Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

JFC, living as a semi competent human being requires us not to point guns at people and not pull the trigger. Need not be an "expert".

First thing i do even with my own is check it is empty

Posted Images

11 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

13,' With Sam Riley and Jason Statham - Review - The New York Times

image.jpeg.6ae2ded26796d32e4bed752625a285ef.jpeg

Hollywood has made billions modeling bad behavior notwithstanding the armorer's preparation.

Obviously, Baldwin is a 40 year serial abuser with nary a thought to consequences. Time to pay the bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

image.jpeg.6ae2ded26796d32e4bed752625a285ef.jpeg

Hollywood has made billions modeling bad behavior notwithstanding the armorer's preparation.

Obviously, Baldwin is a 40 year serial abuser with nary a thought to consequences. Time to pay the bill.

I think Baldwin will walk criminally, as the AD and Armorer are already being targeted. However civilly; as a producer, and the only film company officer on the set that day, he's going to get bent over like a starlet by the lawyers for the Director of Photography's family and Director.  

But, in case this despicable excuse for a human being and Prog Icon is able to slime out of everything, we should be laughing at him.  Worst thing we can do to that hyper-inflated ego.   

BTW: I don't know where that Russian-Roulette pic came from - wasn't me. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

I think Baldwin will walk criminally, as the AD and Armorer are already being targeted. However civilly; as a producer, and the only film company officer on the set that day, he's going to get bent over like a starlet by the lawyers for the Director of Photography's family and Director.  

But, in case this despicable excuse for a human being and Prog Icon is able to slime out of everything, we should be laughing at him.  Worst thing we can do to that hyper-inflated ego.   

BTW: I don't know where that Russian-Roulette pic came from - wasn't me. 

I’m reading that many in the legal community are ignoring the film industries “rules” and are suggesting that the actual law might be applied. As in you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. What happens next is your responsibility. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Charlie Foxtrot said:

BTW: I don't know where that Russian-Roulette pic came from - wasn't me. 

Uh oh the quote gremlin in the new software got me again. I posted that. If I'd thought of it, I'd have used the scene from the Deer Hunter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, chinabald said:

I’m reading that many in the legal community are ignoring the film industries “rules” and are suggesting that the actual law might be applied.

Yeah, it's a fiction that these Hollywood people holding/using weapons are ignorant idiot talent. They are not. They are folks mostly just like us. They see the same stories we all do. They all hate the NRA and they may well be narcisstic assholes but they are not so dumb they know nothing about gun safety. 

All this time they could have been modeling gun safety at least til the shooting starts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, blunderfull said:

Hollywood hang-out range in Simi Valley:

Yeah, that's Taran Butler's place.

Top level competitor, phenomenal competition trainer, donates time to provide training to military units, plus has worked as weapons/tactics trainer behind the scenes in a bunch of movies.  He knows his shit.

Taran Butler - Biography - IMDb

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Capitol police family members would disagree.

And truth disagrees with them.  The only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. 

It's understandable that you believe otherwise, as we've been fed a steady diet of lies by the fascist-corporatist media for decades. 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chinabald said:

I’m reading that many in the legal community are ignoring the film industries “rules” and are suggesting that the actual law might be applied. As in you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. What happens next is your responsibility. 

It's not quiiiiite that simple. Applying firing range rules to a movie set is tricky. Lets say an actor is practicing a scene in which he is supposed to catch a squirt gun tossed to him from his kid and shoot somebody in the face with it, but the prop guy accidentally left it filled with bleach to clean it. 

 Sounds silly but in the movie industry they are faking reality. and pointing a gun at the camera (people) is absolutely commonplace. This is why they hire armorers and safety people and have double and triple redundant procedures. Heard a lot of stuff about it being practically universal within the industry for over a decade that all set weapons have been modified to accept only blanks. That there was a real gun and real ammo anywhere near the set may be proven to be an incredible fluke, or incredible incompetence on someone other than the actor's part.  

 tommy-devito-joe-pesci.gif

  That said, I am sure Baldwin deeply regrets spending the 4 seconds it would have taken him to check that revolver himself and there's a strong possibility a jury will come to believe so too. I have no confidence he will skate on the criminal charges. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mark K said:

It's not quiiiiite that simple. Applying firing range rules to a movie set is tricky. Lets say an actor is practicing a scene in which he is supposed to catch a squirt gun tossed to him from his kid and shoot somebody in the face with it, but the prop guy accidentally left it filled with bleach to clean it. 

 Sounds silly but in the movie industry they are faking reality. and pointing a gun at the camera (people) is absolutely commonplace. This is why they hire armorers and safety people and have double and triple redundant procedures. Heard a lot of stuff about it being practically universal within the industry for over a decade that all set weapons have been modified to accept only blanks. That there was a real gun and real ammo anywhere near the set may be proven to be an incredible fluke, or incredible incompetence on someone other than the actor's part.  

 tommy-devito-joe-pesci.gif

  That said, I am sure Baldwin deeply regrets spending the 4 seconds it would have taken him to check that revolver himself and there's a strong possibility a jury will come to believe so too. I have no confidence he will skate on the criminal charges. 

Big difference is this was a rehearsal. Either way he still drew pointed snd pulled the trigger. Based on law, not Hollywood prop rules he has a problem. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Big difference is this was a rehearsal. Either way he still drew pointed snd pulled the trigger. Based on law, not Hollywood prop rules he has a problem. 

Agree. When we race sailboats, we are agreeing to abide by RRS. But if two boats are involved in a collision that results in major damages or loss of life, I do not think the courts care about the RRS, they will apply COLREGS.
I should think the same will apply here. The difference may well be that others are implicated due to their role, like the armorer and assistant director. Under normal law/circumstances, it may not matter she provided a load weapon to the Assistant Director and he in turn handed that loaded weapon to Baldwin declaring it a safe weapon.
All three might well be charged with negligent homicide. Whereas if these were guys at a gun club, only the shooter may be charged with negligent homicide.
Bottom line to me is this, I do not give a flyin fuk about whether this was on a movie set, only a shot set up, the problem becomes people who are handling firearms as a part of their job or responsibilities in whatever format, Baldwin pointed and pulled the trigger. He did so on somebody else's word that the gun was safe. That really doesn't cut it. He aimed and he fired without being 100% absolutely certain that weapon was indeed safe. That is on Baldwin at the end of the day.

Last thought, why did Baldwin pull the trigger in the first place? It was a walk through, a set up for a shot , not the actual shot. What possessed him to squeeze off a round? Did he really need to practice pulling the trigger? Idiot.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedTuna said:

And truth disagrees with them.  The only person killed was Ashli Babbitt. 

It's understandable that you believe otherwise, as we've been fed a steady diet of lies by the fascist-corporatist media for decades. 

 

 

Take it to PA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Big difference is this was a rehearsal. Either way he still drew pointed snd pulled the trigger. Based on law, not Hollywood prop rules he has a problem. 

  As to the law, they will go for involuntary manslaughter, so it may be all he has to do is prove he had good reason to believe he didn't have a real gun in his hand, and if it had been a "hot" gun, the worst that could have been in it were blanks. 

 A lot of mystified armorers are already in the press, mystified how a gun capable of firing real ammo was on a film set.     

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would not surprise me if after hours beer drinking desert “plinking” by staff is the culprit for the live round. “Hey….how about unlocking that safe and let’s see how that thing actually shoots.” There are a really finite number of possible reasons why 1) there are even live rounds on the set, 2) how a live round gets into the gun. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

It's not quiiiiite that simple.

I'd argue it is that simple.

Actions have consequences.

If you take the action, you own the consequences.

In this case, he pointed a gun at another person and pulled the trigger, "trusting" that it was safe to do so.  It will likely be argued that the person who told him it was safe is at fault, but that doesn't diminish the fact that *he* pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

He owns the consequences of that action.  IMNSHO.

Hollywood may be its own fantasy world, but a woman is dead in the REAL world as a result of that action.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sledracr said:

I'd argue it is that simple.

Actions have consequences.

If you take the action, you own the consequences.

In this case, he pointed a gun at another person and pulled the trigger, "trusting" that it was safe to do so.  It will likely be argued that the person who told him it was safe is at fault, but that doesn't diminish the fact that *he* pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.

He owns the consequences of that action.  IMNSHO.

Hollywood may be its own fantasy world, but a woman is dead in the REAL world as a result of that action.

It's definitely not as simple as the first five words I posted. You need to read more than that. In this case you missed the problem of a real gun being on a film set. That will have consequences, no doubt, the question was whether or not it would be a criminal conviction of Baldwin. 

 Why are so many people obsessed with Baldwin going down? Is it about that tape of him talking to his daughter?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Point Break said:

Would not surprise me if after hours beer drinking desert “plinking” by staff is the culprit for the live round. “Hey….how about unlocking that safe and let’s see how that thing actually shoots.” There are a really finite number of possible reasons why 1) there are even live rounds on the set, 2) how a live round gets into the gun. 

and 3) how a gun capable of firing anything but blanks got on the set. 

