of these assumptions may be incorrect. The actor was handed a...

There is lots of conjecture here and my opinion is based off assumptions. Now, some of these assumptions may be incorrect.

The actor was handed a “prop” to use in a scene.

No different than any other prop. He could have been handed an empty hand grenade. It could have been an ax. A broom.

The prop was a real object. In this case it happened to be a gun.

There are trained people on set whose sole job is to make sure no weapon is ever chambered with a live round and handed to an actor.

The “actor” is not the safety coordinator.

I say all this with a full understanding of gun safety, safe handling, etc. I’m an avid shooter. Just recently completed an advanced qualification for handgun shooting.

I also can’t stand Alec Baldwin.

People get hurt on set all the time. Be it from props, etc. 

Why is the “actor” responsible for a failed prop? 

If I lend you my car, do you assume the lug nuts are tightened? Or do you check it yourself? As the driver, you should check it yourself. Right?

But do you? And if not, why not?

The actor was handed a prop that’s checked by PROs. He had every reason to believe that prop was safe.

It wasn’t safe. 

So who’s ultimate fault is it?

TXDirt wrote:

I think the production company, producer, director, are all culpable in creating and fostering an unsafe work environment. The armorer is also highly highly culpable. I...

I think the production company, producer, director, are all culpable in creating and fostering an unsafe work environment. The armorer is also highly highly culpable.

I don’t believe the “actor” is at fault here.

Little confusing because they are ultimately the same person/entity. We need to separate the actions of the actor from the actions of the production team that created and allowed an unsafe work environment.

Gworm wrote:

I understand where you’re thinking, but there’s no way I would point a weapon at someone without checking it myself. With a revolver, it’s pretty easy...

I understand where you’re thinking, but there’s no way I would point a weapon at someone without checking it myself. With a revolver, it’s pretty easy to do. 
 

I still can’t believe they use real weapons, when EVERYTHING else is fake. 

TXDirt wrote:

There is lots of conjecture here and my opinion is based off assumptions. Now, some of these assumptions may be incorrect. The actor was handed a...

There is lots of conjecture here and my opinion is based off assumptions. Now, some of these assumptions may be incorrect.

The actor was handed a “prop” to use in a scene.

No different than any other prop. He could have been handed an empty hand grenade. It could have been an ax. A broom.

The prop was a real object. In this case it happened to be a gun.

There are trained people on set whose sole job is to make sure no weapon is ever chambered with a live round and handed to an actor.

The “actor” is not the safety coordinator.

I say all this with a full understanding of gun safety, safe handling, etc. I’m an avid shooter. Just recently completed an advanced qualification for handgun shooting.

I also can’t stand Alec Baldwin.

People get hurt on set all the time. Be it from props, etc. 

Why is the “actor” responsible for a failed prop? 

If I lend you my car, do you assume the lug nuts are tightened? Or do you check it yourself? As the driver, you should check it yourself. Right?

But do you? And if not, why not?

The actor was handed a prop that’s checked by PROs. He had every reason to believe that prop was safe.

It wasn’t safe. 

So who’s ultimate fault is it?

TXDirt wrote:

There is lots of conjecture here and my opinion is based off assumptions. Now, some of these assumptions may be incorrect. The actor was handed a...

There is lots of conjecture here and my opinion is based off assumptions. Now, some of these assumptions may be incorrect.

The actor was handed a “prop” to use in a scene.

No different than any other prop. He could have been handed an empty hand grenade. It could have been an ax. A broom.

The prop was a real object. In this case it happened to be a gun.

There are trained people on set whose sole job is to make sure no weapon is ever chambered with a live round and handed to an actor.

The “actor” is not the safety coordinator.

I say all this with a full understanding of gun safety, safe handling, etc. I’m an avid shooter. Just recently completed an advanced qualification for handgun shooting.

I also can’t stand Alec Baldwin.

People get hurt on set all the time. Be it from props, etc. 

Why is the “actor” responsible for a failed prop? 

If I lend you my car, do you assume the lug nuts are tightened? Or do you check it yourself? As the driver, you should check it yourself. Right?

But do you? And if not, why not?

The actor was handed a prop that’s checked by PROs. He had every reason to believe that prop was safe.

It wasn’t safe. 

