I agree with much of what you say, TG. However.....I share Def's sense of irony that an actor who professes to be anti-firearms then goes on to make a lot of money using guns (as a prop). The hint of self-interested hypocrisy is unpleasant.But...who knows? Perhaps the movie was going to have an anti-gun theme and Baldwin was living up to his principles?
I truly hope that everyone that had a hand in this ends up in jail for a long, long time.
If so, you should also expect Denzel Washington to be able to fly a large passenger plane, Jeremy Renner to diffuse a bom, Hugh Laurie to diagnose your illness and Robert Downey Jr. to solve any mystery (or create a flying suit...)
I do understand that this is a sensitive subject for a lot of you, but this should not mean that it can't be discussed in a decent way, right?
First of all, I'm wondering what good could come from this topic. This is one of the topics in which opinions tend to differ the most between one side of the Atlantic versus the other. And I can only speak for myself, but I'm always very doubtful about sharing my opinion in such topic, since that never seems to end well, sadly enough. And on top of that, it's quite hard to do in a language that is not your own, a poor choice of words, a nuance gone wrong, and things my take a turn for the worst by one simple linguistic misunderstanding. But should fear of being bullied stand in the way of politely voicing ones opinion on something? If so, we are in more trouble than I thought... Am I right to assume that an outspoken anti-gun celebrity is someone who has actively shown his doubts or concerns about gun laws, and/or screening measures for becoming a gun owner not being strict enough? And if so, why would a person who believes a modern day society should be more careful about who it allows to become a gun owner, not be able to act in a movie that's situated in another time period, when things were "different"? So, no more Westerns, no WW1, WW2 (or any other war) movie for any actor who thinks it's weird that you can buy a firearm, but not a beer... I guess an actor who's actively lobbying for more traffic safety shouldn't be in a movie that has a car chase in it? If people are unable to see the difference between real life and what happens in a movie, that's one more reason to do something about gun laws I guess... Should you expect Alec Baldwin to be a gun expert? If so, you should also expect Denzel Washington to be able to fly a large passenger plane, Jeremy Renner to diffuse a bom, Hugh Laurie to diagnose your illness and Robert Downey Jr. to solve any mystery (or create a flying suit...) It's called acting, right? And "don't point your firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot"? In all other circumstances that is so true, but when trying to create a realistic gun fight on the big screen... That's the same as saying you should never use your handbrake while driving your car, also very true, except when you're participating in the WRC Rally of Monte Carlo... Mr. Baldwin is an actor, not a gun expert, that's why they (movie studios) employ someone to make sure all the weapons are safe for their intended use, this person is getting paid for just that, making sure each gun is safe to be used by someone who has absolutely no gun training whatsoever. If he pointed the gun on the victim as a bad joke, that's stupid, very VERY stupid... But in the end, still the responsabilty of the person in charge of gun safety on the set, he (or she in this case, if the info I read is correct) should assume that every person on the set is a complete idiot and act accordingly, that's her job, that's what she's paid for... And to be clear, I'm not an anti-gun nut. As I've told here in the past, if I lived on the other side of the Atlantic, I would most likely be a gun owner as well. But over here, it's simply not worth the hassle. And with life being as expensive as it is over here these days, one has to make choices (so I went for a Gibson Les Paul, that I can enjoy every day, without having to jump through all the hoops 😉). Too many rules or restrictions can be a pain, but not enough rules or restrictions can also be a problem. There has to be a golden mean... Just my 2 cents, as always.
It's called acting, right?
Am I right to assume that an outspoken anti-gun celebrity is someone who has actively shown his doubts or concerns about gun laws, and/or screening measures for becoming a gun owner not being strict enough?
And if so, why would a person who believes a modern day society should be more careful about who it allows to become a gun owner, not be able to act in a movie that's situated in another time period, when things were "different"?
So, no more Westerns, no WW1, WW2 (or any other war) movie for any actor who thinks it's weird that you can buy a firearm, but not a beer...I guess an actor who's actively lobbying for more traffic safety shouldn't be in a movie that has a car chase in it?If people are unable to see the difference between real life and what happens in a movie, that's one more reason to do something about gun laws I guess...
Should you expect Alec Baldwin to be a gun expert?
Mr. Baldwin is an actor, not a gun expert, that's why they (movie studios) employ someone to make sure all the weapons are safe for their intended use, this person is getting paid for just that, making sure each gun is safe to be used by someone who has absolutely no gun training whatsoever.
If he pointed the gun on the victim as a bad joke, that's stupid, very VERY stupid... But in the end, still the responsabilty of the person in charge of gun safety on the set, he (or she in this case, if the info I read is correct) should assume that every person on the set is a complete idiot and act accordingly, that's her job, that's what she's paid for...
And to be clear, I'm not an anti-gun nut. As I've told here in the past, if I lived on the other side of the Atlantic, I would most likely be a gun owner as well. But over here, it's simply not worth the hassle. And with life being as expensive as it is over here these days, one has to make choices (so I went for a Gibson Les Paul, that I can enjoy every day, without having to jump through all the hoops 😉).Too many rules or restrictions can be a pain, but not enough rules or restrictions can also be a problem. There has to be a golden mean...
