Alec Baldwin what the fuck
-
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@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.
@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.
-
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.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
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.
@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.
-
@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?
@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.
@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
@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.
@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?
-
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.
@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.
@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.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@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.
@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?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@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.
@jolly said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
That error is on Baldwin.
Not that Baldwin's anguish is any worse than that of the victim's loved ones, but . . .
I keep picturing his thought processes: "I didn't know it had a live bullet, I would never have aimed the gun at him if I'd known." And the thought coming back, "Why did you aim the gun at him in the first place? Why?"
No exoneration.
Again, the loss to the victim and his family is much greater, but Baldwin will never be the same after this. The rest of his life he will be haunted by it. How will he ever again have a carefree moment?
-
@jolly said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
That error is on Baldwin.
Not that Baldwin's anguish is any worse than that of the victim's loved ones, but . . .
I keep picturing his thought processes: "I didn't know it had a live bullet, I would never have aimed the gun at him if I'd known." And the thought coming back, "Why did you aim the gun at him in the first place? Why?"
No exoneration.
Again, the loss to the victim and his family is much greater, but Baldwin will never be the same after this. The rest of his life he will be haunted by it. How will he ever again have a carefree moment?
@catseye3 said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
And the thought coming back, "Why did you aim the gun at him in the first place? Why?"
No exoneration.If it was rehearsal for a shot, I can see it happening. The person killed was a cinematographer, presumably standing behind, or near the cameraman. There are countless scenes where an actor points the gun at the camera and fires.
But, we don't know the circumstances of when, or why, the gun was fired.
If he was "goofing around," then, yeah, you're right.
-
@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?
@george-k said in Alec Baldwin what the fuck:
@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?
Doesn't have to be. Because of camera angles and CGI, you can either aim to miss or fake the shot and put the muzzle flare in later. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, I profess ignorance.
But...Lessons earned are lessons learned, and sometimes lessons get reinforced. I had a barn cat by the name of Blackie. Blackie was about half grown, but he couldn't meow properly. As a kitten, something had gotten ahold of him and crooked his neck a little. My wife nursed him back, but he always had that deformity. Pretty decent cat, though.
I was working around the house one day, when I spied him just a clawing away at a fruit tree I had just planted. I hollered at him, and he never missed a beat. Pissed, I drew my pistol and hip shot one about six feet over his head.
Except I didn't. I nailed him, center. Then I had to walk out there and finish him off, as he flopped around from being gutshot. Then, I had to walk back and tell the wife I'd killed the cat she'd nursed.
Podnuh, that's a long, long walk.
