Alec Baldwin what the fuck
-
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 21:47 last edited by
@klaus said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Can a prop gun fire a real bullet if you load it with one?
Depends on the prop.
-
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 21:56 last edited by
@klaus said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Can a prop gun fire a real bullet if you load it with one?
Amateur question here: Why would a prop gun have a firing pin?
-
@klaus said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Can a prop gun fire a real bullet if you load it with one?
Amateur question here: Why would a prop gun have a firing pin?
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 22:00 last edited by@catseye3 said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Amateur question here: Why would a prop gun have a firing pin?
Amateur answer here: Because you'd need it to "fire" a blank?
-
@catseye3 said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Amateur question here: Why would a prop gun have a firing pin?
Amateur answer here: Because you'd need it to "fire" a blank?
-
@george-k Yes, some way to propel it . . . but couldn't it be some mechanism that was not configured to strike the middle part of a real bullet? Something more like a little paddle?
'K, I'll stop talking now.
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 22:09 last edited by@catseye3 said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@george-k Yes, some way to propel it . . . but couldn't it be some mechanism that was not configured to strike the middle part of a real bullet? Something more like a little paddle?
'K, I'll stop talking now.
Believe me, @Jolly will know a lot more about this than just about anyone here.
-
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 22:10 last edited by
A blank is exactly the same as a regular bullet except for the payload and the gunpowder charge is about 50% of a normal round.
-
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 22:10 last edited by
@89th said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@jolly you realize to the average uninformed person those TOTALLY look like normal bullets.
But that is not who we are talking about. there are strict work safety rules that have to be followed regarding handling prop guns on movie and theatrical sets.
-
@89th said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@jolly you realize to the average uninformed person those TOTALLY look like normal bullets.
But that is not who we are talking about. there are strict work safety rules that have to be followed regarding handling prop guns on movie and theatrical sets.
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 22:14 last edited by@mik said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@89th said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@jolly you realize to the average uninformed person those TOTALLY look like normal bullets.
But that is not who we are talking about. there are strict work safety rules that have to be followed regarding handling prop guns on movie and theatrical sets.
And on the sets, the guys handling the weapons are trained specifically on those weapons as well.
-
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 22:55 last edited by Jolly
By law, there has to be an "armorer" on set. He is responsible for all weapons.
You have to be very careful with the loads in blanks. I believe (some don't) in the theory of detonation, whereby light loads of faster burning smokeless powders, which are supposed to undergo a controlled burn, instead undergo an intracase explosion at the end of the case with destructive consequences.
And even when loading blanks correctly the wad will exit at high velocity, causing tissue damage if somebody is close enough.
Baldwin's accident sounds like a bullet, not a blank. And don't forget, bullets pass through people and keep right on going. Wouldn't be hard to shoot two people with one bullet.
Somebody has made a gigantic goof. There is a rumor floating around that the weapon had been used a day or two ago with live ammo. Head-banging stupid on the part of the armorer, to have a live round anywhere in the vicinity of a movie set.
Secondly, and I can't emphasize this enough, never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill. Even in the movies, you don't have to draw a bead on the targeted person to make it look real.
-
By law, there has to be an "armorer" on set. He is responsible for all weapons.
You have to be very careful with the loads in blanks. I believe (some don't) in the theory of detonation, whereby light loads of faster burning smokeless powders, which are supposed to undergo a controlled burn, instead undergo an intracase explosion at the end of the case with destructive consequences.
And even when loading blanks correctly the wad will exit at high velocity, causing tissue damage if somebody is close enough.
Baldwin's accident sounds like a bullet, not a blank. And don't forget, bullets pass through people and keep right on going. Wouldn't be hard to shoot two people with one bullet.
Somebody has made a gigantic goof. There is a rumor floating around that the weapon had been used a day or two ago with live ammo. Head-banging stupid on the part of the armorer, to have a live round anywhere in the vicinity of a movie set.
Secondly, and I can't emphasize this enough, never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill. Even in the movies, you don't have to draw a bead on the targeted person to make it look real.
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 23:04 last edited by@jolly said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Even in the movies, you don't have to draw a bead on the targeted person to make it look real.
Indeed. As I've said many times, I don't own a firearm, but I respect the training and education that's involved in the responsible ownership of one.
So, was Baldwin just "goofing around?"
There are lots of tragedies reported with people just "goofing around" with firearms.
Here's another.
