Posted on 10/27/2021 5:13:10 AM PDT by Scarlett156
That’s awful.
There really is no excuse for this when you think about it.
Why does Baldwin actually have to be the one to fire the gun?
the whole thing doesn’t add up, and there is no media out there to tell us what happened.
Cinéma vérité - yeah, that’s the ticket!
How can an actor actually get into the spirit of the role unless the whole EXPERIENCE is first played out?
Movies could be made with purpose built guns.
These guns could be rebarrelled to fire only blanks in a unique cartridge size.
Live, factory size cartridges could not be chambered.
It would be a huge expense but it could be done.
Basically they would foot the bill for a huge supply of wild cat blank cartridges to be manufactured for their purpose built non-functional firearms.
Just ban arrogant, ignorant liberals; easy peasy.
You CANNOT ban arrogant, ignorant, and RICH liberals - they have their own money.
There is coverage on this (articles, coverage on NewsNation TV), every day, blaming everyone but Alec Baldwin.
Fixed.
*I've seen lots of post by Freepers saying "never point a gun at someone unless you plan to shoot them". I guess those Freepers have never seen a western movie.
Better title is “negligent shooting incident” , that death shouldn’t have happened ever.
It's probably not too difficult to retrofit firearms for this type of niche usage. Since they would be blanks, you wouldn't have to rebarrel the firearm.
But you're probably overthinking it. Nobody is forcing these actors and crew members to take jobs on sets where firearms are being used. Just don't take the job. Enough people boycott gigs on Law and Order and the problem will take care of itself...
A) This shooting was not an accident, it was the result of user stupidity. Extremely few shootings reported as accidents actually are accidental. Stupidity is the number one reason for them. Or mishandling.
B) Baldwin ignored both of the most important 2 rules of firearm safety.
1 Always treat every firearm as if it were loaded.
If he had actually done that, 2 would not have been an issue.
2 Never point a firearm at another person.
C) Baldwin has a long history of screeching about gun control every time he gets a chance, what was he doing in the same damn COUNTY with gun? If he really believes what he says, we should not have guns, why was he making a movie with one in his hand? Hes a fraud. And an idiot. And a liar. Probably has armed security too.
This shooting was no accident, it was user stupidity and could have been easily prevented. He did not check the gun HIMSELF to be sure it was not loaded, that eliminates the accident idea. I don’t care if the armorer handed it to him and yelled “COLD GUN”, he still should check it himself...My father would have chewed me out big time if ANYONE ever handed me a gun and I did not check it immediately, MYSELF to be aure it was not loaded. When I was a kid he did chew me out when HE handed me a .22 rifle and I didn’t check it. He knew it was unloaded...but I didn’t. After 60 years handling guns, that is still a habit right now.
I know my .22 revolver is always loaded, I still checked it when I picked it up, to be sure it was actually loaded. Its useless unloaded if I spot an armadillo...and I’m sitting outside with the .22 beside me right now as I type. Armadillo, opossum and raccoon all causing problems, snakes still out, yeah I have it with me...
Well, if the point of the scene is the camera looking down the barrel of a gun while it’s fired by a given character, the actor firing it is the one to do it. Presumably it’s supposed to be loaded with a blank, and the camera behind protective glass (to protect the expensive lens from burning powder). Camera operator, nor director, shouldn’t be behind the target (the camera) even if it’s allegedly a blank, or nothing, being fired.
(Ironic that I’m one who inspected Penn & Teller’s gun for a double bullet catch trick.)
There has been some mention in other places that before work on the film began, some of the cast/crew were plinking w/ that pistol that morning.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4007159/posts
This suggests to me that the problem is a bad case of negligence. Someone allowed the plinking ammo and the blank ammo to be together, or the weapon was not cleared after the plinking.
I would think live ammo would not be allowed on set, in the local “arms room,” or anywhere near it.
The weapon should have been take back to the ‘arms room’ and cleared after being used earlier, at the least.
The person who handed Baldwin the pistol and pronounced it ‘cold,’ safe to use on set, did not check it, nor did Baldwin. Everyone who handles it should check a weapon when it is received, and when passed on to another.
Firearms safety has gotten slack, it seems. Did the Duke, et al, allow such things on their sets? Ever?
“Guns don’t kill people. Alec Baldwin kills people!”
At least 3, possibly 4 people screwed up.
First, someone was using the firearm for "plinking" or target practice that morning off set. They apparently returned it to the set without clearing it. This may have been the armorer.
Second, the official armorer put it on the cart for use, without checking it.
Third, the assistant director picked it up and announced it was a "cold gun" without checking it.
Fourth, Mr. Baldwin accepted it from the assistant director, again, without checking it.
Two people making mistakes in conjunction is a hopefully very rare occurrence. But it can happen, even to the best of us.
However, when you get to three or four people making mistakes, the same basic mistakes, this isn't bad luck. This is institutionalized arrogance, ignorance, and negligence. This wasn't an accident. With the attitudes and carelessness apparent in the chain of events, this was predictable and inevitable.
There have been thousands of western movies and tv shows with lots of shooting made without incident. It takes a moron like Alec Baldwin to do something like this. Is it possible he did it on purpose because he hates guns so much?
This has been explained by some actors and directors. The gun is not actually aimed directly at another actor. It's aimed off to the side and the camera angle makes it look like it's aimed at the other person.
The fact that it is NOT being discussed or reported on should tell you everything you need to know.
It's the USUAL LIBERAL COVERUP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.