Watching the Baldwin interview

[steve863]

17 minutes ago, left field said:

 

I've been on a lot of film and TV sets with weapons. They are checked and rechecked by the armourer. No actor clears a gun or test fires it into the ground. As I understand it, they were blocking a scene and he was following the direction. 

 

 

Why would movie sets even hire an armorer if actors are required to check the guns?  I don't care how much training or experience an actor might have with guns, I don't think it's his responsibility to worry about whether or not the gun is loaded for every scene.  That's the armorers job.  Hell, there are enough shooting scenes in American movies that the actors would barely have any time to act if they were checking firearms for live rounds each time the trigger is pulled.  In my opinion allowing a live round anywhere near a movie set is the biggest failure an armorer can make.  Not taking all responsibility away from Baldwin, but Baldwin is paid to act, not to be a firearms expert.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chrisw]

Are you talking about Reeves? You expect him to walk through the set-up, checking each weapon and then hand them back to the "bad guy" actors that he's going to take them from when the camera is rolling? How can he do that in any realistic way? 

When people's lives are at stake you better damn find a way. How many millions of dollars go into movie production? And you're trying to tell me that safe firearm handling isn't realistic!? Wow...

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[chrisw]

 
Why would movie sets even hire an armorer if actors are required to check the guns?  I don't care how much training or experience an actor might have with guns, I don't think it's his responsibility to worry about whether or not the gun is loaded for every scene.  That's the armorers job.  Hell, there are enough shooting scenes in American movies that the actors would barely have any time to act if they were checking firearms for live rounds each time the trigger is pulled.  In my opinion allowing a live round anywhere near a movie set is the biggest failure an armorer can make.  Not taking all responsibility away from Baldwin, but Baldwin is paid to act, not to be a firearms expert.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Anyone who has a gun in their hand has responsibility for it. Period!

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[luberhill]

4 minutes ago, steve863 said:

 

Why would movie sets even hire an armorer if actors are required to check the guns?  I don't care how much training or experience an actor might have with guns, I don't think it's his responsibility to worry about whether or not the gun is loaded for every scene.  That's the armorers job.  Hell, there are enough shooting scenes in American movies that the actors would barely have any time to act if they were checking firearms for live rounds each time the trigger is pulled.  In my opinion allowing a live round anywhere near a movie set is the biggest failure an armorer can make.  Not taking all responsibility away from Baldwin, but Baldwin is paid to act, not to be a firearms expert.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The main point is Baldwin lied to the press , something he has a long history of

[Salmon_Run]

2 minutes ago, chrisw said:

Anyone who has a gun in their hand has responsibility for it. Period!
 

I only wish I could give this a hundred likes on here.....the sole and final responsibility of gun safety should be always the holder of the weapon.

[steve863]

3 minutes ago, chrisw said:

Anyone who has a gun in their hand has responsibility for it. Period!

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk
 

 

So you think the armorer isn't at least equally responsible for allowing live rounds near a movie set?  Can an armorer fail at there job any worse than that?

 

 

[chrisw]

I only wish I could give this a hundred likes on here.....the sole and final responsibility of gun safety should be always the holder of the weapon.

Exactly. It boggles my mind that anyone should feel otherwise. Everytime a buddy hands me their new gun to check out, first thing I do is make sure it's clear/safe to handle, your ignorant otherwise.

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[chrisw]

 
So you think the armorer isn't at least equally responsible for allowing live rounds near a movie set?  Can an armorer fail at there job any worse than that?
 
 

I never said the armorer didn't also bear some blame but the end all be all is the armorer didn't point the weapon at someone and pull the trigger did he? There were clearly catastrophic breakdowns of protocol.

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[Salmon_Run]

Just now, steve863 said:

 

So you think the armorer isn't at least equally responsible for allowing live rounds near a movie set?  Can an armorer fail at there job any worse than that?

 

In any incident there are layers of responsibility and contributing factors to the incident; given when we know there are several people responsible at differing levels, but in my opinion the holder of the weapon holds the last and most critical amount of responsibility.. 

[chrisw]

 
So you think the armorer isn't at least equally responsible for allowing live rounds near a movie set?  Can an armorer fail at there job any worse than that?
 
 

If I handed you a loaded firearm and said "try out the trigger on this" and you shot something, are you not ultimately to blame for unsafe handling?

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[ncountry]

I am amazed there is even a debate about this. 

A gun is designed to kill . A gun is a simple mechanical device that even a child can understand. 

   Every single person that touches that weapon is responsible to handle it correctly. An armorer is just another layer of protection.  

Boils down to ignorance.

Lol.  I'm out of this discussion, it makes my blood pressure rise just thinking about it. Kinda like watching the news. 

[steve863]

10 minutes ago, left field said:

Are you talking about Reeves? You expect him to walk through the set-up, checking each weapon and then hand them back to the "bad guy" actors that he's going to take them from when the camera is rolling? How can he do that in any realistic way? 

Exactly!  Of the millions of rounds shot in movies you think the actor is checking after each trigger pull?  BS he is.  I've never been on a movie set but I'm not dense enough to think that actors are doing anything other than pulling the triggers and having the gun go bang. 

[chrisw]

Exactly!  Of the millions of rounds shot in movies you think the actor is checking after each trigger pull?  BS he is.  I've never been on a movie set but I'm not dense enough to think that actors are doing anything other than pulling the triggers and having the gun go bang. 

So because it's common practice it should be acceptable??

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[The_Real_TCIII]

14 minutes ago, left field said:

Are you talking about Reeves? You expect him to walk through the set-up, checking each weapon and then hand them back to the "bad guy" actors that he's going to take them from when the camera is rolling? How can he do that in any realistic way? 

Why do these guns even have a firing pin, trigger, or clear barrel? Its insane. Almost every sound in a film is dubbed in but they cant do a gunshot?

[The_Real_TCIII]

1 hour ago, left field said:

You guys were expecting Baldwin to publicly say, "Yeah, I feel a little responsible." His lawyer would leap across the room to gag him.

He didnt have to say anything at all but he decided to say "I didnt pull the trigger"

[steve863]

3 minutes ago, chrisw said:

If I handed you a loaded firearm and said "try out the trigger on this" and you shot something, are you not ultimately to blame for unsafe handling?

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk
 

 

Anyone would any common sense shouldn't pull the trigger.  You wouldn't be exonerated either for NOT having ANY common sense for telling me to "try out the trigger on this".

 

 

 

 

[chrisw]

 
Anyone would any common sense shouldn't pull the trigger.  You wouldn't be exonerated either for NOT having ANY common sense for telling me to "try out the trigger on this".
 
 
 
 

But ULTIMATELY, were you in possession of the firearm and responsible for the safety of that firearm in YOUR hand?

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[chrisw]

In other scenario's, let's put it into context of the recent hunting "accident." Who is to blame? The guy who shot the man? Or the man who was shot who wasn't wearing orange? Again, multiple layers of blame but who is responsible for pulling the trigger? Was it the victims "fault" for not wearing orange? Or do we go back to the simple terms of firearm safety that were clearly violated in order for this to happen? Does anyone blame anyone but the shooter for it??

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[steve863]

19 minutes ago, chrisw said:

But ULTIMATELY, were you in possession of the firearm and responsible for the safety of that firearm in YOUR hand?

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk
 

 

In the real world BOTH would be responsible but this isn't the real world we are talking about.  A live bullet should not have been anywhere near a movie set.  That is the armorers fault for being completely unattentive.   I'm sure a live round doesn't look much different in cylinder of a six-shooter than a blank round would.  Even if Baldwin checked the gun, how would he know the difference?  Lets say the actor was shooting an AR type rifle where he fires off a dozen rapid rounds.  Is he now to inspect the entire magazine to make sure that round number 7 in the magazine isn't a live round??  Come on guys, lets get real here.  This is what they pay the freakin armorers for!

 

 

[left field]

13 minutes ago, chrisw said:

But ULTIMATELY, were you in possession of the firearm and responsible for the safety of that firearm in YOUR hand?

If it was a sword instead of a gun and the prop master handed it to him and said, "it's dulled" and the scene called for him to swing and really hit a guy in the side but the blade was razor sharp and he guts the guy, who's responsible?

 

 

 

[chrisw]

 
In the real world BOTH would be responsible but this isn't the real world we are talking about.  A live bullet should not have been anywhere near a movie set.  That is the armorers fault for being completely unattentive.   I'm sure a live round doesn't look much different in cylinder of a six-shooter than a blank round would.  Even if Baldwin checked the gun, how would he know the difference?  Lets say the actor was shooting an AR type rifle where he fires off a dozen rapid rounds.  Is he now to inspect the entire magazine to make sure that round number 7 in the magazine isn't a live round??  Come on guys, lets get real here.  This is what they pay the freakin armorers for!
 
 

He would know the difference IF he were trained. The moment you agree to point a firearm at someone, live rounds or not, you assume responsibility.

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[steve863]

1 minute ago, left field said:

If it was a sword instead of a gun and the prop master handed it to him and said, "it's dulled" and the scene called for him to swing and really hit a guy in the side but the blade was razor sharp and he guts the guy, who's responsible?

 

 

 

 

It would have been up to the actor to shave off a few hairs off his arm to make sure it wasn't sharp.  LOL

 

 

[chrisw]

If it was a sword instead of a gun and the prop master handed it to him and said, "it's dulled" and the scene called for him to swing and really hit a guy in the side but the blade was razor sharp and he guts the guy, who's responsible?
 
 
 

For the 10th time, the guy holding the weapon is responsible for his actions with said weapon. Changing the weapon doesn't change the blame.

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

[luberhill]

13 minutes ago, chrisw said:

For the 10th time, the guy holding the weapon is responsible for his actions with said weapon. Changing the weapon doesn't change the blame.

Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk
 

And to quote Baldwin himself “ I’ve handled thousands of guns over my career “

No excuse 

[left field]

1 hour ago, chrisw said:

For the 10th time, the guy holding the weapon is responsible for his actions with said weapon. Changing the weapon doesn't change the blame.
 

Not on a set while following protocol and the director’s direction.

If a stunt coordinator sets up a shot where an actor has to push a guy off a roof but neglected to fully inflate the pad below and the guy hits the ground and dies, is the actor guilty of murder? 

I appreciate what you’re saying about guns and responsibility but they are hyper responsible on sets when it comes to weapons which is why they have such rigid rules.  Screw around on a set with a gun and you’ll have a dozen teamsters tackle you. This was a failure of that system.