People are arguing that both are at fault. The armorer is most clearly responsible. However, more than one person can be responsible for something.
A common rule of thumb is to never point a gun at something you don’t want to kill. This is pretty clear outside the realm of a movie studio. On a movie set, it also seems pretty clearly 100% on the side of the armorer since pointing a gun at someone is required for acting. But Baldwin pointed the gun for fun, so it’s a major gray area for a lot of people.
I certainly understand the rules of firearm safety. I guess I was giving a pass to Baldwin given that the movie industry relies pretty heavily on the armourers and also they’re just actors.
But that’s a fair point, not caring about firearm safety isn’t an option if you’re using them as a part of your job. Especially if they’re functional and not just props.
" without absoult certainty do not point at what you are not willing to destroy…" which kind of defeats the idea if you dont for shure fully know without a doubt it wont do exactly that.
That’s a saying for a weapon. What he was handling was not supposed to be a weapon.
On a film set, prop guns are absolutely going to be pointed at people. Watch any movie and tell me if they practice gun safety while they’re actively shooting people.
and who hired those that put live rounds into" not a weapon"… if it was known that he knew this. then he is just as responsible even if he didnt pull the trigger. and even then not weapons eject something. being the wad only is still lethal if close enough. when you throw a punch your not actually supposed to full contact the person. your telling me they had to aim straight at them…
People are arguing that both are at fault. The armorer is most clearly responsible. However, more than one person can be responsible for something.
A common rule of thumb is to never point a gun at something you don’t want to kill. This is pretty clear outside the realm of a movie studio. On a movie set, it also seems pretty clearly 100% on the side of the armorer since pointing a gun at someone is required for acting. But Baldwin pointed the gun for fun, so it’s a major gray area for a lot of people.
I certainly understand the rules of firearm safety. I guess I was giving a pass to Baldwin given that the movie industry relies pretty heavily on the armourers and also they’re just actors.
But that’s a fair point, not caring about firearm safety isn’t an option if you’re using them as a part of your job. Especially if they’re functional and not just props.
How is that a grey area? He never should’ve gotten a real gun on set, there’s nothing grey.
From what I understand it’s pretty common for Hollywood movie sets to use real guns and fake ammunition.
He was literally at work… He did it more for money than fun.
It was off camera and not related to work at all.
It was on set and very much work related which is why a COWORKER died.
…people aren’t allowed to have fun at work?
Who said he wasnt having fun?
deleted by creator
He pointed the gun at the camera. He didn’t kill the director.
deleted by creator
" without absoult certainty do not point at what you are not willing to destroy…" which kind of defeats the idea if you dont for shure fully know without a doubt it wont do exactly that.
That’s a saying for a weapon. What he was handling was not supposed to be a weapon.
On a film set, prop guns are absolutely going to be pointed at people. Watch any movie and tell me if they practice gun safety while they’re actively shooting people.
and who hired those that put live rounds into" not a weapon"… if it was known that he knew this. then he is just as responsible even if he didnt pull the trigger. and even then not weapons eject something. being the wad only is still lethal if close enough. when you throw a punch your not actually supposed to full contact the person. your telling me they had to aim straight at them…