Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: conservative98

That sounds like how the bullets got there, that the guns were used for target practice. There is no legitimate reason that live rounds should have been stored on set. That alone should be enough for manslaughter charges against the armorer and others.

It sounds like there were previous discharges of bullets and apparently nothing was done to investigate or correct the problem. Seems like a major oversight by the producer (Baldwin), the director, and the armorer.

I do not know much about guns, unlike other here. However, I thought mid 19th century small arms did not have the velocity of current weapons. It seems like it would be hard to kill one person and wound another with the same bullet. I am suspicious of that story. Was more than one live round fired or was it fired at close range? Also, since you should not be aiming at anyone, particularly not an actor, how do you aim the gun so that you hit two people!?

Supposedly, Baldwin’s net worth is $60 million. I doubt he will be bankrupted by lawsuits, since only one person was killed.

I do not mean to be prejudiced about age and gender, but WTF with the armorer. Maybe she was hired due to all of being cheap, connections, and favors.

Was Baldwin given a drug and alcohol tests? If not, why not?


55 posted on 10/24/2021 9:08:58 AM PDT by xxqqzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: xxqqzz

“I thought mid 19th century small arms did not have the velocity of current weapons. It seems like it would be hard to kill one person and wound another with the same bullet.”

A standard lead 45 Colt round would easily sail through a skinny Hollywood girl and right into the next person. When the army accepted that Colt and it’s round, it was intended to hit and bring down a horse from 100 yards. That was literally the standard.


62 posted on 10/24/2021 9:13:39 AM PDT by DesertRhino (Dogs are called man's best friend. Moslems hate dogs. Add it up....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: xxqqzz
However, I thought mid 19th century small arms did not have the velocity of current weapons. It seems like it would be hard to kill one person and wound another with the same bullet. I am suspicious of that story.

A few notes:
-Mid 19th century arms, especially a .44, have lethality equal to or greater than current sidearms.
--The firearm was likely a modern recreation firearm such as those made by Uberti or Cimmaron, not a historical piece. Such firearms, for safety reasons, can handle the pressures of modern ammunition.
-Multiple credible reports cite the shot as a "through and through" where the single round passed through Halyna Hutchin's lower torso, missing bone, and struck Joel Souza, who was behind her, in the clavicle.

75 posted on 10/24/2021 9:21:51 AM PDT by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: xxqqzz
It seems like it would be hard to kill one person and wound another with the same bullet.

You were right about not knowing much about guns.

161 posted on 10/24/2021 12:36:16 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson