Alec Baldwin charged...!!

[Old_Me]

Preaching to the choir here but this is my response on another forum.

EVERYONE should know and follow gun safety rules. PERIOD! Whether you are a "gun person" or not you should know and follow the safety rules. Gun safety should start at home at a young age and continue into elementary school. If you haven't or don't teach your children gun safety you are part of the problem.


I get it was a movie set however if you know and follow the rules religiously you have the awareness to make sure this incident doesn't happen.

no one is going to be concerned with gun rules, if they do not own a gun, have no gun in the home, or have any interest in any such subject.

so to "teach or train" people is only a valid point when there IS/ARE gun owners, and guns in the home. otherwise, your thoughts, fall onto deaf ears.

if a person gets into an industry where guns are present, THEN that person should be properly taught.

but to assume that everyone needs gun safety teaching when no such items exist in the home, is asinine, and useless to "preach to the choir". .

 

[Old_Me]

I heard today something that may change my opinion. Apparently there were other accidental discharges and safety issues on this set previous to the deadly incident, which Baldwin knew about and, as the producer, did nothing about. Even skipping a meeting on these safety issues because they were running behind schedule.

Now that could be criminal negligence.

it was also a low budget production, and as a result, costs were kept down to a minimum, which is why the armorer, (the daughter OF an armorer) was hired.

Alec did in fact skip safety briefings, that was mentioned when this shooting first took place, but many forgot that important detail, since then.

one more thing, and expert armorer was on the news,...now Alec said he never pulled the trigger...

the armor claims that "IF Alec had his finger on the trigger, and pulled back the hammer, then let go?, of course the gun would have fired"

again, Alec skipping training is paramount here.

1) low budget production

2) low cost workers

3) live ammo

4) previous accidents

5) shooting live rounds ON SET previously by many other people

 

[Keystone19250]

no one is going to be concerned with gun rules, if they do not own a gun, have no gun in the home, or have any interest in any such subject.

so to "teach or train" people is only a valid point when there IS/ARE gun owners, and guns in the home. otherwise, your thoughts, fall onto deaf ears.

if a person gets into an industry where guns are present, THEN that person should be properly taught.

but to assume that everyone needs gun safety teaching when no such items exist in the home, is asinine, and useless to "preach to the choir". .

With all due respect to your opinion you are so very wrong. In today’s climate EVERY child when they are old enough to understand needs to be taught proper gun handling and all safety rules that go with gun ownership whether the family they live with owns a gun or not.
As children grow and develop friendships it is an unknown when a child should happen to come across a gun when visiting a friends house, if that child has never been taught gun safety there is a higher then likely chance he/she would pick up that firearm resulting in a tragedy.
It is paramount for every Parent to discuss firearm safety just as much as drug and stranger danger.
For a parent to not talk to their child and give them tools of knowledge about staying safe In everything they may be subjected to is parenting failure.

 

[Net Engineer]

no one is going to be concerned with gun rules, if they do not own a gun, have no gun in the home, or have any interest in any such subject.

so to "teach or train" people is only a valid point when there IS/ARE gun owners, and guns in the home. otherwise, your thoughts, fall onto deaf ears.

if a person gets into an industry where guns are present, THEN that person should be properly taught.

but to assume that everyone needs gun safety teaching when no such items exist in the home, is asinine, and useless to "preach to the choir". .

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to teach basic gun safety to every child, even if you don't have any firearms in your own home, you never know when your child might encounter a gun outside of your home (e.g. at a friends house, on the street, etc..,).

That being said, it's a safe bet that the Teachers Unions, Anti-Gun Lobbyists and Anti-Gun Parents in many districts would never go for it in a public-school setting.

 

[Rick53]

I hate Baldwin as much as the next guy, but he won’t be convicted. Know why? Because he isn’t guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Having just sat on a jury that convicted a drunk driver who killed 3 people, including a 4 month old baby, of 3 counts of involuntary manslaughter I understand what that charge means. It means causing the death of someone through criminal negligence. I think calling Baldwin’s failure to check the chamber of the movie prop gun for live ammo criminal negligence is ridiculous. It’s not SOP for actors to check prop guns for live ammo. If it was every action movie actor in history is guilty of the same thing.

Agreed : I also heard the Armorer was given a reduced 6 month probation. In consideration of his testimony for teh prosecution ??? If anyone was negligent I would think it would be that guy .

 

[Rick53]

no one is going to be concerned with gun rules, if they do not own a gun, have no gun in the home, or have any interest in any such subject.

so to "teach or train" people is only a valid point when there IS/ARE gun owners, and guns in the home. otherwise, your thoughts, fall onto deaf ears.

if a person gets into an industry where guns are present, THEN that person should be properly taught.

but to assume that everyone needs gun safety teaching when no such items exist in the home, is asinine, and useless to "preach to the choir". .

That's like saying don't teach your girls what boys are really wanting because all you have is girls in the home . Alec Balwin had a gun in his hands likely dozens of times . He has brothers as well as himself that all were in action movies . He knew how to handle a gun. It's bull to claim he didn't. I thought he was stupid to take that line of defense .
He was handed a prop gun . He's not obligated to cock the hammer and check the cylinder for a live round. How would he know or think to do that .
You can't try someone based on circumstances that don't apply to the context of the situation that occurred . It's not even in the same realm of handing someone a gun . Who asks if it's loaded , but doesn't verify that themselves before firing . He would be well within reasonable standards to assume the gun was loaded with blanks.
I don't even follow how there were other accidents . Were there live rounds being used at different times while shooting ? If that's the case it changes everything . Although it begs to wonder why were live rounds even on the set ? If indeed that was the case and was common knowledge . Then Baldwin should be guilty for not verifying . Otherwise where's the case ?

 

[Old_Me]

That's like saying don't teach your girls what boys are really wanting because all you have is girls in the home . Alec Balwin had a gun in his hands likely dozens of times . He has brothers as well as himself that all were in action movies . He knew how to handle a gun. It's bull to claim he didn't. I thought he was stupid to take that line of defense .
He was handed a prop gun . He's not obligated to cock the hammer and check the cylinder for a live round. How would he know or think to do that .
You can't try someone based on circumstances that don't apply to the context of the situation that occurred . It's not even in the same realm of handed someone a gun . Who asks if it's loaded , but doesn't verify that themselves before firing .

first, do you even remember what you posted...??

as i quoted you, why don't you go back and read what YOU posted about EVERYONE should know about gun rules, here let me re post it here just for you

EVERYONE should know and follow gun safety rules. PERIOD! Whether you are a "gun person" or not you should know and follow the safety rules.

if a family or person DOES NOT have a gun in the house or a DESIRE to own, or buy or handle one, why do they NEED to know the safety rules..??

that's like saying, "everyone should have training in how to house break a dog, and care for them when they DON'T HAVE ONE.....

 

[Minuteman76]

nothing will happen to him. ultimately he will not be held responsible. slap on the wrist and back to his "spanish" wife in the hamptons.
however, if i'm caught with standard capacity mag (17 rounds for my m&p) in nj you'd better believe i'm going to prison.

or heaven forbid we get caught with those dangerous "forearm stabilizing braces" resting against a shoulder... so dangerous. Careful out there fellas.

 

[HansGruber]

That’s not my logic, the logic is that if you point a loaded firearm at someone and pull the trigger you’re responsible if the gun goes off and puts a bullet in that person.

If you don’t follow basic firearm safety rules while handling firearms that makes you stupid and irresponsible, if by not following those rules you end shooting someone that makes you morally (and probably legally) at fault.

Fake guns aren’t capable of shooting people any more than a banana is so your example is non sequator.

It is very much your logic-how did he know he had been handed a live weapon, and not a prop?

 

[Old_Me]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to teach basic gun safety to every child, even if you don't have any firearms in your own home, you never know when your child might encounter a gun outside of your home (e.g. at a friends house, on the street, etc..,).

That being said, it's a safe bet that the Teachers Unions, Anti-Gun Lobbyists and Anti-Gun Parents in many districts would never go for it in a public-school setting.

wrong......no need to teach kids that live in a home with out guns, how to be safe around them.

but true, no school (at least no public schools) will ever teach that

 

[Old_Me]

or heaven forbid we get caught with those dangerous "forearm stabilizing braces" resting against a shoulder... so dangerous. Careful out there fellas.

or magazine capacities of more than 10 rounds

 

[Minuteman76]

Alec Baldwin Will Be Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter in ‘Rust’ Killing (Published 2023)

A gun that Mr. Baldwin was rehearsing with went off, killing the film’s cinematographer. The armorer responsible for weapons on set also faces manslaughter charges.

www.nytimes.com

he was responsible for checking that cylinder and is responsible for undergoing trial for the death of that woman. Let the facts come out in trial and let the jury decide. In Johnnie Cochran's voice, "If the cylinder ain't got blanks, then you say No Thanks!"

