^ Ignorant, non-sensical, and irrelevant comment. |
Only dumb lawyers are putting forward that take. Sure, anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't mean they might win. Or that they should. |
“YET, we have virtually no regulation of guns on the streets we walk everyday.” If you seriously believe there is “virtually no regulation” of firearms, whether generally or “on the streets we walk [sic] everyday,” you may be the most appallingly ignorant human being in creation. |
+1. Guns are heavily regulated. |
| There shouldn't have been real bullets on the set. |
And you don’t speak for everyone, SWEETIE. Cram that. NP |
Yes, there are rules about that. |
|
This thread has been very eye-opening--thank you to the many experts who have answered questions and explained things.
I have almost zero experience with guns. I did know that blanks could kill but I had no idea how important cleaning a gun was. I also never thought about the movies I watch being dangerous to those on set! I'm having a bit of a reckoning with that personally. I realize that as the protocols are written, the actor doesn't check the gun. It seems that the protocols should contain some redundancy such as: armorer checks, AD checks, armorer demonstrates the checks to actor so actor can see the weapon and understand what's in it. |
Yeah, I don't see it. You would have to prove some sort of negligence on his part, which would probably be judged by the industry practice. Several other members of the set probably fail that test, but unless there is something else on Baldwin, I don't know... But could see him still settling with family to keep the peace (and his reputation). |
Agree and this all comes back to down to an unqualified armorer. I have no experience with guns, but if someone suddenly put me in charge of guns on the set of a movie and said here, this is your job now, I would at the very LEAST have checked to make sure the barrels were empty. I mean how hard is that basic responsibility? I wouldn't let a gun get into someone's hand without checking and triple-checking there were not live rounds in the gun. Let alone not having the proper qualifications to safely load blanks, selecting the appropriate gun, etc., but at a minimum, a MINIMUM, the armorer should have checked to make sure the gun did not have any live rounds. It's astounding to me that this 24yr old who was in in charge couldn't even do that. What was she doing instead? Taking selfies? and now someone is dead as a result. Yes, the AD is responsible because he called the gun cold without checking himself, but it all comes back to her and the very minimum she was required to do as part of her responsibility as armorer. Sickening and she needs to be held responsible. |
An article from a few days ago said it misfired as he pulled it out of the holster |
Okay, so we get that you have consumed the NRA's kool aid. And you probably believe what you are saying. Here are some FACTS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/12/theres-no-magic-bullet-prevent-gun-violence-we-can-start-with-more-oversight/ https://vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/regulate-htm/ https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/strictest-gun-laws-by-state (Did you notice the first sentence of the second paragraph?) https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons I am done debating someone who spouts opinions. Bye |
+100 Alec Baldwin should file a lawsuit! (Although I guess it would be against himself as producer 😆). Imagine shooting someone with a gun you thought was cold? How traumatic. Taking someone’s life? I would be heartbroken and then FURIOUS that someone’s carelessness allowed him to be put in that position. Very upsetting and will no doubt cause psychological trauma for him. The guilt will be with him forever. |
I guess it will depend on the trajectory of the bullet. A ricochet or a straight shot will have significantly different results. |
Perhaps, but I believe it's been revealed in the last couple of days that it was a real bullet. |