• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Alec Baldwin Insists He ‘Didn’t Pull the Trigger

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Only a fervent apologist would offer him that excuse.
It was an extremely avoidable accident due to the
incompetence of more than one person.
All accidents are avoidable in hindsight.
Just this year, nearly a hundred Americans were shot dead by little children.
(I presume by accident, but you can never know with certain kids)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
All accidents are avoidable in hindsight.
Just this year, nearly a hundred Americans were shot dead by little children.
(I presume by accident, but you can never know with certain kids)
The existence of accidents doesn't excuse unsafe behavior.
- Live rounds in prop guns.
- Taking a pistol without verifying condition, cocking the hammer,
finger on the trigger, & pulling the trigger while in an unsafe direction.

Those actions were wrong....predictably wrong.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
So what do you know about the production process of these movies, and in what way their handling of props meaningfully differs?

I know John Wick used way more guns, in all three movies, shooting everything up, and no one got shot or killed.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I know John Wick used way more guns, in all three movies, shooting everything up, and no one got shot or killed.
But you don't know whether that's due to any differences of how they've been handling their prop guns, or whether it's just due to sheer luck.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
I wouldn't call being smart enough not to load live real bullets into prop guns sheer luck.
Screw ups happen in any project of sufficiently large size.

If it's not part of the usual procedure to check whether there are in fact real bullets loaded into a prop gun, then it is indeed sheer luck that nobody has been killed in any other Hollywood production up to that point.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Screw ups happen in any project of sufficiently large size.

If it's not part of the usual procedure to check whether there are in fact real bullets loaded into a prop gun, then it is indeed sheer luck that nobody has been killed in any other Hollywood production up to that point.

Live rounds shouldn't be on any set to where they can get mixed up with props rounds . Thats just common sense.
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
Live rounds shouldn't be on any set to where they can get mixed up with props rounds . Thats just common sense.
And because, as you say, it's just common sense to assume that nobody would load a prop gun with live rounds, nobody would check whether a prop gun was, in fact, loaded with live rounds.

Which is one way how such freak accidents happen: Somebody did, in fact, act against all common sense, and nobody was there to keep their behavior in check, because who in their right mind would act like this?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
And because, as you say, it's just common sense to assume that nobody would load a prop gun with live rounds, nobody would check whether a prop gun was, in fact, loaded with live rounds.

Which is one way how such freak accidents happen: Somebody did, in fact, act against all common sense, and nobody was there to keep their behavior in check, because who in their right mind would act like this?

If live rounds weren't aloud on the set, it wouldn't have happened.
The question is who brought live rounds to the set and why?
Not matter how its looked at, they were purposely brought there.
But for what reason?

Who's finger prints were on the casing?
Did they check?
If not, why didn't they?
If there weren't any, somebody is covering up.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The two best answers are: Sabotage & he did it on purpose. If it cannot be determined which is the case, he should not be convicted; however if sabotage can somehow be ruled out they should scrutinize any motives he may have had however complex.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
The two best answers are: Sabotage & he did it on purpose. If it cannot be determined which is the case, he should not be convicted; however if sabotage can somehow be ruled out they should scrutinize any motives he may have had however complex.

I don't know but.....
Are they sure it came from that gun?
Did they check the rifling?
Did the casing have finger prints on it?
Etc.

Too many unanswered/unknown questions.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know but.....
Are they sure it came from that gun?
Did they check the rifling?
Did the casing have finger prints on it?
Etc.

Too many unanswered/unknown questions.
If it could come from another gun then that would be another reason not to convict. I'm not for convicting if there is doubt. After all this is our actor from Hunt For Red October. I'd really rather not have him convicted of manslaughter if it isn't necessary.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Well the problem is that sometimes a gun needs to be filmed being fired. This is why there are experts who are hired to do one job: make sure the guns are safe.

If computers can make superman fly, Spiderman shoot webbing, autobots come to life, they could make it look like a gun fired.
 
Top