 

 There is absolutely no reason for that. Pretty sure all the armorers will happily show the places where they buy replica Colt 45s, modified so only blanks will fit, for their film sets. 

 https://replicaweaponry.com/blank-guns/

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark K said:

It's definitely not as simple as the first five words I posted. You need to read more than that. In this case you missed the problem of a real gun being on a film set. That will have consequences, no doubt, the question was whether or not it would be a criminal conviction of Baldwin. 

 Why are so many people obsessed with Baldwin going down? Is it about that tape of him talking to his daughter?   

The 2 or 3 misfires(accidental discharges) in previous days that led to a few of the more experienced crew walking off the set is a big one. Who knew about it and when? What, if anything, did I they do about it?

If he gets caught up in that, he could be in a bit of trouble. If not, he walks criminally, will be named in a civil case amongst the producers, and the exposure to a payout probably commensurate with his stake(probably spec/points on profit as a producer) and the fallout from their insurance.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 Why are so many people obsessed with Baldwin going down? 

I don't give a half a shit about Baldwin.  I'm passionate about gun safety.

Besides competing in a variety of shooting sports, I'm a certified "chief range officer" - the guy who makes sure that safety rules are exhaustively followed during our sport (which uses real guns with live full-power ammo)

One of the processes, when a competitor finishes his/her run on a course, is to "unload and show clear".  The competitor is to open the action, verify that the magazine is out and the chamber is empty, and show it to the range officer for confirmation.  When they're done, they can holster a "cold" firearm and leave the area.

So... let's play what if.  What if a competitor rushes through the process, and the range officer doesn't catch the fact that the magazine was still in the gun.  Competitor walks away from the line not knowing there is a live round in the chamber of a holstered gun.  Not good.  But, so far, not life-threatening.

Now, let's say the competitor goes home, pulls out that "cold" firearm, points it at their kid and pulls the trigger.  Shoots the kid in the face.  Dead right there.

Does the range officer carry the responsibility for that death?  Or does the guy who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger without KNOWING it was empty.

I'd argue it is 100% that second thing.  And, in this instance, it's unquestionably Baldwin who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger without KNOWING it was empty (or, in movie-world, loaded with blanks)

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark K said:

 the 4 seconds it would have taken him to check that revolver himself

As nearly as I can tell the weapon was a converted Pietta reproduction. How easy it would be to check depends on the way it was converted. eg. this style would require disassembling the weapon to check it:

1860-1849_02_1.jpg

1860-1849_03_1.jpg

1860-1849_04_1.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mark K said:

how a gun capable of firing anything but blanks got on the set. 

I don't know anything about the movie business, but I've "heard" that California gun laws have made movie-guns much more problematic than they need to be.

The issue is that there are a small number of reputable sources of prop guns.  A production company rents them, transports them to wherever the filming will be done and then returns them.

It's that last thing that has become an issue - if a gun, even a prop gun - is taken outside the state of California, bringing it back into California is considered "importing" it, and may not be possible under their current laws.  For example, if you take a non-California-compliant AR out of the state, you can't legally bring it back into the state unless you can show *you* owned it before their Assault Weapons Ban went into effect.  And maybe not even then.,

Since "you" (the production company) didn't ever own the gun, that's a problem.

So, my guess is that this low-budget production went with "real guns, locally sourced, and blank ammo", rather than "prop guns rented from a reputable [Hollywood] source that have been modified to prevent use with live ammo"

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Mark K said:

  As to the law, they will go for involuntary manslaughter, so it may be all he has to do is prove he had good reason to believe he didn't have a real gun in his hand, and if it had been a "hot" gun, the worst that could have been in it were blanks. 

 A lot of mystified armorers are already in the press, mystified how a gun capable of firing real ammo was on a film set.     

 

Because they were cheap bastards probably, couldn't be arsed to go find any.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sledracr said:

I don't give a half a shit about Baldwin.  I'm passionate about gun safety.

Besides competing in a variety of shooting sports, I'm a certified "chief range officer" - the guy who makes sure that safety rules are exhaustively followed during our sport (which uses real guns with live full-power ammo)

One of the processes, when a competitor finishes his/her run on a course, is to "unload and show clear".  The competitor is to open the action, verify that the magazine is out and the chamber is empty, and show it to the range officer for confirmation.  When they're done, they can holster a "cold" firearm and leave the area.

So... let's play what if.  What if a competitor rushes through the process, and the range officer doesn't catch the fact that the magazine was still in the gun.  Competitor walks away from the line with a live round in the chamber of a holstered gun.  Not good.  But, so far, not life-threatening.

Now, let's say the competitor goes home, pulls out that "cold" firearm, points it at their kid and pulls the trigger.  Shoots the kid in the face.  Dead right there.

Does the range officer carry the responsibility for that death?  Or does the guy who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger without KNOWING it was empty.

I'd argue it is 100% that second thing.  And, in this instance, it's unquestionably Baldwin who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger without KNOWING it was empty (or, in movie-world, loaded with blanks)

 

You have it a bit wrong. The gun was not taken away from the "range" in this case. The "range officer" was giving a gun to someone to practice various things that *would not be safe with a loaded gun*. The person in question was trusting the range officer to hand him an unloaded gun. The range officer called out that it was unloaded. Instead of the industry practice of never letting guns used for these practices be unsupervised and for them to go directly from the range officer's hands to the client, instead guns were left around for anyone to screw with and any random person to hand out. The results were about what you would expect.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, weightless said:

As nearly as I can tell the weapon was a converted Pietta reproduction. How easy it would be to check depends on the way it was converted. eg. this style would require disassembling the weapon to check it:

1860-1849_02_1.jpg

1860-1849_03_1.jpg

1860-1849_04_1.jpg

No, you simply lift the cover, half-cock it and spin the wheel. Done! Can sight through the gap for the shell bottoms even quicker.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

The gun was not taken away from the "range" in this case. The "range officer" was giving a gun to someone to practice various things that *would not be safe with a loaded gun*. The person in question was trusting the range officer to hand him an unloaded gun. 

No argument.  I was merely trying to show a (broadly) similar scenario to illustrate that - even if the range officer completely failed to do their job, it's still the person whose finger pulled the trigger that has the ultimate responsibility.  And IMNSHO, that responsibility includes KNOWING it is safe to do, not just trusting someone else's word.

The axiom in our game is that "your control over the bullet ends when you pull the trigger.  Once the bullet leaves the barrel, you have no control, so be SURE you know the gun is pointed in a safe direction before that happens".

I think that is - or at least should be - as applicable to Hollywood as it is to the rest of the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Because they were cheap bastards probably, couldn't be arsed to go find any.

  That wasn't the thinking. The one they use for most westerns is just $129.99 retail. Industry probably gets a discount. A real 1873 replica that fires real 45 long will set you back just a tad more than that. Trust me.

  https://replicaweaponry.com/m1873-9mm-blank-firing-old-west-replica-revolver-antique-gray/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMPORTANT SAFETY WARNING!

Blank-Firing Theatrical and Starter Guns

THIS IS NOT A TOY! The carrying, handling, or brandishing in public of any item that resembles a real weapon may be in violation of the law, may create undue apprehension on the part of law enforcement officers or other persons, and could result in INJURY to the person handling the blank gun.

A blank firing replica gun is intended to fire only 1 type of blank ammunition. The correct caliber of blank ammunition is stamped on the gun and included in the accompanying documentation. ONLY USE THE CORRECT BLANK AMMUNITION with this blank firing gun. Attempting to fire blank guns with the incorrect ammunition can cause serious injury.

Blank guns CANNOT fire real ammunition. DO NOT attempt to load or fire real ammunition. Attempting to fire real ammunition can cause serious injury. Attempting to alter this blank gun to accept real ammunition is illegal and will likely render it inoperable and/or unsafe for its intended use.

Always make sure you and those near you wear eye and hearing protection when firing.

When firing, always keep your arm fully extended.

NEVER point this blank gun at anyone, even as a joke.

Keep your hands, face, and any other part of the body away from the cylinder and top of the blank gun when firing. When a blank is fired, gas and debris are vented from the cylinder/slide. At arm’s length, the vented material dissipates harmlessly. At close range, the venting can cause burns or serious injury.

Blank firing guns should ONLY be used as scale displays, collector’s items, or for theatrical or training purposes. They should always be used by or under the supervision of a responsible adult. They should NEVER be carried on the street, pointed at anyone, hidden on your person, or left in your car. DO NOT leave them where they are accessible to children.

Blank firing guns should be stored in a locked container separate from its ammunition. Do not let children play with blank guns. It is not a toy, and could cause harm if used improperly.

DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES remove, alter, obscure, or otherwise change the appearance of the colored tip at the barrel end of the replica gun. These tips are included on all post-1898 firearm replicas as required by federal law.