So who’s ultimate fault is it?

TXDirt wrote:

There is lots of conjecture here and my opinion is based off assumptions. Now, some of these assumptions may be incorrect. The actor was handed a...

There is lots of conjecture here and my opinion is based off assumptions. Now, some of these assumptions may be incorrect.

The actor was handed a “prop” to use in a scene.

No different than any other prop. He could have been handed an empty hand grenade. It could have been an ax. A broom.

The prop was a real object. In this case it happened to be a gun.

There are trained people on set whose sole job is to make sure no weapon is ever chambered with a live round and handed to an actor.

The “actor” is not the safety coordinator.

I say all this with a full understanding of gun safety, safe handling, etc. I’m an avid shooter. Just recently completed an advanced qualification for handgun shooting.

I also can’t stand Alec Baldwin.

People get hurt on set all the time. Be it from props, etc. 

Why is the “actor” responsible for a failed prop? 

If I lend you my car, do you assume the lug nuts are tightened? Or do you check it yourself? As the driver, you should check it yourself. Right?

But do you? And if not, why not?

The actor was handed a prop that’s checked by PROs. He had every reason to believe that prop was safe.

It wasn’t safe. 

So who’s ultimate fault is it?

plowboy wrote:

I haven't followed this intently but from what I remember...Baldwin tried to cut costs by hiring this gal and the rest of the crew because they...

I haven't followed this intently but from what I remember...Baldwin tried to cut costs by hiring this gal and the rest of the crew because they were inexperienced or desperate and needed the resume material.  I think this gal had only been an "assistant" until this gig.  Basically, she wasn't gonna say "NO" to anything Alec wanted.

If memory serves... Baldwin is the one who insisted on using live ammo to "plink".  Said it would make his filmed action more believable.

I won't go so far as to say he intentionally did this but his total lack of care tells me all I need to know.

Falcon wrote:

I don't frequent gun shops, but during the few times I was in one, no guns ever fired themselves. I'm sure I would have noticed, too...

I don't frequent gun shops, but during the few times I was in one, no guns ever fired themselves. I'm sure I would have noticed, too, since most of them can fire 600,000 rounds per minute. 

TXDirt wrote:

We agree Baldwin the production company is at fault certainly. Im just separating the actor from the production team. Yes one and the same people. Baldwin...

We agree Baldwin the production company is at fault certainly.

Im just separating the actor from the production team.

Yes one and the same people.

Baldwin as director or Producer is culpable. But Baldwin the actor is not.

Thats all I’m saying.

TXDirt wrote:

Let’s replace one person in this example. Lead role is being played by Clint Eastwood. So Alec Baldwin and his production company have hired inexperienced armorer...

Let’s replace one person in this example. Lead role is being played by Clint Eastwood.

So Alec Baldwin and his production company have hired inexperienced armorer on set. They have allowed unsafe practices. Live ammo on set. Using the prop guns after shooting to go target practice, etc.

The armorer supposedly checks the props. Clint Eastwood is handed the prop to be used in the scene. Gun goes off and he kills someone.

I would not hold Clint Eastwood at fault. He’s an actor given a prop, and all guidelines and policy says the props are checked and maintained by experts.

I believe Alec Baldwin and his production company are at fault.

Just want to be clear. I think Baldwin is totally at fault. But as the producer/director only. Not as an actor who used a prop that turned out to be hot. A prop that was supposed to be maintained by experienced people.

Baldwin the producer totally fucked Baldwin the actor.

TXDirt wrote:

Let’s replace one person in this example. Lead role is being played by Clint Eastwood. So Alec Baldwin and his production company have hired inexperienced armorer...

Let’s replace one person in this example. Lead role is being played by Clint Eastwood.

So Alec Baldwin and his production company have hired inexperienced armorer on set. They have allowed unsafe practices. Live ammo on set. Using the prop guns after shooting to go target practice, etc.

The armorer supposedly checks the props. Clint Eastwood is handed the prop to be used in the scene. Gun goes off and he kills someone.

I would not hold Clint Eastwood at fault. He’s an actor given a prop, and all guidelines and policy says the props are checked and maintained by experts.

I believe Alec Baldwin and his production company are at fault.