I'll show myself out, ya'll.

 

[Old_Me]

he was responsible for checking that cylinder and is responsible for undergoing trial for the death of that woman. Let the facts come out in trial and let the jury decide. In Johnnie Cochran's voice, "If the cylinder ain't got blanks, then you say No Thanks!"

I'll show myself out, ya'll.

yes, that i know, and i have mentioned that several times on some of the other websites. but he failed to go to the safety meetings, did you read that as well..????

nearly ALL movie/tv sets that involve weapons, have safety classes, the actors are supposed to attend.

Alec thought/felt he didn't need that.

 

[Net Engineer]

It is very much your logic-how did he know he had been handed a live weapon, and not a prop?

Common sense would dictate one check whether you have an actual firearm or a fake one before pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger, IMHO if you can't tell the difference or don't care to check, you have no business handling either type.

What exactly are you attempting to justify here? That's it's okay to point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger as long as you're too stupid or too careless to know whether or not you're possibly going to put a bullet in the person you're pointing it at?

This sounds like an argument coming from the anti-gun people I've encountered, to wit; it's the gun's fault and not the person pulling the trigger.

 

[HansGruber]

Common sense would dictate one check whether you have an actual firearm or a fake one before pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger, IMHO if you can't tell the difference or don't care to check, you have no business handling either type.

What exactly are you attempting to justify here? That's it's okay to point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger as long as you're too stupid or too careless to know whether or not you're possibly going to put a bullet in the person you're pointing it at?

This sounds like an argument coming from the anti-gun people I've encountered, to wit; it's the gun's fault and not the person pulling the trigger.

If he was handed a prop and told it was safe…

The problem is, you think everyone is gun aware. They aren’t.

 

[Keystone19250]

Common sense would dictate one check whether you have an actual firearm or a fake one before pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger, IMHO if you can't tell the difference or don't care to check, you have no business handling either type.

What exactly are you attempting to justify here? That's it's okay to point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger as long as you're too stupid or too careless to know whether or not you're possibly going to put a bullet in the person you're pointing it at?

This sounds like an argument coming from the anti-gun people I've encountered, to wit; it's the gun's fault and not the person pulling the trigger.

If he was handed a prop and told it was safe…

The problem is, you think everyone is gun aware. They aren’t.

I think it’s safe to say to many people made to many grave mistakes and it cost someone their life. Unacceptable.
Someone needs to pay for this negligence.

 

[SaltyMonkey]

From my understanding the armorer was also charged with Involuntary manslaughter. What are the communities thoughts on if she “Is” guilty of such and the probable outcomes?

 

[Net Engineer]

If he was handed a prop and told it was safe…

The problem is, you think everyone is gun aware. They aren’t.

Is your argument that if you aren't "gun aware" you aren't morally or legally responsible for what you do with a gun?

BTW I never said that I think everyone is "gun aware" but I think everyone has a responsibility to be aware of the basic firearms safety rules before handling one to help prevent incidents like this one from happening.

As an aside Baldwin already admitted he knew better than to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger when he was attempting to claim that the gun just went off without him pulling the trigger;

"In a prime-time interview with ABC News last winter, Baldwin denied claims that he pulled the trigger. "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them. Never," he said."

Where the 'Rust' shooting investigation stands, as FBI refutes Alec Baldwin's story

 

[HansGruber]

Is your argument that if you aren't "gun aware" you aren't morally or legally responsible for what you do with a gun?

BTW I never said that I think everyone is "gun aware" but I think everyone has a responsibility to be aware of the basic firearms safety rules before handling one to help prevent incidents like this one from happening.

As an aside Baldwin already admitted he knew better than to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger when he was attempting to claim that the gun just went off without him pulling the trigger;

"In a prime-time interview with ABC News last winter, Baldwin denied claims that he pulled the trigger. "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them. Never," he said."

Where the 'Rust' shooting investigation stands, as FBI refutes Alec Baldwin's story

Again:

Using your logic, someone who points a fake gun at someone is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Net Engineer]

Again:

Using your logic, someone who points a fake gun at someone is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.

I never said or even implied anything like that, what I did do was clarify my point of view on several occasions.

You're engaging in an informal fallacy commonly known as a straw man, while at the same time avoiding clarifying what your actual argument is despite my asking. I can only conclude that you don't really have a point and are just attempting to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

In any case it's clear that we're not going to get anywhere near the proximity of understanding one another's positions and thus further discussion is pointless.

Have a great day.