To avoid mechanical failures, keep this blank gun clean and lightly lubricated. Always make sure it is unloaded before cleaning.

The manufacturer, distributor, or seller disclaims any and all responsibility for the improper use of blank gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, sledracr said:

I don't know anything about the movie business, but I've "heard" that California gun laws have made movie-guns much more problematic than they need to be.

The issue is that there are a small number of reputable sources of prop guns.  A production company rents them, transports them to wherever the filming will be done and then returns them.

It's that last thing that has become an issue - if a gun, even a prop gun - is taken outside the state of California, bringing it back into California is considered "importing" it, and may not be possible under their current laws.  For example, if you take a non-California-compliant AR out of the state, you can't legally bring it back into the state unless you can show *you* owned it before their Assault Weapons Ban went into effect.  And maybe not even then.,

Since "you" (the production company) didn't ever own the gun, that's a problem.

So, my guess is that this low-budget production went with "real guns, locally sourced, and blank ammo", rather than "prop guns rented from a reputable [Hollywood] source that have been modified to prevent use with live ammo"

It was shot in NM, and the armorer was based in AZ.  I suspect CA laws may be irrelevant to this, even if they apply to guns that can't fire real bullets. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, sledracr said:

No argument.  I was merely trying to show a (broadly) similar scenario to illustrate that - even if the range officer completely failed to do their job, it's still the person whose finger pulled the trigger that has the ultimate responsibility.  And IMNSHO, that responsibility includes KNOWING it is safe to do, not just trusting someone else's word.

The axiom in our game is that "your control over the bullet ends when you pull the trigger.  Once the bullet leaves the barrel, you have no control, so be SURE you know the gun is pointed in a safe direction before that happens".

I think that is - or at least should be - as applicable to Hollywood as it is to the rest of the world.

Except the movie and theatre world involves shooting guns that go bang at people as a job function. It is totally ass-backwards from anything else people do with firearms with the possible exception of paintball gun battles.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Except the movie and theatre world involves shooting guns that go bang at people as a job function. It is totally ass-backwards from anything else people do with firearms with the possible exception of paintball gun battles.

In the real world, if someone points a gun at a person and pulls the trigger, they're held responsible for the outcome.  It might be accidental, it might be justifiable, it might be criminal, the courts decide.

What's the answer in the magical world of Hollywood?  "oh, hey, we're ass-backwards, your silly laws don't apply here, even when someone dies"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mark K said:

No, you simply lift the cover, half-cock it and spin the wheel. Done! Can sight through the gap for the shell bottoms even quicker.   

You are thinking of a different kind of gun. It has been suggested that this was a cap and ball replica, a Walker or Dragoon, that was converted. I'm not sure if that's true, but if so and with the kind of conversion in the pics there is no gap to see the shell bottoms. Also, I think the test in this case would have had to differentiate between blanks and live.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

Why are so many people obsessed with Baldwin going down? Is it about that tape of him talking to his daughter?   

No. It isabout him pointing a gun at two people and pulling the trigger WITHOUT KNOWING WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY THAT THE GUN WASN"T LOADED.

It is really that fukin simple......

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sledracr said:

In the real world, if someone points a gun at a person and pulls the trigger, they're held responsible for the outcome.  It might be accidental, it might be justifiable, it might be criminal, the courts decide.

What's the answer in the magical world of Hollywood?  "oh, hey, we're ass-backwards, your silly laws don't apply here, even when someone dies"?

Not at all, SOMEONE is responsible, just not always the actor.  Think of it as giving some kids real guns to play with after telling them they were unloaded. The parents go to jail ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, weightless said:

You are thinking of a different kind of gun. It has been suggested that this was a cap and ball replica, a Walker or Dragoon, that was converted. I'm not sure if that's true, but if so and with the kind of conversion in the pics there is no gap to see the shell bottoms. Also, I think the test in this case would have had to differentiate between blanks and live.

It's been IDed as an 1873, but even if it was a cap and ball rep it would have been modified to accept shell blanks.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Think of it as giving some kids real guns to play with after telling them they were unloaded. The parents go to jail ;)

That's because the law considers children to be incapable of understanding the gravity of their actions.

Are you saying actors are similarly incapable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mark K said:

It's been IDed as an 1873, but even if it was a cap and ball rep it would have been modified to accept shell blanks.  