Just want to be clear. I think Baldwin is totally at fault. But as the producer/director only. Not as an actor who used a prop that turned out to be hot. A prop that was supposed to be maintained by experienced people.

Baldwin the producer totally fucked Baldwin the actor.

TXDirt wrote:

Let’s replace one person in this example. Lead role is being played by Clint Eastwood. So Alec Baldwin and his production company have hired inexperienced armorer...

Let’s replace one person in this example. Lead role is being played by Clint Eastwood.

So Alec Baldwin and his production company have hired inexperienced armorer on set. They have allowed unsafe practices. Live ammo on set. Using the prop guns after shooting to go target practice, etc.

The armorer supposedly checks the props. Clint Eastwood is handed the prop to be used in the scene. Gun goes off and he kills someone.

I would not hold Clint Eastwood at fault. He’s an actor given a prop, and all guidelines and policy says the props are checked and maintained by experts.

I believe Alec Baldwin and his production company are at fault.

Just want to be clear. I think Baldwin is totally at fault. But as the producer/director only. Not as an actor who used a prop that turned out to be hot. A prop that was supposed to be maintained by experienced people.

Baldwin the producer totally fucked Baldwin the actor.

lostboy819 wrote:

I have a better idea, how about quit making up scenarios to try to get them fit your views. Lets stay with the facts that we...

I have a better idea, how about quit making up scenarios to try to get them fit your views. Lets stay with the facts that we know. 

plowboy wrote:

Hold on there horsecollar. Txdirt is %100 correct "legally speaking".  I believe his company and not him will be found guilty...if his lawyer is worth spit...

Hold on there horsecollar.

Txdirt is %100 correct "legally speaking".  I believe his company and not him will be found guilty...if his lawyer is worth spit.

I said I believe Baldwin is an arrogant dickhead but that ain't really a crime...a waste of a life maybe.

plowboy wrote:

I open carry when the wife and I are boondocking.  For snakes mostly...the two legged as well.   Unless the laws have changed you couldn't open carry...

I open carry when the wife and I are boondocking.  For snakes mostly...the two legged as well.  

Unless the laws have changed you couldn't open carry in bars or BANKS.  I guess it makes the tellers nervous.

VL13 wrote:

Since you’re “legally speaking”: New Mexico Statutes Chapter 30, Criminal Offenses § 30-2-3 defines manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a person without malice. There are two types of...

Since you’re “legally speaking”:

New Mexico Statutes Chapter 30, Criminal Offenses § 30-2-3 defines manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a person without malice. There are two types of manslaughter in New Mexico: involuntary and voluntary: 

Involuntary manslaughter 

Occurs when someone kills someone unintentionally, without due caution, or commits manslaughter without premeditation. It is a fourth-degree felony that can result in up to 18 months in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, probation, parole, or meritorious deductions. 

Voluntary manslaughter 

Occurs when someone kills someone intentionally in the heat of passion or during a sudden quarrel. It is a third-degree felony that can result in up to 3 years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, and probation

plowboy wrote:

Sounds like it'd be a slam dunk on the 4th degree but his attorney will argue that someone was hired to ensure safety ergo "due caution"...

Sounds like it'd be a slam dunk on the 4th degree but his attorney will argue that someone was hired to ensure safety ergo "due caution" had been taken.  Workplace accident?  Idk.

Boomslang wrote:

Forgive my ignorance but what is "boondocking" ?

I could Google it but prefer first hand info...

Boomslang wrote:

Forgive my ignorance but what is "boondocking" ?

I could Google it but prefer first hand info...

Sandberm656 wrote:

Boondocking is when you go camping out in the middle of nowhere. You are likely alone and thus having a gun with you is a good...

Boondocking is when you go camping out in the middle of nowhere. You are likely alone and thus having a gun with you is a good idea if some bad guy happens upon you.

Boomslang wrote:

Forgive my ignorance but what is "boondocking" ?

I could Google it but prefer first hand info...

Sandberm656 wrote:

Boondocking is when you go camping out in the middle of nowhere. You are likely alone and thus having a gun with you is a good...

Boondocking is when you go camping out in the middle of nowhere. You are likely alone and thus having a gun with you is a good idea if some bad guy happens upon you.

plowboy wrote:

Lol...out in the boondocks.  If you didn't bring it...you ain't got it.