... I do think that if someone handed be a vial of small pox, I would ask what I had to do to ensure that I didn't cause a whole new pandemic. ...
I like Mr. Baldwin. I really do feel sorry for him. I feel more sorry for the victim however. If one believes in justice, then it will run its course, and figure out what happened, when, and with whom.
If someone you hired to make sure everything goes safe, handed you a vial with a label saying small pox, but ensuring you it contains water, you shouldn't have to worry about it in my opinion.
And this was NOT an accidental discharge. A single action revolver has to be manually cocked to be ready to fire.
I did some digging in an attempt to determine exactly what sort of firearms they were using. While my efforts to get that information were not successful, I learned a little more about the incident and the chain of circumstances and events leading up to it.
Come on guys, we can get through a topic like this without name calling...
I think that there is a chain of responsibility that goes beyond a Prima Donna trained monkey.
... someone I think is just another Hollywood phony wind bag.
I'm not here to change your Constitution, or take away your right to own firearms, that is of no interest to me, and certainly not my battle.But a well regulated militia? Let's not kid ourselves, for every well regulated militia there are 10 groups who shouldn't be allowed to own a nail gun (which also needs proper training and safety measures, just to be clear).Our Constitution is the law of the land.As stated a "well regulated militia is every able bodied man in every village,town and city.The law decides who can own a firearm and I don't care who you think who should own a nail gun.And we can't deny the fact that, if we compare numbers, your side of the Atlantic scores a bit worse when it comes to gun related incidents.You don't know anything about crime in my country.Fifty percent of the murders are committed by one minority group who comprise 13% of our population.Most of their weapons are stolen and beyond the reach of gun laws.You can patronize me all you want (yes, I know the tone), but the facts are there. Yes, we had our share of terrorist attacks here (I will not get into the origin of these terrorist organizations, or this topic goes out of control in a heartbeat), but should we have a look at school shootings, or gun related incidents between family members?You must have special powers when you claim to recognize something that doesn't exist.I didn't mention any terrorist attacks,you did.Once again blaming crime on an inanimate object is foolhardy at best.Place the blame where it belongs,on the criminals who commit these acts.And the way people who have another point of view get treated in these discussions is always the same, patronized, ridiculed, and mostly being called ignorant, just as Toolguy's answer showed, once again.When truth and logic is used then small minded people resort to name calling.Pointing out the ignorance of some members statements is nothing more than being honest.Call it what you will but name calling it is not.If I was a celebrity speaking out about gun laws, in a country containing such a large group of gun carrying people with such a fanatical point of view about it, I would hire bodyguards as well, that's not being a hypocrite, that's just common sense where I come from. I'm glad you don't live here because we don't view law abiding citizens as "fanatical".No one has ever threatened Baldwin,so your supercilious claim is not common sense, it's nothing but a pathetic attempt at slandering legal firearm owners.Anyway, it's not my intention to chance anything in this matter, but if you can hit me with your "truth", I can do the same. You haven't spoken truth yet just false claims and suppositions that I've proven are false.And there will probably be (NRA sponsored) studies that show this or that, but frankly, I'm done here...The NRA was formed post Reconstruction to ensure the second amendments rights of its citizens.I'm glad you're done.Unfortunately you were done before you started this diatribe couched as a post.Your attack on one of the few national organizations that work endlessly to thwart the fanaticism of people who want to end the personal gun ownership our of citizens are what we've come to expect from Communists in this country..Theses same people want only the military and police to possess weapons.We,in this nation,call, that a police state. We've got enough problems over here for me to fight, rising taxes, the hollowing out of our awesome social system, the rise of extreme right political parties... so what happens over on your side should actually be of no concern to me.Good,get to fighting those extreme right wingers.LOLThat's me signing off for this topic.Best of luck .
If we can't keep it civil I will have to be forced to lock this one. We hardly if ever lock them but the tone of this from many have not been what we expect from MTO If any of you think about posting something else that isn't with our normally friendly tone then please go away for a bit and come back when you aren't posting as emotionally Also no politics, we do not have many rules and I know anything gun related can be for political but again this is one of our few rules Remember over all that this is a tragedy that will likely scar some individuals and changed some persons family no matter the outcome of the arguments and we need to respect that as well
Exactly
The only explanation I can think of, is that historical firearms were sourced in a rushed haphazard manner by Props and then somehow weren't examined by the Armourer. It sounds like a chaotic set.
I've seen reports that it was a Colt Dragoon model, which I understand is black power, wadding and ball rammed from the forward end, and a percussion cap on the back. Not exactly easy to accidentally load that live...However, the reports further assert that the set weapons were also being used off-set for recreational target shooting between takes. If true, that would explain how a live round ended up being loaded in an on-set weapon. As for the responsibility - Some films will not allow actors to mess with certain safety-related things, even if they do know what they're doing, because there is a dedicated 'expert' on set whose sole job (and legal responsibility) it is to do those checks. I wouldn't trust an actor to do this stuff anyway, as they'll be too focussed on their methods and getting into their zones to properly do the various safety checks on guns and cars and blades and whatever else.
And Brickies, I can't stand Brickies.
They are the worst aren't they
Donations
Community Links
