Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Karma is a very peculiar thing. Baldwin have always been anti-gun. Now he has to live with this for the rest of his life. Hope he will take some classes and learns how to handle weapon OR don't touch the weapon if he is clueless about guns.

Excuse me but how was being anti-gun deserving of karma?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I've read, they were rehearsing a scene and the last words AB said before pulling the trigger was "like this?".

Were the cameras rolling?

I heard on the news that they were not. They don't have footage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two types of people on this thread:

1. I work on film sets- It’s totally normal to take a gun from someone, point it at another human, and pull the trigger with no expectation that they might be harmed because….protocol.

And

2. Everyone else- WTAF

You're reading a different thread, friend. But it does sound like you should never try to get a job with extensive safety protocols. It would be too nerve wracking for you.

I’ve had weapons training and multiple deployments with plenty of protocols. These movie set protocols failed because they were crap to begin with.

Almost none of the protocol was followed, so I don’t think you can blame protocols.

Excuse me ma’am you’re clearly speaking to a Guns Guns Guns expert show some respect goddammit he needs this spotlight.

I’m a woman, actually. I’m also not a guns, guns, guns expert. I’ve had enough weapons training to know that if you point a gun at someone without knowing for sure whether it’s loaded, and pull the trigger, you might accidentally kill them. That’s all.

He didn't point the gun at anyone. He pointed it at the camera. Either he has lousy aim or the gun didn't shoot straight. He didn't violate your rules.

Pointing a gun in the general area of someone is the same as pointing it at someone. Go to any range and point a gun near, but not at, someone and see how the range master responds.

This statement is completely true, but I think there's a disconnect here between gun safety for people who are firing/planning to fire live weapons and the safety standards for prop guns that are not supposed to have ammo in them, or ammo anywhere on set. We can argue all day long, but the truth is that the same safety standards that you have on a gun range have not applied on movie sets up to this point, period. I'd argue that they should and likely will if operable weapons are even allowed on sets anymore. There were obviously a lot of safety issues here regardless of what Baldwin did or not. I just heard this morning that live ammunition was found on set, which is a huge safety issue.

Basice gun safety is to treat all fire arms as loaded and to personally verify that a firearm you handle is unloaded. I wonder it Hollywood has different rules will be a good defense to manslaughter charges

[Anonymous]

Cameras were not rolling b/c some of the crew had left the set due to the labor dispute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two types of people on this thread:

1. I work on film sets- It’s totally normal to take a gun from someone, point it at another human, and pull the trigger with no expectation that they might be harmed because….protocol.

And

2. Everyone else- WTAF

You're reading a different thread, friend. But it does sound like you should never try to get a job with extensive safety protocols. It would be too nerve wracking for you.

I’ve had weapons training and multiple deployments with plenty of protocols. These movie set protocols failed because they were crap to begin with.

Almost none of the protocol was followed, so I don’t think you can blame protocols.

Excuse me ma’am you’re clearly speaking to a Guns Guns Guns expert show some respect goddammit he needs this spotlight.

I’m a woman, actually. I’m also not a guns, guns, guns expert. I’ve had enough weapons training to know that if you point a gun at someone without knowing for sure whether it’s loaded, and pull the trigger, you might accidentally kill them. That’s all.

He didn't point the gun at anyone. He pointed it at the camera. Either he has lousy aim or the gun didn't shoot straight. He didn't violate your rules.

Pointing a gun in the general area of someone is the same as pointing it at someone. Go to any range and point a gun near, but not at, someone and see how the range master responds.

This statement is completely true, but I think there's a disconnect here between gun safety for people who are firing/planning to fire live weapons and the safety standards for prop guns that are not supposed to have ammo in them, or ammo anywhere on set. We can argue all day long, but the truth is that the same safety standards that you have on a gun range have not applied on movie sets up to this point, period. I'd argue that they should and likely will if operable weapons are even allowed on sets anymore. There were obviously a lot of safety issues here regardless of what Baldwin did or not. I just heard this morning that live ammunition was found on set, which is a huge safety issue.

Basice gun safety is to treat all fire arms as loaded and to personally verify that a firearm you handle is unloaded. I wonder it Hollywood has different rules will be a good defense to manslaughter charges

He's not getting charged with manslaughter. The armorer or person who told him it was a "cold gun" without checking it might be.

[Anonymous]

So much of this argument is about whether the regulations of guns on the set were strict enough and enforced.