The affidavit I read didn't ID it except as a Pietta and folks had said it was a Dragoon.  The post that you were replying to was about the conversion that might have been done if it was cap and ball originally and why your method of checking would not have been possible with that conversion. Just to provide the TL;DR.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, weightless said:

The affidavit I read didn't ID it except as a Pietta and folks had said it was a Dragoon.  The post that you were replying to was about the conversion that might have been done if it was cap and ball originally and why your method of checking would not have been possible with that conversion. Just to provide the TL;DR.

 

  A Pietta made 1873 rep. I'm assuming a conversion to cartridge blanks has to be a conversion to rear loading, so it would've had to have a gap. Never seen nor heard of cap-and-ball blank loads.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 I'm assuming a conversion to cartridge blanks has to be a conversion to rear loading, so it would've had to have a gap.

 

You really didn't bother to look at my post and the pictures did you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, weightless said:

You really didn't bother to look at my post and the pictures did you?

I did, but was conflicted on how best to approach it. Could have mentioned it could be verified by looking at the front of the cylinders while spinning the wheel too, but since the design itself wasn't what was used I chose to address the issue as it was, not as imagined with the wrong weapon. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:

 Why are so many people obsessed with Baldwin going down? Is it about that tape of him talking to his daughter?   

He's a yuge asshole in so many ways, but the one I see mentioned most is about this:
 

Quote

 

"I wonder how it must feel to wrongfully kill someone..." Baldwin's four-year-old tweet reads, along with a link to a Los Angeles Times report about a bystander's video of the 2017 police shooting. People on Twitter immediately began sharing the actor's old tweet in conjunction with the recent "Rust" shooting news.

According to the Los Angeles Times report, a video of the 2017 incident depicts 27-year-old Dillan Tabares reaching for an object on officer Eric Esparza's belt. The officer then "unholstered his pistol, moved quickly away and began firing," according to the publication.

The 2017 incident Baldwin tweeted about is currently still being litigated. The Orange County District attorney's office declined to prosecute in 2018 and in 2019, a US district judge wrote she found no evidence the officer had used excessive force. However, in February of this year, appellate judges ruled in favor of Tiffany Tabares, the mother of the deceased, who was pursuing a $10 million civil rights lawsuit against the city. The judges recommended the case be remanded for further proceedings.

 

So maybe we'll discuss it at some point in the Qualified Impunity thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Not at all, SOMEONE is responsible, just not always the actor.  Think of it as giving some kids real guns to play with after telling them they were unloaded. The parents go to jail ;)

So is the producer at fault? Either way it’s Baldwin. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sledracr said:

That's because the law considers children to be incapable of understanding the gravity of their actions.

Are you saying actors are similarly incapable?

If I make a REAL suicide vest, tell an actor it is a prop vest, and he pushes the button and blows his dick off, would that not be my fault and not his?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kent_island_sailor said:

If I make a REAL suicide vest, tell an actor it is a prop vest, and he pushes the button and blows his dick off, would that not be my fault and not his?

Forget fault.  Depending on the actor, you might get awards and accolades.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was reading a few articles about all this a few minutes ago. Hannah Gutierrez Reed says there were two previous "accidental discharges" on the set that "were not her fault". She also stated she has no idea how live rounds ended up on the set...... however the cart she had left the weapon in question on also had rounds of live ammo on it.

Something is very very wrong here. Even if crew members were having target practice in the off hours, even if live rounds were brought onto the set, who in their right mind would leave live rounds on the same cart the prop weapons were laid out on for use in the movie making?

Seems this whole production was one big clusterfuk just waiting for bad things to happen.

Lastly, I also read that the assistant director David Halls was dismissed on the spot on a Nick Cage set following an accidental discharge.  Story state that Cage stormed off the set after the weapon was fired, over concerns for safety.
How does this guy Halls still have a job????

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

Fly by night films such as Rust hire lowest bidder losers, e.g. Hall, every chance they can.

I don’t even know what a “Director” does……direct people to ?……much less why you’d need an assistant one……

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Point Break said:

I don’t even know what a “Director” does……direct people to ?……much less why you’d need an assistant one……

That is a quandary. Maybe they tell a key grip, best boy or gaffer what do do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Point Break said:

Would not surprise me if after hours beer drinking desert “plinking” by staff is the culprit for the live round. “Hey….how about unlocking that safe and let’s see how that thing actually shoots.” There are a really finite number of possible reasons why 1) there are even live rounds on the set, 2) how a live round gets into the gun. 

I'm not sure how accurate this info is but I've been told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was on the set, that several of the crew used the gun that AB killed the camerawoman with to do some target shooting over the weekend while the production was shut down.  The first 2 someones are in the business so I feel this is probably accurate info.