-
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 23:54 last edited by
Baldwin always been very anti-gun. I suspect he doesn't know anymore than what he's learned in the movies.
-
wrote on 22 Oct 2021, 23:58 last edited by
@george-k said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Are there people that just instantly go through people’s Twitter history over every frigging thing?
-
@george-k said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Are there people that just instantly go through people’s Twitter history over every frigging thing?
wrote on 23 Oct 2021, 00:04 last edited by@lufins-dad said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Are there people that just instantly go through people’s Twitter history over every frigging thing?
Of course!
-
@89th said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@jolly you realize to the average uninformed person those TOTALLY look like normal bullets.
But that is not who we are talking about. there are strict work safety rules that have to be followed regarding handling prop guns on movie and theatrical sets.
wrote on 23 Oct 2021, 04:30 last edited by@mik said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@89th said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@jolly you realize to the average uninformed person those TOTALLY look like normal bullets.
But that is not who we are talking about. there are strict work safety rules that have to be followed regarding handling prop guns on movie and theatrical sets.
Agreed, it will be very interesting to hear what the investigation finds.
@Jolly i appreciate your knowledge on this too. Your breadth of knowledge never stops amazing me. Heck the other day I was burning some wood in a fire pit and had the brief thought “I wonder what jolly would think about this wood” lolz
-
@mik said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@89th said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@jolly you realize to the average uninformed person those TOTALLY look like normal bullets.
But that is not who we are talking about. there are strict work safety rules that have to be followed regarding handling prop guns on movie and theatrical sets.
Agreed, it will be very interesting to hear what the investigation finds.
@Jolly i appreciate your knowledge on this too. Your breadth of knowledge never stops amazing me. Heck the other day I was burning some wood in a fire pit and had the brief thought “I wonder what jolly would think about this wood” lolz
wrote on 23 Oct 2021, 11:12 last edited by@89th said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@mik said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@89th said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@jolly you realize to the average uninformed person those TOTALLY look like normal bullets.
But that is not who we are talking about. there are strict work safety rules that have to be followed regarding handling prop guns on movie and theatrical sets.
Agreed, it will be very interesting to hear what the investigation finds.
@Jolly i appreciate your knowledge on this too. Your breadth of knowledge never stops amazing me. Heck the other day I was burning some wood in a fire pit and had the brief thought “I wonder what jolly would think about this wood” lolz
That's me...An ocean of knowledge 100 miles wide and about an inch deep!
-
By law, there has to be an "armorer" on set. He is responsible for all weapons.
You have to be very careful with the loads in blanks. I believe (some don't) in the theory of detonation, whereby light loads of faster burning smokeless powders, which are supposed to undergo a controlled burn, instead undergo an intracase explosion at the end of the case with destructive consequences.
And even when loading blanks correctly the wad will exit at high velocity, causing tissue damage if somebody is close enough.
Baldwin's accident sounds like a bullet, not a blank. And don't forget, bullets pass through people and keep right on going. Wouldn't be hard to shoot two people with one bullet.
Somebody has made a gigantic goof. There is a rumor floating around that the weapon had been used a day or two ago with live ammo. Head-banging stupid on the part of the armorer, to have a live round anywhere in the vicinity of a movie set.
Secondly, and I can't emphasize this enough, never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill. Even in the movies, you don't have to draw a bead on the targeted person to make it look real.
wrote on 23 Oct 2021, 11:30 last edited by@jolly said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Secondly, and I can't emphasize this enough, never point a gun at something you don't intend to kill.
Story coming out now is that this was part of a rehearsal before (pardon the expression) shooting the scene. He was handed the gun and told that it was "cold," whereas it was, in fact, loaded with a live round.
The armorer was not union, and we don't know anything about his/her qualifications.
So, the question remains, why was there a live round on a movie set?
-
wrote on 23 Oct 2021, 11:39 last edited by
Just some of my old army habits kicking in. U pick a weapon, or someone gives one to you. first thing u do, draw back and check the chamber is empty. Not just look, stick your finger in. Then point it 60 degrees skyward away from anyone and fire it empty. Then, Safety on. Ok. Now you can proceed and do whatever you were planning to do. Clean it. Break it apart. Go make a number 2 in the crap house. Whatever. And never never believe anyone who says, I checked it, it’s empty.
