The ruling increases the likelihood that Mr. Baldwin will stand trial this summer in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the film “Rust.”
Wrong. I’ve shot many kinds of guns many times, and am fully aware of the rules.
I’ve also been through film school and have been on a set.
Anyone who says anything like you have been clearly hasn’t done the latter and you guys always get so upset by it.
I could go on a rant but it’s a really basic concept:
One professional is responsible for the guns on set. This is all they do and all they worry about, for safety. Nobody who’s job is to remember memorized lines while being rained on and having mud thrown on them has to rmember if their gun is loaded in this scene or not. Less chaos, more safety.
The fact that there is a camera around does not relieve a gun handler of their responsibilities to handle a gun safely.
The role of “armorer” is comparable to that of “wardrobe” or “choreographer”. If a dancer kicks a baby in the face while practicing a routine, primary responsibility falls on the dancer, not the person who supplied her dance shoes nor the person who arranged the dance.
Fair enough. Never been on a film set before. But I’m very keenly aware of the rules of gun safety and that ain’t it chief. Handing a firearm to someone with no knowledge of it is the #1 biggest fuck-up in the book alongside absent trigger discipline and muzzle sweep. You should know this if you are “fully aware of the rules” as you claim.
If what you’re saying is true then nobody should ever have been shot on set, right? Oh wait… Imagine that, when you have a single point of failure, things fail.
Handing a firearm to someone with no knowledge of it is the #1 biggest fuck-up in the book
And that’s why it’s the job of the trained progessional to explain to them exactly what to and not to do with that weapon once handed over.
You should know this if you are “fully aware of the rules” as you claim.
I do, it’s just fucking irrelevant.
If what you’re saying is true then nobody should ever have been shot on set, right?
Yes, just like every other film set that handles guns. The entire point of a criminal trial is the fact that someone didn’t do their job and someone fucking died. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Imagine that, when you have a single point of failure, things fail.
Your lack of any understanding of film set weapon safety makes you look stupid again. There’s more done on set for safety than just handing someone a weapon and giving them a 2 second once-over. For example: the people not in shot should not be downrange of the weapon, or if they MUST be for some reason then they’re behind bulletproof materials.
Movie sets are different from normal use-cases for guns and thus operate under different safety rules. If you followed the rules of standard firearm safety on a movie set then you’d be unable to film. The rules have been adjusted to accommodate this, and they work. That’s why it’s incredibly rare that this happens.
Alright, fine, I concede my point. Movies do shit differently. I still think it’s fucking stupid, and someone did literally die from it as evidenced by the very post we are arguing in the comments of. But I’m not an actor having dipshits point loaded guns at me so why do I care I guess. You win I’m stupid, because respecting the laws of firearm safety apparently makes me the dumbest motherfucker on the planet, and there is no point in time ever that someone hands me a supposedly safe gun and I’m not going to immediately double check it myself.
I am very salty about this still but I’ve made both of us angry enough over some stupid bullshit tonight. Sorry for wasting your time. This was not productive for either of us.
Movie sets are different from normal use-cases for guns and thus operate under different safety rules
Correct. However, you will still be judged by the standards of the original ruleset, and not by how well you followed your own.
Baldwin did the firearm equivalent of cruising through a red light at 80 miles an hour without asking if anyone had actually closed the intersection. His excuse that it was a movie set does not exempt him from liability.
Wrong. I’ve shot many kinds of guns many times, and am fully aware of the rules.
I’ve also been through film school and have been on a set.
Anyone who says anything like you have been clearly hasn’t done the latter and you guys always get so upset by it.
I could go on a rant but it’s a really basic concept:
One professional is responsible for the guns on set. This is all they do and all they worry about, for safety. Nobody who’s job is to remember memorized lines while being rained on and having mud thrown on them has to rmember if their gun is loaded in this scene or not. Less chaos, more safety.
The fact that there is a camera around does not relieve a gun handler of their responsibilities to handle a gun safely.
The role of “armorer” is comparable to that of “wardrobe” or “choreographer”. If a dancer kicks a baby in the face while practicing a routine, primary responsibility falls on the dancer, not the person who supplied her dance shoes nor the person who arranged the dance.
Fair enough. Never been on a film set before. But I’m very keenly aware of the rules of gun safety and that ain’t it chief. Handing a firearm to someone with no knowledge of it is the #1 biggest fuck-up in the book alongside absent trigger discipline and muzzle sweep. You should know this if you are “fully aware of the rules” as you claim.
If what you’re saying is true then nobody should ever have been shot on set, right? Oh wait… Imagine that, when you have a single point of failure, things fail.
And that’s why it’s the job of the trained progessional to explain to them exactly what to and not to do with that weapon once handed over.
I do, it’s just fucking irrelevant.
Yes, just like every other film set that handles guns. The entire point of a criminal trial is the fact that someone didn’t do their job and someone fucking died. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Your lack of any understanding of film set weapon safety makes you look stupid again. There’s more done on set for safety than just handing someone a weapon and giving them a 2 second once-over. For example: the people not in shot should not be downrange of the weapon, or if they MUST be for some reason then they’re behind bulletproof materials.
Movie sets are different from normal use-cases for guns and thus operate under different safety rules. If you followed the rules of standard firearm safety on a movie set then you’d be unable to film. The rules have been adjusted to accommodate this, and they work. That’s why it’s incredibly rare that this happens.
Alright, fine, I concede my point. Movies do shit differently. I still think it’s fucking stupid, and someone did literally die from it as evidenced by the very post we are arguing in the comments of. But I’m not an actor having dipshits point loaded guns at me so why do I care I guess. You win I’m stupid, because respecting the laws of firearm safety apparently makes me the dumbest motherfucker on the planet, and there is no point in time ever that someone hands me a supposedly safe gun and I’m not going to immediately double check it myself.
I am very salty about this still but I’ve made both of us angry enough over some stupid bullshit tonight. Sorry for wasting your time. This was not productive for either of us.
Correct. However, you will still be judged by the standards of the original ruleset, and not by how well you followed your own.
Baldwin did the firearm equivalent of cruising through a red light at 80 miles an hour without asking if anyone had actually closed the intersection. His excuse that it was a movie set does not exempt him from liability.