This could answer how an actual live bullet was on the set, but doesn't explain how a live bullet ended up in the gun AB used. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Point Break said:

I don’t even know what a “Director” does……direct people to ?……much less why you’d need an assistant one……

Have you ever worked on a movie set? Outside of the tiniest low-budget production, there is a whole army of people doing shit.

FYI

FILM DIRECTOR DEFINITION

What is a film director?

film director is a person who directs the making of a film by visualizing the script while guiding the actors and technical crew to capture the vision for the screen. They control the film’s dramatic and artistic aspects.

WHAT DO FILM DIRECTORS DO?

  • Interpret scripts
  • Set tone of film
  • Work with department heads
  • Help producers cast
  • Directs actors and camera
  • Works with editors

 

FILM PRODUCER DEFINITION

What is a film producer?

film producer is a person that initiates, coordinates, supervises and manages the creation and production of movies, television shows, web series, and commercial videos, amongst other productions. A producer may be a self-employed contractor, or subject to the authority of an employer such as a production company or studio. They are involved throughout all phases of production from inception to completion, including coordination, supervision, and control of finances, talent, crafts.

WHAT DOES A PRODUCER DO?

  • Find and develop material
  • Budget and Schedule
  • Raise Money
  • Manage pre-production & production
  • Hire cast & crew
  • Manage post-production
  • Marketing/Distribution

Courtesy of https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/producer-vs-director/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to being serious:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/29/rust-film-set-alec-baldwin-shooting-live-bullets-lawyers

Lots of ass-covering going on. It is a good read, but the TLDR; version is a total breakdown of the usual procedures that prevent this kind of thing.

>>

The crew member, armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, has “no idea” how live bullets became present on the set near Santa Fe in New Mexico where the desert western Rust was being filmed.

The statement went on: “She fought for training, days to maintain weapons and proper time to prepare for gunfire but ultimately was overruled by production and her department. The whole production set became unsafe due to various factors, including lack of safety meetings … This was not the fault of Hannah.”

>>

Well Hannah, it kind of is. Like anyone in charge of anything dangerous, if you cannot maintain control and are overridden by outside forces, you QUIT RIGHT THEN. If you don't, you end up owning the resulting mess. If you have no idea how guns got loaded, then you did not have them under your control and you failed your most basic responsibility. You should have walked off along with the smarter crew members who saw what was coming.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Autonomous said:

Fly by night films such as Rust hire lowest bidder losers, e.g. Hall, every chance they can, IMO.

That seems to have been the case on the armorer. CNN had an old experienced armorer who said he had been interviewed for the job, but took another when they didn't get back to him. Dollars to donuts that gal, 24 with only one gig on her resume, was significantly cheaper.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Have you ever worked on a movie set? Outside of the tiniest low-budget production, there is a whole army of people doing shit.

FYI

FILM DIRECTOR DEFINITION

What is a film director?

film director is a person who directs the making of a film by visualizing the script while guiding the actors and technical crew to capture the vision for the screen. They control the film’s dramatic and artistic aspects.

WHAT DO FILM DIRECTORS DO?

  • Interpret scripts
  • Set tone of film
  • Work with department heads
  • Help producers cast
  • Directs actors and camera
  • Works with editors

 

FILM PRODUCER DEFINITION

What is a film producer?

film producer is a person that initiates, coordinates, supervises and manages the creation and production of movies, television shows, web series, and commercial videos, amongst other productions. A producer may be a self-employed contractor, or subject to the authority of an employer such as a production company or studio. They are involved throughout all phases of production from inception to completion, including coordination, supervision, and control of finances, talent, crafts.

WHAT DOES A PRODUCER DO?

  • Find and develop material
  • Budget and Schedule
  • Raise Money
  • Manage pre-production & production
  • Hire cast & crew
  • Manage post-production
  • Marketing/Distribution

Courtesy of https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/producer-vs-director/

There can be many "producers" too. The one film set we got dragged into for construction (never again! Not that we lost money, but we had to have an incredibly flexible schedule and the guys who do this are thus configured, we aren't) had 5 of them listed. Seems to be a catch-all category for those who get percentages. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Have you ever worked on a movie set? Outside of the tiniest low-budget production, there is a whole army of people doing shit.

FYI

FILM DIRECTOR DEFINITION

What is a film director?

film director is a person who directs the making of a film by visualizing the script while guiding the actors and technical crew to capture the vision for the screen. They control the film’s dramatic and artistic aspects.

WHAT DO FILM DIRECTORS DO?