YET, we have virtually no regulation of guns on the streets we walk everyday.

So, yes, it would be great if people who work on movie sets were safe. But those of you arguing that responsible gun use requires rules and training....why don't we require that out in public, which has children and drunk people and angry people....

I am all for controlling how guns are used, but more concerned about schools and malls than movie sets.

https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-019-0184-0

Before you ask how this is relevant, it is all people who went to work and got shot to death.

[Anonymous]

There are now talks about California putting in place a law banning live ammunition on film sets.
For what I can deduce, the live ammunition brought to the set of Rust was not for use in the movie but for the armorer (and other workers) to play with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are two types of people on this thread:

1. I work on film sets- It’s totally normal to take a gun from someone, point it at another human, and pull the trigger with no expectation that they might be harmed because….protocol.

And

2. Everyone else- WTAF

You're reading a different thread, friend. But it does sound like you should never try to get a job with extensive safety protocols. It would be too nerve wracking for you.

I’ve had weapons training and multiple deployments with plenty of protocols. These movie set protocols failed because they were crap to begin with.

Almost none of the protocol was followed, so I don’t think you can blame protocols.

Excuse me ma’am you’re clearly speaking to a Guns Guns Guns expert show some respect goddammit he needs this spotlight.

I’m a woman, actually. I’m also not a guns, guns, guns expert. I’ve had enough weapons training to know that if you point a gun at someone without knowing for sure whether it’s loaded, and pull the trigger, you might accidentally kill them. That’s all.

Sweetie. No one GAF about you here, nor your sex, nor your hoo-rah. Cram it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This morning I saw an interview with a veteran film industry armorer. He turned down the job on “Rust” in pre-production because he knew they weren’t planning to follow best safety practices. He said that more than one person was taking on multiple crew roles and he said it was very concerning for someone handling the guns to have an additional job.

It sounds like having an extremely small budget lead to many poor choices and sloppy work. They cut corners. The cinematographer died because of it. With a bigger budget, they could have adequately staffed and hired experienced professionals who take their work seriously. They wanted to make a movie on the cheap and so they hired who they could get cheap.

Again, this circles back to the recent IA labor dispute. Wonder how many gun experts on this thread are also anti collective bargaining. I’m betting that’s a Venn diagram with some pretty large overlap.

Ding ding ding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like this is also a case of hubris. The filmmakers seem to have thought that they’ve made a lot of movies and know what they’re doing, so they can take on multiple responsibilities, because hey, it’s not rocket science.

No. Not at all. In fact we have an industry with huge corporations, with little to no experience producing movies ( APPLE, NETFLIX, AMAZON), churning out massive amounts of content.
It’s not hubris. It’s about sociopathic corporations that are only concerned with their bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This morning I saw an interview with a veteran film industry armorer. He turned down the job on “Rust” in pre-production because he knew they weren’t planning to follow best safety practices. He said that more than one person was taking on multiple crew roles and he said it was very concerning for someone handling the guns to have an additional job.

It sounds like having an extremely small budget lead to many poor choices and sloppy work. They cut corners. The cinematographer died because of it. With a bigger budget, they could have adequately staffed and hired experienced professionals who take their work seriously. They wanted to make a movie on the cheap and so they hired who they could get cheap.

Again, this circles back to the recent IA labor dispute. Wonder how many gun experts on this thread are also anti collective bargaining. I’m betting that’s a Venn diagram with some pretty large overlap.

Ding ding ding.

Thankfully the producers didn't do something crazy like hire someone familiar with gun safety.

[Anonymous]

I've read a lot on different platforms and the general consensus is that while AB may not be criminally charged he could still face a wrongful death lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

If she picked up a gun and killed Alec Baldwin, people here would be blaming her, not "protocols".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Karma is a very peculiar thing. Baldwin have always been anti-gun. Now he has to live with this for the rest of his life. Hope he will take some classes and learns how to handle weapon OR don't touch the weapon if he is clueless about guns.

Excuse me but how was being anti-gun deserving of karma?

+1. Isn't this the opposite of karma?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've read a lot on different platforms and the general consensus is that while AB may not be criminally charged he could still face a wrongful death lawsuit.

Of course he will. And he will have to settle for an undisclosed significant amount of money. It was an accident with a gun. The caution used should have been elevated and wasn’t. It wasn’t a freak accident with feathers from a pillow that caught in her throat. It was a gun, pointed at her and he pulled the trigger.