-
Just some of my old army habits kicking in. U pick a weapon, or someone gives one to you. first thing u do, draw back and check the chamber is empty. Not just look, stick your finger in. Then point it 60 degrees skyward away from anyone and fire it empty. Then, Safety on. Ok. Now you can proceed and do whatever you were planning to do. Clean it. Break it apart. Go make a number 2 in the crap house. Whatever. And never never believe anyone who says, I checked it, it’s empty.
wrote on 23 Oct 2021, 11:45 last edited by@bachophile said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Just some of my old army habits kicking in. U pick a weapon, or someone gives one to you. first thing u do, draw back and check the chamber is empty. Not just look, stick your finger in. Then point it 60 degrees skyward away from anyone and fire it empty. Then, Safety on. Ok. Now you can proceed and do whatever you were planning to do. Clean it. Break it apart. Go make a number 2 in the crap house. Whatever. And never never believe anyone who says, I checked it, it’s empty.
All good points. However, on a movie set things might be different. If what I'm reading is true, the responsibility for safety is on the armorer if they're rehearsing or filming a scene. If it was supposed to be loaded with a blank, should the actor have checked? Would he even be able to tell the difference?
Just asking, trying to get a sense of who's responsible here.
-
@bachophile said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Just some of my old army habits kicking in. U pick a weapon, or someone gives one to you. first thing u do, draw back and check the chamber is empty. Not just look, stick your finger in. Then point it 60 degrees skyward away from anyone and fire it empty. Then, Safety on. Ok. Now you can proceed and do whatever you were planning to do. Clean it. Break it apart. Go make a number 2 in the crap house. Whatever. And never never believe anyone who says, I checked it, it’s empty.
All good points. However, on a movie set things might be different. If what I'm reading is true, the responsibility for safety is on the armorer if they're rehearsing or filming a scene. If it was supposed to be loaded with a blank, should the actor have checked? Would he even be able to tell the difference?
Just asking, trying to get a sense of who's responsible here.
wrote on 23 Oct 2021, 12:22 last edited by@george-k said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@bachophile said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Just some of my old army habits kicking in. U pick a weapon, or someone gives one to you. first thing u do, draw back and check the chamber is empty. Not just look, stick your finger in. Then point it 60 degrees skyward away from anyone and fire it empty. Then, Safety on. Ok. Now you can proceed and do whatever you were planning to do. Clean it. Break it apart. Go make a number 2 in the crap house. Whatever. And never never believe anyone who says, I checked it, it’s empty.
All good points. However, on a movie set things might be different. If what I'm reading is true, the responsibility for safety is on the armorer if they're rehearsing or filming a scene. If it was supposed to be loaded with a blank, should the actor have checked? Would he even be able to tell the difference?
Just asking, trying to get a sense of who's responsible here.
Both.
Bach is absolutely right. You never take anybody's word for whether a weapon is loaded or not. You always check for yourself. That error is on Baldwin.
You never have live ammo on the set and you always check your prop guns to make sure if they are loaded or not, and if those loads are blanks. That error is on the armorer.
Lastly, you don't point guns at anything you don't intend to kill. That's a training error.
Hopefully, something good will come out of this horrible mess.
-
@george-k said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@bachophile said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Just some of my old army habits kicking in. U pick a weapon, or someone gives one to you. first thing u do, draw back and check the chamber is empty. Not just look, stick your finger in. Then point it 60 degrees skyward away from anyone and fire it empty. Then, Safety on. Ok. Now you can proceed and do whatever you were planning to do. Clean it. Break it apart. Go make a number 2 in the crap house. Whatever. And never never believe anyone who says, I checked it, it’s empty.
All good points. However, on a movie set things might be different. If what I'm reading is true, the responsibility for safety is on the armorer if they're rehearsing or filming a scene. If it was supposed to be loaded with a blank, should the actor have checked? Would he even be able to tell the difference?
Just asking, trying to get a sense of who's responsible here.
Both.
Bach is absolutely right. You never take anybody's word for whether a weapon is loaded or not. You always check for yourself. That error is on Baldwin.
You never have live ammo on the set and you always check your prop guns to make sure if they are loaded or not, and if those loads are blanks. That error is on the armorer.
Lastly, you don't point guns at anything you don't intend to kill. That's a training error.
Hopefully, something good will come out of this horrible mess.
wrote on 23 Oct 2021, 12:24 last edited by@jolly said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
Lastly, you don't point guns at anything you don't intend to kill. That's a training error.
I understand, and agree.
However, in a MOVIE, that standard has to be different, no?
