A Colt Can't Fire Itself

[Nakosis]

FYI,

 

[Altfish]

Surely the question is, "Why was the gun loaded?"

 

[Glaurung]

Guns have never been an interest of mine, but that video was surprisingly interesting to watch.

 

[PureX]

What this guy does not understand is that the gun on the movie set was supposed to have non-firable bullets in it because the cameras can see the empty chambers, otherwise. In fact, that is EXACTLY why the cinematographer was having the actor pose with the gun, with the hammer held back by his thumb, before the scene was to be shot. She was doing this to check all the details of the image that was to be filmed. So even if the actor had looked at into the chambers, there would have been very real looking bullets in there. And there is no way he could have known that they were LIVE ROUNDS, because there were not supposed to be ANY live rounds anywhere on the set, or even on the property they were filming on. And certainly not in the gun.

Alec Baldwin was simply doing exactly as he was being instructed to do, as was his job. And there is no possible way he could have know that the gun had a live round in it. Not even the prop person who was in charge of the gun could have detected that what was supposed to be a 'dummy' bullet was in fact a live round. So the real question is how did a live round get into that gun? Where did it come from? Do they mark 'dummy' rounds when they're made so they can be identified from real bullets? Was this one marked? If not, why not?

 

[esmith]

What this guy does not understand is that the gun on the movie set was supposed to have non-firable bullets in it because the cameras can see the empty chambers, otherwise. In fact, that is EXACTLY why the cinematographer was having the actor pose with the gun, with the hammer held back by his thumb, before the scene was to be shot. She was doing this to check all the details of the image that was to be filmed. So even if the actor had looked at into the chambers, there would have been very real looking bullets in there. And there is no way he could have known that they were LIVE ROUNDS, because there were not supposed to be ANY live rounds anywhere on the set, or even on the property they were filming on. And certainly not in the gun.

Alec Baldwin was simply doing exactly as he was being instructed to do, as was his job. And there is no possible way he could have know that the gun had a live round in it. Not even the prop person who was in charge of the gun could have detected that what was supposed to be a 'dummy' bullet was in fact a live round. So the real question is how did a live round get into that gun? Where did it come from? Do they mark 'dummy' rounds when they're made so they can be identified from real bullets? Was this one marked? If not, why not?

First revolvers do not have chamber they have a cylinder.
Yeah, I'm getting technical, but my opinion about a statement concerning firearms is based on the accuracy contained within the statemet.
Second firearms used in movie sets have blanks, and blanks do not have projecticles in the case.
Improve you knowdlege of firearms from the following article.
Making Blank Ammo | How to Make Ammo | Rifle, Handgun, and Pistol Brass

If Baldwin the idiot had examed the cylinder and saw a round with a projecticle in the case
he should have questioned why and refused to continue.

 

[PureX]

Movie prop guns also have dummy bullets, that look like real billets, but cannot be fired. They do this expressly for the purpose of visual accuracy in handling bullets and guns on film. And this is exactly what they were doing with the gun that killed someone. There is nothing the actor could have looked at that would have indicated that the gun had a live round in it. And there was no reason for him to ever suspect there could be. He would have seen what looked like real bullets in the gun, but he would have assumed they were props, not real bullets. And that's what they were supposed to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Movie prop guns also have dummy bullets, that look like real billets, but cannot be fired. They do this expressly for the purpose of visual accuracy in handling bullets and guns on film. And this is exactly what they were doing with the gun that killed someone. There is nothing the actor could have looked at that would have indicated that the gun had a live round in it. And there was no reason for him to ever suspect there could be. He would have seen what looked like real bullets in the gun, but he would have assumed they were props, not real bullets. And that's what they were supposed to be.

There's still the issue of Baldwin's having taken intentional
actions....
- Cocking the gun.
- Aiming the gun in a non-safe direction, ie, at people.
- Putting his finger on the trigger.

I'll assume that he pulled the trigger by accident.
But his prior actions were horribly irresponsible.
Even blanks can kill. It's happened.

 

[Kooky]

If Baldwin the idiot had examed the cylinder and saw a round with a projecticle in the case
he should have questioned why and refused to continue.

Serves him right for trusting his prop team to do its job.

 

[PureX]

There's still the issue of Baldwin's having taken intentional
actions....
- Cocking the gun.
- Aiming the gun in a non-safe direction, ie, at people.
- Putting his finger on the trigger.

I'll assume that he pulled the trigger by accident.
But his prior actions were horribly irresponsible.
Even blanks can kill. It's happened.

He didn't pull the trigger. He pulled the hammer back as instructed by the scinematographer, pointed it in the direction she told him to, and then let go of it when she said the 'scene block' was over. And aiming guns at people for filming is commonplace on movie sets. It's what actors do, routinely.

You keep presuming that Alec Baldwin should have been treating the gun as if it were a dangerous weapon. But he was an actor handling a prop that was only there to LOOK dangerous. He had no reason at all to behave as if it WERE dangerous. To him, it was just a movie prop. And he was doing with it as directed.

 

[PureX]

Serves him right for trusting his prop team to do its job.

As far as we know they DID do their job. The question is how did a live round get mixed in with the prop rounds used for visual effect, but that cannot be fired.

 

[Revoltingest]

He didn't pull the trigger. He pulled the hammer back as instructed by the scinematographer, pointed it in the direction she told him to, and then let go of it when she said the 'scene block' was over. And aiming guns at people for filming is commonplace on movie sets. It's what actors do, routinely.

Pulling the hammer back will cause it to remain back
unless the trigger is pulled. It's impossible to be any
other way with a single action pistol in good condition.

You keep presuming that Alec Baldwin should have been treating the gun as if it were a dangerous weapon.

No ****, Sherlock!
It is indeed a dangerous weapon.
He didn't treat it as such.

But he was an actor handling a prop that was only there to LOOK dangerous. He had no reason at all to behave as if it WERE dangerous. To him, it was just a movie prop. And he was doing with it as directed.

That's the problem.
He never should've been around any firearms of any kind.
He's simply not qualified.
If actors want to handle weapons, they should be adequately trained.
These things are dangerous.

 

[Kooky]

"Movies shouldn't have guns in them" sure is a take I didn't expect to come from a conservative American of all people.

 

[Audie]

Movie prop guns also have dummy bullets, that look like real billets, but cannot be fired. They do this expressly for the purpose of visual accuracy in handling bullets and guns on film. And this is exactly what they were doing with the gun that killed someone. There is nothing the actor could have looked at that would have indicated that the gun had a live round in it. And there was no reason for him to ever suspect there could be. He would have seen what looked like real bullets in the gun, but he would have assumed they were props, not real bullets. And that's what they were supposed to be.

Haha even I know a " bullet" cant be fired.

 

[Revoltingest]

Liberals opposing safe handling of guns.

Haha even I know a " bullet" cant be fired.

Heaven help us from anti-gun types who know
so little, yet bestow their expertise upon us.
Weighing in to defend unsafe gun handling.
Go figure.

 

[Kooky]

Yes, the correct term is Patrone.

 

[Rival]

I thought this thread was going to be about a horse giving itself the boot.

Disappointed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought this thread was going to be about a horse giving itself the boot.

Disappointed.

We're sharing a brain again.

 

[Audie]

We're sharing a brain again.

Horses have a boot?

 

[Revoltingest]

Horses have a boot?

And for Brits who think "boots" are "trunks"....

 

[Nakosis]

I think it is obvious that colt did not boot themselves.