  • Interpret scripts
  • Set tone of film
  • Work with department heads
  • Help producers cast
  • Directs actors and camera
  • Works with editors

 

FILM PRODUCER DEFINITION

What is a film producer?

film producer is a person that initiates, coordinates, supervises and manages the creation and production of movies, television shows, web series, and commercial videos, amongst other productions. A producer may be a self-employed contractor, or subject to the authority of an employer such as a production company or studio. They are involved throughout all phases of production from inception to completion, including coordination, supervision, and control of finances, talent, crafts.

WHAT DOES A PRODUCER DO?

  • Find and develop material
  • Budget and Schedule
  • Raise Money
  • Manage pre-production & production
  • Hire cast & crew
  • Manage post-production
  • Marketing/Distribution

Courtesy of https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/producer-vs-director/

Yeah, I can look it up as well……and the broad generic “things I do list”, especially on a small cheap production never meant for the big screen leaves me unimpressed, especially with lots of overhead positions. Sounds like feathering some nests…….but the few movie sets I’ve been around were not exactly Dr Zhivago quality/size and my/our roles were pretty much minuscule. However…..in my business ramping up, maintaining, and demobbing resources is everything. From that perspective, this story smells funny to me.  That said……I have no doubt the typical staff puts in a days work for a days pay…….

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pbd said:

I'm not sure how accurate this info is but I've been told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was on the set, that several of the crew used the gun that AB killed the camerawoman with to do some target shooting over the weekend while the production was shut down.  The first 2 someones are in the business so I feel this is probably accurate info.

This could answer how an actual live bullet was on the set, but doesn't explain how a live bullet ended up in the gun AB used. 

Yep…..as I mentioned before…..there is a very small number of ways live rounds can be on the set and even fewer ways they wind up in the gun. “Gee…..I just don’t know how it happened but I had complete control over the guns at all times. It’s a mystery to me.” …………Horseshit. 
 

Either you had complete control and screwed the pooch on the live round…..or you did not have complete control and someone else put a live round in the gun. There are no other possibilities. Either way………

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Point Break said:

Yeah, I can look it up as well……and the broad generic “things I do list”, especially on a small cheap production never meant for the big screen leaves me unimpressed, especially with lots of overhead positions. Sounds like feathering some nests…….but the few movie sets I’ve been around were not exactly Dr Zhivago quality/size and my/our roles were pretty much minuscule. However…..in my business ramping up, maintaining, and demobbing resources is everything. From that perspective, this story smells funny to me.  That said……I have no doubt the typical staff puts in a days work for a days pay…….

 Beware the low-bidder. In every project at least one joker slips into the deck. 

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/german-trial-accused-castrating-men-kitchen-table

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 Beware the low-bidder. In every project at least one joker slips into the deck. 

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/german-trial-accused-castrating-men-kitchen-table

but were they vaccinated ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pbd said:

I'm not sure how accurate this info is but I've been told by someone who was told by someone who was told by someone who was on the set, that several of the crew used the gun that AB killed the camerawoman with to do some target shooting over the weekend while the production was shut down.  The first 2 someones are in the business so I feel this is probably accurate info.

This could answer how an actual live bullet was on the set, but doesn't explain how a live bullet ended up in the gun AB used. 

I wonder when we're going to find out who the plinkers were, and who was the last one to shoot that gun?

Because the armorer denied that there was any plinking at all, I kinda think she was among the plinkers and maybe was the last plinker. The one who left a bullet in there. Which should have been caught several times after that point, but one person did that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If youz guyz do podcasts, videographer Michael Bane (Gun Stories with Joe Montaina, Shooting Gallery, Cowboys, etc..) has an excellent 'cast on Alec Baldwin's killing.  By his count, Bane has produced about 700 shows or episodes, most of them featuring guns. He's got an experienced look at what the armorer, prop master, director, dancing monkey, and especially the producer should have done on the set of Rust.  Hot take: Actor Baldwin will skate, as it was the AD and the Armorer who accepted the responsibility for safety and likely screwed it up.  However, Producer Baldwin is going to get boned, because the responsibility stops with him.  

Also legalinsurrection.com has a piece on the criminal legal aspects of this tragedy. Attorney Andrew Branca is VERY good. He's about the only talking head that got the Travon Martin and Michael Brown farces right from the start.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Point Break said:

Curious….sorry if it was already mentioned…..is the gun in question a single action or double?

PB, there's now so many conflicting assertations, all 1000% percent certain, that there's no way to know for sure until there's an official statement or report.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites