Utopia Talk / Politics / Alec Baldwin is a victim #2

tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 26 02:07:56 “The gun that killed “Rust” cinematographer Halyna Hutchins last Thursday was used by crew members that morning for live-ammunition target practice, an individual with knowledge of the set told TheWrap. A number of crew members had taken prop guns from the New Mexico set of the indie Western — including the gun that killed Hutchins — to go “plinking,” a hobby in which people shoot at beer cans with live ammunition to pass the time, the insider said.“ http://www...ins-live-ammo-target-practice/ the armorer, the assistant director and those potential hillbillies all seem more at fault than Alec
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 02:35:06 I wouldn't say victim, but that certainly paints a disturbing picture of negligence by the assistant director and armourer.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 04:45:30 "The daughter of legendary Hollywood armorer Thell Reed, 78, Gutierrez-Reed previously worked on Nicholas Cage movie The Old Way – admitting beforehand that she 'wasn't sure' if she was ready in a podcast interview. She said: 'I almost didn't take the job because I wasn't sure if I was ready, but doing it, it went really smoothly.' She also admitted in the podcast interview she found loading blanks into a gun 'the scariest' thing because she did not know how to do it and had sought help from her father." Jesus fucking christ.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 04:47:30 A woman is dead because an anti gun nut refuses to follow basic safety protocols that millions of Americans can follow no problem. If I go to the range with my buddy and he tells me the pistol on the table is unloaded, I beleive him BUT I do not point it at him or any other unsafe direction, I keep my finger straight and handle it with care. Apparently he was practicing with a loaded gun. Depending on his role as producer it could be different legally*. I dont know the specifics but I'm enough of a tv nerd to know its common to give famous stars producer credits without them actually producing day to day.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 04:55:33 Nimatzo, You yourself IIRC having hunting weapons, Yes? I don't know how familiar you are with powder shots but they use them in nail guns and the tip looks like a worn down Phillips screwdriver bit.Others look different, these are the ones I am familiar with. Ive personally shot them, Ive used the loud bang to break up our dogs at the time before they were fixed because of fighting. They load the and function basically the same, they shoot out a small puff of powder that if you shot it in your hand would sort of sting but not really. My point is that anyone who has taken a hunters safety course can use these with ease.This girl got into the wrong field.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 05:12:42 Habebe Indeed I do. You are correct about that aspect, I just wonder how reasonable that is on a TV set, where that is someone else's job. Though I could not see myself in any scenario doing that, without checking myself, like 3 times. You only need to fuck up once with a gun. A lot of things went wrong here, but it does originate from the person who was directly responsible for the guns and safety. She coasted in on daddy's merits, incompetent by her own words *at the very task* so central to what happened and now someone is dead. It's amazing really that this chain of events can happen, all the while the entire backstory to how this happened is actually documented in interviews and podcasts...
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 05:14:53 Sorry, this stuff about your practice at the range just really rings a bit hollow and nerdy to me. A bit like: "That stunt driver who killed a person on set clearly doesn't know how to drive. I count at least three violations of the highway code: He was driving on the wrong side of the road, over the speed limit, and applied the handbreak. These are clearly unsafe practices. The fact the breaks failed is irrelevant, the highway code clearly states it is the drivers responsibility to check breaks before setting of on a journey." Certain industries require things that you would not do under the normal circumstances, and have alternative safety procedures. You don't point a gun at your buddy on the range because there is no conceivable reason for you to do so. You do point a gun at the camera in some scenes because you want to capture the image of a gun being pointed or even shot at the camera. However you have a whole set of safety procedures: 1. No live ammunition 2. Gun only loaded with blanks for actual shooting 3. Guns under supervision of an armourer at all times 4. Guns repeatedly checked by qualified armourer before and after shooting etc. etc. A gun loaded with live bullets should never be handed to an actor in the first place. I find it funny though, how after every school shooting people on the right harmuph about how it is being politicised to advance gun control, and here we see people trying to argue that a workplace accident that involved multiple failures of safety procedures by the professionals charged with that responsibility is something to do with an actors anti-gun politics.
murder Member	Tue Oct 26 05:42:35 "A number of crew members had taken prop guns from the New Mexico set of the indie Western — including the gun that killed Hutchins — to go “plinking,” a hobby in which people shoot at beer cans with live ammunition to pass the time, the insider said." Of course they did. I assumed as much. Bored out of their minds in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do.
murder Member	Tue Oct 26 05:49:54 "They load the and function basically the same, they shoot out a small puff of powder that if you shot it in your hand would sort of sting but not really." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum It might do more than sting.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 06:14:09 murder: "Of course they did. I assumed as much. Bored out of their minds in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do." Which suggests either the armourer hadn't secured the guns, or she was negligent in allowing them to be so used. Depends on the charge - a full charge creates a jet of gas that has enough energy to deliver a slap to a few grams of lead enough to push it to supersonic speeds in a fraction of a second, so if you put it against your head, you shouldn't be surprised if it can push quite hard on a few hundred grams of your temple. And if there is a bit of wadding (apparently some blanks are designed such that the wadding is retained in the shell or in the barrel), a few grams of cardboard going at supersonic speeds has a fair bit of momentum that can deliver quite a punch if brought to an immediate stop by your head. You need a few meters at least to allow that jet to disperse. One of the other things an experienced film armourer said on the twitter thread was part of the job was selecting the appropriate and safest blank round for the required job.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 06:30:34 " Certain industries require things that you would not do under the normal circumstances, and have alternative safety procedures." That's just a way to absolve him from guilt. "You do point a gun at the camera in some scenes because you want to capture the image of a gun being pointed or even shot at the camera." Than you should know first hand exactly what your gun has in it or you shouldnt be allowed to handle it.Its really that simple. "find it funny though, how after every school shooting people on the right harmuph about how it is being politicised to advance gun control, and here we see people trying to argue that a workplace accident that involved multiple failures of safety procedures by the professionals charged with that responsibility is something to do with an actors anti-gun politics." Pro gun people are generally more familiar with firearms and take the safe use of them very seriously.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 06:48:37 Habebe I disagree with seb that what you say is insincere, but I agree it is nerdy. We can't expect everyone to be gun owners. I appreciate that Baldwin has had a hand in setting this unfortunate tragedy to be politicized, by being so vocal against guns and now trough this twist of fate one could construe that as him having a blame in the accident - If only he was pro guns, then this wouldn't have happened, he would have surely checked the gun himself. I think the situation is a bit more complex for that argument to be appropriate, truth be told.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 06:51:15 But personally I fully agree with the mentality, like I said, there is no scenario even on a set where I would not have triple checked myself. With weapons I trust what I know. Regardless of how many people had checked before me and whose responsibility it was I would have needed to check myself.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 06:52:55 Habebe: Sorry, I just can't help but hear everything you say in an Alan Partridge voice. Or perhaps the Simpsons Comic nerd. I think enshrining some kind of mandatory license based on training to legally *use* a gun and something like a highway code for using firearms is a jolly good idea, but you haven't done that I think. Indeed many would argue it infringes the 2nd amendment. Trying to argue that something like that must defacto exist in order that you can assign guilt to a person you don't like is morally and legally dubious. If this wasn't a gun, but a pyrotechnic, it would be clearly treated as a case of corporate manslaughter and negligence. Ditto if a car. There's no special law here that makes guns special in that respect. Indeed, I think you'd probably oppose such a law.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 06:53:19 Adding extra safety protocols doesnt relieve the shooter of his responsibility.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 06:55:02 Nim: Seriously, you need to sort out your reading comprehension. I am not saying he's insincere, I'm saying he's being nerdy and inconsistent. Inconsistent isn't the same as insincere. That's strike two for misreading and attributing bad faith to me where there is none.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 07:00:06 Nimatzo, Not so much if he were pro gun but familiar with.Is it nerdy? Perhaps but it's also common in the community when dealing with relatively very lethal tools that literally kill almost instantly with very little effort.I would argue a nerdy adhesion to the rules ita necessary.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 07:01:44 Seb You need to learn the idioms of your language: Definition of ring hollow : to seem untruthful or insincere Their promises ring hollow. His apology rang hollow. source: webster
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 07:02:10 Habebe: Responsibility has to be established. There's no particular law that makes it his *legal* responsibility to check. I agree with Nim: I can't imagine why he didn't. But legally speaking, in his role as an actor required by the production company to perform a scene, he has a reasonable expectation that the gun handed to him is safe and will not go off. In any other industrial setting, you'd expect dangerous equipment to be operated only by trained/licensed people; and if said dangerous equipment is operated by people who aren't trained because their employer requires it, it would be under supervision and it would be the supervisor liable. This strange situation where you want the operator to be both criminally liable as an individual without any law making them responsible really only arises because you want guns to be treated like dangerous equipment, but *not* licensed and regulated as such. I.e. this doesn't come about because of anti-gun people, it comes about because pro-gun people don't want a sensible licensing and regulation scheme.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 07:05:35 Nim: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ring-hollow a statement or promise rings hollow, it seems false, or insincere False doesn't necessitate insincere. We use ring hollow regularly in academic discussions to describe arguments that are false: e.g. lack internal consistency. We do not suggest that they have been advanced in bad faith. Get a better dictionary.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 07:05:57 Maybe you misspoke? Maybe you have a poor short term memory, but surely I am not at fault here? I think you should remove the strike and issue a formal apology to me and commit to 3 hours of English lessons.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 07:07:09 "If this wasn't a gun, but a pyrotechnic, it would be clearly treated as a case of corporate manslaughter and negligence." If Alec was practising with a pyrotechnic grenade and threw it ar the camera I would refer to the safety guide lines as we are. Why does having an armored relieve the actor of his responsibility? Even so Alec knew the armored did not hand him the gun, so right there is the second lynchpin in this argument . The argument that he isn't responsible for safety because they have an expert to handle The gun. But he didnt use thebarmorwrs services he used some other guys. I still argue guns do have a special role in society and handled with special care, similar but unique from cars.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 07:09:53 It says insincere right there. Are you seriously going to die on this hill, based on the idea that "false" is so far removed from being "insincere"? My webster says the same thing you dope, "untruthful" (false), insincere! Please don't have a melt down, seriously. I don't even want an apology, I was just kidding. You are good man, don't worry about it.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 07:10:53 Could you imagine if this was a Republican who killed someone with one of there pro gun ads? The media coverage would be far harsher. And it's common olace for political adds to feature livengun fire in the US.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 07:16:03 Seb "We use ring hollow regularly in academic discussions" yea yea, it's fine man. But surely you jumped the gun here with the strikes and bad faith bullshit? I read what you wrote and responded in a nuanced way according to my own beliefs and according to common vernacular. Clearly you and I have ventured down a dark abyss where you are constantly at the flip of a dime throwing this bad faith stuff up.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 07:48:18 nim: "It says insincere right there" No, it says "False, or insincere". You can be false without being insincere.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 07:52:24 Nim: "But surely you jumped the gun here with the strikes and bad faith bullshit?" I don't know, it's the second time in two days that you've misread something - and coupled it with insults and accusations of bad faith - it's a pattern. Cut it out. And of course I have to draw attention to it, or in six months time you start citing your misreading's as examples of a history of bad faith on my part.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 08:01:51 Habebe: "If Alec was practising with a pyrotechnic grenade and threw it ar the camera I would refer to the safety guide lines as we are." If he'd been handed a grenade, told it was a dummy grenade, but the guy specifically charged with managing and supervising pyrotechnics handing it to him was wrong and hadn't checked - would we expect the actor to have been fully trained in recognising the difference? "Why does having an armored relieve the actor of his responsibility?" Because I don't think the actor actually necessarily has a responsibility. You are assuming he does, because you are applying an (informal - as in non-legislated) code of practice that applies to someone owning or using a gun for the purposes of shooting something. "But he didnt use thebarmorwrs services he used some other guys." Other way around - the production company did not ensure that procedures were applied. The responsibility for safety and safe procedures lies with the employer; not with individual staff unless there is a legislative basis for such. "I still argue guns do have a special role in society and handled with special care, similar but unique from cars." Then you need to legislate for that specifically. Otherwise, in a common law system, generally context and prior case law apply. I would expect this to be treated more like a common-law case. There may be an element of liability on Baldwin as an actor based on whether he acted recklessly in not checking the gun (on the basis that he is experienced). There may be an element based on his role as producer if that is a material role. "Could you imagine if this was a Republican who killed someone with one of there pro gun ads? The media coverage would be far harsher." Well yes, because generally they are against putting gun safety measures into law as an infringement of gun rights, and such an accident provides a jolly good reason as to why such measures are necessary. As I said, the issue here, in so far as it is about guns at all, is the lack of a clear and explicit regulatory framework.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 08:18:07 It actually makes less sense if you are saying you meant it was false and inconsistent, since both you and I agree with the mindset habebe expressed. Insincere is consistent with the rest of your post and reference to frivolous politicizing that I know both of us think is corrosive. Insincerity is quite common in attacking political opponents. This is the context in which I read what you wrote. Was it really in bad faith?
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 08:18:29 "If he'd been handed a grenade, told it was a dummy grenade, but the guy specifically charged with managing and supervising pyrotechnics handing it to him was wrong and hadn't checked - would we expect the actor to have been fully trained in recognising the difference?" See my earlier post "Even so Alec knew the armorer did not hand him the gun" "Because I don't think the actor actually necessarily has a responsibility. You are assuming he does, because you are applying an (informal - as in non-legislated) code of practice that applies to someone owning or using a gun for the purposes of shooting something." Fair enough, I would point out that is the standard as well as incorporated into actual hunters.safety courses around the country, but for this instance I am not sure what requirements enshrined in law would apply. However** general law states that if someone is handling a firearm in a reckless manner it is on them for negligence, but that's up to interpretation. I think the big issue you and I are having is this legality aspect.Ive stated several times I do not think he is LEGALLY guilty.Which is far different from guilty. JFKs brother was drunk and killed a woman with his car, but legally he was innocent.But he was definitely guilty, jist not legally.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 08:22:03 Seb, "As I said, the issue here, in so far as it is about guns at all, is the lack of a clear and explicit regulatory framework." This is based in deep rooted ideological differences. Leftwing tend to have less importance on personal accountability and are more likely to blame personal issues on other things than themselves.
Paramount Member	Tue Oct 26 08:24:49 habebe ’ If I go to the range with my buddy and he tells me the pistol on the table is unloaded, I beleive him BUT I do not point it at him or any other unsafe direction, I keep my finger straight and handle it with care.” But don’t you know that guns don’t kill? People do. That is what the gun lobby is teaching. So if you have no intention to kill you can point your gun at people.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 08:29:41 "But don’t you know that guns don’t kill? People do. " Absolutley.If that gun was there but Alec Baldwin was not, that woman be alive. Intent isnt the only factor, in this case gross negligence was.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 08:31:23 As for regulation I dont know of any other job that requires young handle firearms regularly that does not require some sort of safety course.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 08:33:26 Seb What is the second thing?
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 08:42:52 As for legally speaking, we still just dont know enough, but this I found interesting. "In most cases, negligent accidental discharge offenses carry lighter penalties than reckless discharge offenses. Reckless discharge of a firearm occurs when an individual acts in such a manner they knew or should have known would cause harm and are indifferent to the risk of injury and/or damage that may be caused by the discharge. Examples of reckless discharges of a firearm include discharges made where multiple individuals are publicly gathered and the careless discharge of a firearm with ammunition that can kill another individual. A reckless discharge at a public gathering may occur when an individual carelessly points the firearm at other individuals and/or carelessly discharges it at a gathering. In most cases, the greater the degree of carelessness and the larger the number of individuals present, the more reckless the discharge is considered. An individual carelessly discharging a handgun, pistol, and/or revolver with lethal ammunition is generally considered reckless. A careless discharge of a BB gun or air gun may also be considered reckless, although less severe than a firearm." http://www...firearm-discharge-lawyers.html I think it's reasonable to agree that this falls somewhere in the area between real gun and say an air pellet gun incident.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 09:29:39 Nim: "It actually makes less sense if you are saying you meant it was false and inconsistent, since both you and I agree with the mindset habebe expressed." Inconsistent with how we would approach liability and responsibility e.g. a real grenade swapped with a prop grenade. It makes perfect sense unless you are determined to try and find bad faith. "Insincere is consistent with the rest of your post" No it isn't. "and reference to frivolous politicizing" I don't think he's being frivolous, I think he is approaching this with a set of double standards though. This need not be insincere. Insincere would imply he is deliberately and intentionally holding double standards. I don't think that at all. "Was it really in bad faith?" Yes, because you are assuming bad faith on my part - and trying very hard to substantiate it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 10:35:05 None of these things you are saying now was in that post. You are trying really hard to not take any responsibility for your part in communication mishaps. This inferiority complex you are carrying seems like a heavy burden. Let it go and be free.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 26 10:54:34 "Is the lack of a clear and explicit regulatory framework." Rofl. Of course this is what seb gets out of this.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 11:13:04 Nim: Nothing that I said was ambiguous - you had to chose to read it that way, indeed you had to go out of your way in a post to a Habebe to include an interpretation. This is not an inferiority complex - this is me objecting to your continued and unnecessary attribution of motivations where none are needed - and always attribution of the worst motivation. Which you then use to justify invective.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 11:15:13 Habebe: "As for regulation I dont know of any other job that requires young handle firearms regularly that does not require some sort of safety course." Actors do not regularly handle firearms, and when they do the guns are not supposed to contain loaded bullets though. Maybe there should be such a requirement. But it would be really weird for that to be considered the defining point of responsibility for safety.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 12:13:43 For this job/movie I would say he was regularly handling a firearm. That's more of an obsveration than a defining point. I have two defining points for me. 1. He was the physical shooter, that should IMO hold some responsibility to act in a certain manner. 1a. Adding extra safety protocols shouldn't result in removing final responsibility with exceptions like manufacturers defect. 2.The argument is as I understand it that normal safety rules shouldn't apply to him because they have experts handling and preparing the gun. The problem with that is the gun was not handed to him by said expert. He knew who handed him the gun.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 12:25:48 Habebe: What are "normal safety rules" in this context? You suggest it's what you might have on a gun range or when hunting. I'm suggesting that's a bit like expecting a stunt driver on a shoot to obey the normal rules of driving. "He knew who handed him the gun." According to the thread I read (I'll try and dig it out) the First assistant director is responsible for safety and the armourer reports to them. Probably should have said that earlier. Here it is http://mob...ang/status/1451810890911789058 Btw, I meant to say earlier on: "This is based in deep rooted ideological differences. Leftwing tend to have less importance on personal accountability and are more likely to blame personal issues on other things than themselves." I'm sorry but that's just a weird little untruth that right wingers tell themselves. For example, a right winger will happily defend the choice of, say, an employer to exploit economic leverage to pay staff below living wage and thus into poverty in order to increase their own take-home as the natural consequence of the economic system rather than a personal outcome that the employer is personal liable for.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 26 12:34:57 "What are "normal safety rules" in this context? " There is only 1 set of fundamental gun rules. They are very simple. They exist for all guns at all times, withought exception. There is no context for the basics. They are omnipresent. The fact that a far left weenie mouthed off on gun control and then shot killed his coworker through ignorance and incompetence is hilarious.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 12:42:23 Doesn't it sound a little bit like you are creating a strange, exceptional, almost sacred status for guns versus any other weapon or tool that could be dangerous? Might be worth reflecting on that for a second.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 13:07:45 The law specifically talks about the difference of reckless and negligent from a legal aspect. So, pointing a loaded gun at a person and pulling the trigger even if you beleive it to be powder shots is not something that should be taken as lightly as you think it should be. A judge can interpret what they see as reckless or negligent. They even mention BB and pellet air guns as being less of a concern. As for personal accountability there are plenty of studies to suggest it.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 13:14:42 From a legal POV Where in the law does it state that normal legal accountability goes put the window because it's a movie?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 26 14:14:40 "Doesn't it sound a little bit like you are creating a strange, exceptional, almost sacred status for guns versus any other weapon or tool that could be dangerous? " No. There are some fundamental rules that apply to all tools in all situations. Dont drink before driving or using a chainsaw. Dont rappel off a cliff without doublechecking your harness and anchor. Dont point a gun at someone. Duh.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 26 14:18:22 Always check that your landing gear is down before landing... someone was within about 2 seconds of violating this one in the most hilarious and embarassing way the other day at the airport. There are some basics that simply ALWAYS apply.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 26 15:43:41 Habebe: It you go back a thread or so, you will see I mention recklessness. I think in the context it would be hard to prove recklessness. He wasn't expecting it to be loaded. He was told it wasn't loaded by the person responsible for safety and accountable for gun handling (armourer reports to 1st assistant director) There was no *expectation* that live rounds would be present at all (not just belief it was unloaded) He had a reason to be pointing a gun in that direction (he was rehearsing, they were checking to see what the shot looked like). Normal legal accountability is often contextual. CF. Stunt accident with a car. Sam: "Dont point a gun at someone." And yet it's regular occurrence that guns are pointed at people behind cameras on film sets.
Pillz Member	Tue Oct 26 15:57:55 If Baldwin was firing where he was supposed to be, he has no liability. The gun was supposed to be pointed at someone and it was supposed to be loaded. Have we figured out the circumstances of the shooting yet? A neglect discharge or part of filming?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 26 16:04:21 And hollywood shooting someone by mistake is a fairly regular occurrence too.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 26 16:06:16 "Have we figured out the circumstances of the shooting yet?" Negligent discharge, with multiple people(including baldwin) contributing to the negligence.
Dukhat Member	Tue Oct 26 16:16:08 I don't care about the politics of it. This is a tragedy and why gun safety needs to be mandatory for anyone that uses a gun. Oh wait, that is political according to the repugnicans
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 26 16:33:48 "Have we figured out the circumstances of the shooting yet?" he was practicing some cross draw & aim into camera ---- there are guns incapable of shooting real ammo & no reason for real ammo to be on a set... the actors should be treated like Tracy Jordan or Jenna Maroney from 30 Rock (fools), it's the crew's responsibility
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 26 16:55:00 Dukhat, You are the most insincere piece of shit to roam these boards. No one thinks you give a shit about this tragedy.
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 26 21:34:50 "I find it funny though, how after every school shooting people on the right harmuph about how it is being politicised to advance gun control, and here we see people trying to argue that a workplace accident that involved multiple failures of safety procedures by the professionals charged with that responsibility is something to do with an actors anti-gun politics." Retard can't tell the difference between advancing legislation and criticizing an individual lol
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 26 21:35:50 Google a side by side of a live round vs. a blank. Any fucking retard can pop out a revolver cylinder and verify that it is not live ammunition. We're pretending that muhhhhhhhhhh safety protocols override personal agency. They handed me a hot gun! How could they do that?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 01:40:37 Forwyn: Do you want actors disassembling guns on set? Seems likely to introduce errors. If this was another but of dangerous kit that for some reason needed to be used by an untrained individual under supervision, we would probably have a situation where the kit was held in a secure area with access controls, brought out and prepared by the supervisor, checked by the supervisor, handed to the user who would do exactly and precisely the minimum actions required, taken back by the supervisor, checked and made safe by the supervisor, returned by the supervisor to the secure area. Safety arises from the controlled environment, not fetishizing individual responsibility because the item in question has become bound up with identity politics and culture war, and regulation is seen as an intrusion in on that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 01:51:07 Seb "and always attribution of the worst motivation. Which you then use to justify invective." You are on record here you little cunt, saying you think you have superior values. Slipped up and said "political enemies" while denying taking part in any "cultur war". In this very thread you are making a caricature of habebe. Geez I wonder where anyone get the idea that you are looking and talking down to people? Such a sad creature you have become. Said too much shit over the years, unfortunately I remember everything. So this idea that *I* am _constantly_ attributing the worst motivation. lol :) you have over decades given us your motivation.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 27 02:08:03 It matters that the actor thought he was holding a deactivated weapon that could not possibly fire a live round. As to how pro and safe all gun owners are. How many accidental shots are fired in the US each year? What are the sentencing guidelines for someone shot accidentally shoots someone with a weapon that knew was not deactivated? I actually dont see how this is the armourers fault either. If someone snuck it out of storage, then someone snuck it out of storage.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 27 02:13:57 The people actually in trouble here are the ones who took the gun and loaded it with live ammunition, then returned it to storage with a live round. I can only speculate on their identity politics, but they sure do sound like pro NRA people to me. The armorer will be cleared or not depending on if the weapon was stored according to procedure before it was removed. Similar to not locking a weapon in a gun safe where those are mandated. Baldwin is simply not culpable unless he knew the weapon was not inert.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 02:34:06 Nim: "You are on record here you little cunt" See what I mean - all this clap trap of "you are being emotional" and "you never correct your errors" and "I know you better than you know me" - and when simply confronted with a few cases where you have very clearly misread what I have written, construed something else that what the text can reasonably support, and then draw erroneous conclusions on what motivations and principles I must hold based on your misunderstanding; and what do you do: double down, attempting to justify your misreading as actually the correct reading of my intent, retreat into argumentum ad-hominem, fly off the handle and resort to invective. Just take a chill pill and realise you are making far too many unsupported value judgements, and then using those value judgements as a lens through which to read much of what I write. It is taking you down a rabbit hole. Take each post as it comes and stop trying to build a mental model of my charachter.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 03:29:45 jergul: "It matters that the actor thought he was holding a deactivated weapon that could not possibly fire a live round." I think "cold gun" refers to an activated firearm that can fire a live round (there is no technical distinction between live and blank) but that it is empty. It's kind of frustrating as the press seem to have invented their own terminology that conflicts with what appear to be the industry terms. E.g. "prop gun" actually means an object that is not a gun but looks like one, which could never fire a blank or a live round; and the press seem to have interpreted this as a (what industry figures on twitter - or at least accounts purporting to be such) say is a non-existent class of gun that can fire blank rounds but not live ones. "I actually dont see how this is the armourers fault either. If someone snuck it out of storage, then someone snuck it out of storage." The whole point of having an armourer is to secure the guns so that this can't happen. If it's on a cart, and she's not there actively managing them, that sounds deficient to me. If she's not present monitoring the gun, then they should be under lock and key. Now lets say that some folks picked the lock of whatever secure storage the guns are kept in, took them out, used them with live rounds, and put them back again, and lets say she was present when the AD took the gun from the cart. Even then, isn't she responsible for checking the weapon as part of preparing them for the days film shooting when she takes them out of secure storage? I think there has to be a fair bit of negligence on behalf of the armourer, even if there is an unreasonable amount of malicious behaviour by whoever borrowed the guns such as circumventing physical controls like a locked storage. I suspect though the guns were borrowed due to lax supervision and management of the weapons by the armourer. Though I agree people sneaking guns in and out for live fire are also in a lot of trouble here too.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 04:30:49 "you are being emotional" and "you never correct your errors" and "I know you better than you know me"" I stand by every word. Sorry you are not going to erase all the things you have said. To pretend as if you have not and like oh you are so reasonable and rational, only guided by facts, that will only work with people who suffer from amnesia and have not interacted with you for years and years. Everything you say is being filtered through everything you have already said. That is how human interaction works, I don't wake up every day with "Seb" being a blank slate. This is ultimately what drove Hot Rod to fake his own death, he had said so much stupid shit and was getting so much grief. Everything I wrote there is true, you have said these things and you behave like this. You twatsplain things you clearly do not understand, you regularly charicature other posters and then go off on these rants about ad homs. The lack of introspection and level of dissonance is mindblowing. The fact that you can whine about ad homs in the very fucking thread where you are doing it yourself! What drugs do you take and where can I buy some?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 04:37:23 Nim: I think we have established that you regularly attribute to me things I have never actually said based on your decision to interpret the sentences I have actually written using incredibly selective interpretations of them, adding in extra meaning that isn't supported by the words on the screen. These interpretations are clearly driven by assumptions you are making about my motivation - this is why you keep crowing about "how well you understand me". These interpretations then feed back into your mental model of my motivations. Essentially, you arguing with a phantom of your own imagination. And then you get very emotional about it. I don't know how to say this any more clearly - it is not acting in good faith, nor is it logical, to attribute to people things they did not say, positions they do not hold etc. based on assumptions you are making about their character.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 04:39:40 I really don't understand why you find it so difficult to let go of these errors. It ought to be as simple as "Oh, I misunderstood that - lets move on".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 04:45:42 Seb "Sorry, I just can't help but hear everything you say in an Alan Partridge voice. Or perhaps the Simpsons Comic nerd." Was that you attacking the arguments or just ridiculing some mental model of habebe you had constructed based on fictional characters? Do you not understand how full of shit that makes you look? I am amazed how little shame you have. Little and big things like this for 20 years seb. You have 0 credibility, this "new" persona you are trying to build, not going to work.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 27 04:57:49 Suggested* rules of firearm safety in regards to filming. These are interesting. ------- Perhaps the closest to a list of suggested rules is that published by the Industry-Wide Labor-Management Safety Committee. Its advice includes: Blanks can kill. Treat all firearms as though they are loaded Refrain from pointing a firearm at yourself or anyone else Never place your finger on the trigger unless you're ready to shoot Anyone involved in using a firearm must be thoroughly briefed at an on-set safety meeting Only a qualified person should load a firearm Protective shields, eye and hearing protection should be used by anyone in close proximity or the line of fire Any actor who is required to stand near the line of fire should be allowed to witness the loading of the firearms But the committee points out its guidelines are "not binding laws or regulations" and, as Prof Leonard says, its safety document appears to have been last revised in 2003. http://www...ntertainment-arts-59035488.amp Tell us again how we are imparting rules that dont fit the biz? Even though this seems to be the standard even they use.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 05:20:40 Nim: "Was that you attacking the arguments or just ridiculing some mental model of habebe you had constructed based on fictional characters?" It's very clearly ridiculing what he has written and the argument he is making - i.e. detailed descriptions of technical/domain specifics that are not necessarily pertinent to an entirely different context, as though the domain they are expert in is pre-eminent over others and also should be common knowledge to all. So no, not his character. Obviously. Seriously, why are you trying so, so hard to read what is obviously not there? Also, you seem to have made a category error here. I spoke about the act of interpreting what someone says through the lens of assumptions you are making about their character to extrapolate meaning well beyond what can reasonably be inferred; for example (treat this hypothetically) "I think Seb must be making a normative statement about critical race theory when he frames it as an analytical framework because I believe he is emotionally attached to the subject." You seem to be suggesting that by likening something he said *to* something that could have been said by a cartoon character, I must by extension have formed an opinion about Habebe's character. All I can say is, no, I don't think that follows.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 05:24:10 Habebe: "Tell us again how we are imparting rules that dont fit the biz? Even though this seems to be the standard even they use." Because I think you are over extending the rule "never point a gun at someone" - which you *never* have cause to do in a hunting or fireing range situation; with the situation on a film set where, in rare cases, you do. If you ALWAYS treated guns as loaded with live ammunition, and you NEVER pointed them at people, then you would NEVER see shots with gun firing toward the camera. If this was a situation where a gun cold or hot, was pointed at another actor, I think you would have a very strong point. This sounds like they were practicing and lining up a shot.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 05:29:55 Habebe "Not so much if he were pro gun but familiar with.Is it nerdy? Perhaps but it's also common in the community when dealing with relatively very lethal tools that literally kill almost instantly with very little effort.I would argue a nerdy adhesion to the rules ita necessary." Sorry, I got derailed. I think it is, basic gun safety isn't intuitive to be honest. You put something in someone hand and they will start point that thing in every direction, because in practically every other instance you are not pointing potential death towards anyone. That simple rule goes counter to every other intuition we have and how generally live our lives. People like Baldwin may have on a political level internalized some things about guns, that in practice they have not.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 05:32:37 "It's very clearly ridiculing what he has written and the argument he is making" Well, then I am clearly ridiculing the things you have written. They sound like something cunts and dishonest people say. I am not saying you personally are a cunt or dishonest, just attacking the words as such. We can keep doing this as long as you want.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 05:48:52 Seb But even that excuse doesn't work, because you say you hear EVERYTHING he says in that voice. That clearly has a far wider scope than the thing you were responding to. Do you have any more loop holes you want to try? Or just simply admit that you engage in the same behavior, some of it explicit like in this thread, some of it more subtle, like twatsplaining "fundamentals" and the importance of consensus mechanisms. Stop doing that shit and see what happens.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 27 05:53:29 "Because I think you are over extending the rule "never point a gun at someone" - which you *never* have cause to do in a hunting or fireing range situation; with the situation on a film set where, in rare cases, you do." Ok but lets break this down a bit. Your argument is that in Hollywood its difficult to reproduce that image of a live gun, I think thats just silly, making things seems real that are not is their niche. 2ndly if for sake of argument lets say for artistic license you have to point A blanks loaded gun at someone, **blanks can and do kill**, a blank is still firing a projectile at very high speeds. I fully get the argument that you know, if your shooting 50 scenes where he shoots that this could get redundant for him personally verifying the appropriate ammo and such, and that is a real world sort of problem that happens , people get lax on rules and regulations all the time and hurt themselves at work, but you know what? when they break such rules in favor of time saving or whatever, they share in the blame for incident, what makes this different? Guns have a special place in American culture.They have special sets of rules and guidelines for a good reason. So when someone flaunts those basic safety rules, they are asking for trouble. Did you notice how several of the posters here had identical responses immediately? Its probably because most people who grew up in US gun culture have had these rules drilled into them since childhood. I would imagine skydivers and scooba divers, electricians etc. All follow sets of rules often to a T almost in a dogmatic or "nerdy" fashion.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 27 05:53:29 "Because I think you are over extending the rule "never point a gun at someone" - which you *never* have cause to do in a hunting or fireing range situation; with the situation on a film set where, in rare cases, you do." Ok but lets break this down a bit. Your argument is that in Hollywood its difficult to reproduce that image of a live gun, I think thats just silly, making things seems real that are not is their niche. 2ndly if for sake of argument lets say for artistic license you have to point A blanks loaded gun at someone, **blanks can and do kill**, a blank is still firing a projectile at very high speeds. I fully get the argument that you know, if your shooting 50 scenes where he shoots that this could get redundant for him personally verifying the appropriate ammo and such, and that is a real world sort of problem that happens , people get lax on rules and regulations all the time and hurt themselves at work, but you know what? when they break such rules in favor of time saving or whatever, they share in the blame for incident, what makes this different? Guns have a special place in American culture.They have special sets of rules and guidelines for a good reason. So when someone flaunts those basic safety rules, they are asking for trouble. Did you notice how several of the posters here had identical responses immediately? Its probably because most people who grew up in US gun culture have had these rules drilled into them since childhood. I would imagine skydivers and scooba divers, electricians etc. All follow sets of rules often to a T almost in a dogmatic or "nerdy" fashion.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 27 06:04:54 To put it this way. If there is some legal wording that excuses the shooter to be excused of normal responsibility for any reason, I would be against it. In this case it was expert handling of a gun. " If this was a situation where a gun cold or hot, was pointed at another actor, I think you would have a very strong point." What difference does it make if it was pointed an actor or another unsafe direction. In this case a camera with two people standing behind it. I think extra safety sounds great, but not if it means the shooter then disregards basic safety. Even if your pointing it directly at someone. Even more so then really he should fall back on the other rules like knowing what's in the gun and remembering that this is dangerous stunt to begin with and should be respected as such.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 27 06:04:54 To put it this way. If there is some legal wording that excuses the shooter to be excused of normal responsibility for any reason, I would be against it. In this case it was expert handling of a gun. " If this was a situation where a gun cold or hot, was pointed at another actor, I think you would have a very strong point." What difference does it make if it was pointed an actor or another unsafe direction. In this case a camera with two people standing behind it. I think extra safety sounds great, but not if it means the shooter then disregards basic safety. Even if your pointing it directly at someone. Even more so then really he should fall back on the other rules like knowing what's in the gun and remembering that this is dangerous stunt to begin with and should be respected as such.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 06:16:37 Nim: "Well, then I am clearly ridiculing the things you have written." Except you are not, as has been demonstrated on several occasions what you claim I wrote is not what I wrote, and in fact is not remotely close in meaning to what I wrote or a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote - and in fact by your own admission based on you assigning assumed motivations that simply are not there, without even bothering to clarify.
Pillz Member	Wed Oct 27 07:26:27 Tw is such a retard. Of course there are reasons for real guns to be on set. You need real guns to shoot blanks for the scene. Blanks are live rounds. There is nothing to 'mechanically' distinguish between a blank and a regular round. Ergo, no such thing as a blanks only gun
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 07:31:18 I definitely am, I have on numerous occasions said I think you are a good person and everything, that you are sincere in your beliefs etc. and so on. You are being a hypocrite on this ad hom stuff and you just will not stop whining about it. The problem is you have set this impossible standard for everyone else, that you regularly fail to uphold yourself and you seem completely oblivious to that. Even now when you explicitly said your hear _everything_ habebe says as some caricature, you try to bullshit yourself out of it. Someone who sees himself as superior in values and intellect is not going to take corrections from the people he views as inferior. You set yourself up for these things with a total lack of humility.
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 27 07:39:47 Pillz,"Blanks are live rounds. There is nothing to 'mechanically' distinguish between a blank and a regular round. Ergo, no such thing as a blanks only gun" I remember when I was 18 buying .22 ammo and since I was not 21 by law I couldn't purchase "handgun ammo" but I could buy "long gun ammo" and it just seemed like such a dumb question for which I intended to use it for.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 07:43:06 Which btw, you have used that exact Alan Partridge line before on Habebe. You have walked into threads and said "this looks like the backstory of the handmaiden's tale". Whatever is the flavor of the month insult in the liberal bubble you live in, I have already heard it. I don't really care that you do this, the triggering thing is that you whine incessantly when the same is done to you.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 08:01:23 Habebe: "Ok but lets break this down a bit. Your argument is that in Hollywood its difficult to reproduce that image of a live gun, I think thats just silly, making things seems real that are not is their niche." I suspect you are right in that there are better ways to achieve this shot now using post production effects; and that standards maybe should generally be revised, but lets just say it has been industry practice that this is one of the few cases where it is standard practice for a real gun to be used. "**blanks can and do kill**, a blank is still firing a projectile at very high speeds." Yes that is understood, hence it is typical for there to be shields protecting camera operators, a lot of distance etc. Though again, I think that might be overkill for setting up a shot - you would rely heavily on it being a controlled environment. There's always a trade off with risk mitigations being proportionate. In this case it's "don't point a gun at someone except where it is the only way to achieve a shot" "I fully get the argument that you know, if your shooting 50 scenes where he shoots that this could get redundant for him personally verifying the appropriate ammo and such," Nah, I think industry practice is that you do indeed check repeatedly and as many additional times as people ask. The issue here is *who* is expected to do the checks. If safety is arising from a controlled environment, it's the supervisor who should be the responsibility for doing the checks. That seems to be the Armourer, and the 1st AD as accountable that this is done. I don't buy the idea that it should be the responsibility of the actor because he is holding the gun because that's clearly not their speciality, and as someone else on set, I don't want even a basic trained actor individually responsible for my safety, I want my employer, the production company, to be responsible for that - rather than to trust an actor as an individual holding a gun. And if it's the employer who is responsible for safety, and the way they do that is providing a controlled environment, having the actor as the primary person accountable for safe firearms handling is clearly vastly inferior to a full system of controls and a trained, experienced firearms handling professional. I think it is certainly good practice that actors have basic training in firearms if they are to use firearms, I think an argument can be made that it would be good practice that they be shown how to check the weapon, and to do so (I can see the counter argument, that you actually don't want anyone other than the armourer messing with the 'configuration' of the firearm, particularly if it is loaded with blanks, as it may increase the possibility of inadvertent discharge). But I think it would be absolute madness to make them responsible for safety, either as part of their corporate responsibility or as an individual. "What difference does it make if it was pointed an actor or another unsafe direction." I mean that there is no cause for it to be pointed at another actor ever as the shot can always be constructed with false perspective. So if it were done without instruction, that should never happen and it would be clearly the personal responsibility of the actor; and if it was done on instruction by the director, then clearly that is unsafe and the same effect can easily be achieved safely, so there is again no reason to, and so it should never happen. But what happened here was a gun, provided by the person charged and accountable for safety to the actor, during a rehearsal, and stated to the actor to be unloaded. It was pointed towards the camera crew because - I believe - they were lining up the shot and needed to see how it would look to the camera. There was a justifiable need for all of the gun to be pointed at a person - at least under traditional common practice. The practice is deemed acceptably safe if the controls and processes that should have been in place. For an accident to happen, it's because of multiple failures in the processes and controls that are intended to provide safety. And "never point a gun at the camera crew even if the shot requires it" *isn't* one of those controls, it isn't "basic" safety - if it was these shots would never be made in this way. Maybe now, thanks to effective CGI etc. they indeed shouldn't. But like or not, this is accepted as one of the few scenarios where a gun can be pointed someone on set. It's just supposed to happen under conditions where the gun can be guaranteed to be unloaded.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 08:03:32 Nim: You keep doing this, quoting something I said months and months ago without a link, out of context (sometimes cherrypicking quotes in replies to different people and stitching them together) and every time we look into it, it turns out to be a particularly partial interpretation you have chosen. And you always justify these interpretations based on what you perceive to be my motives, which you infer from what you perceive to be my charachter. Maybe stop being a cod psychologist and focus on what is actually in front of you rather than your imagination.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 08:30:07 interpretations based *20 years of interactions*. Fixed. "and focus on what is actually in front of you" What is in front of me are your explicit ad homs and implicit attacks such as but not exlusive to, twatsplaining, while whining about ad homs. There are two ways forward, you stop with the ad homs and twatsplaining insults, or just accept them as part of the community banter. I will meet at whatever level you choose. These are things I have told you and other posters before, who have complained about ad homs. From my POV, your personality gets in the way, you should intuitively understand how that is a fact of life, as I am sure you have met people in your life that have a nasty personality that you can't stand. So the third option is to stop engaging with me. Either way, tell me which of the three options you want and I comply. It does not get any easier.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 09:04:19 Nim: "interpretations based *20 years of interactions*." Nim, Nim, I don't know what to say - you are trying to argue that because you have 20 years, you are able to authoritatively say I meant something that not only have I been very clear I did not mean, but that the actual words cannot be construed to mean it either, without a whole bunch of assumptions. I guess all that tells us that these 20 years of interactions are mediated through 20 years of bad reading comprehension and refusal to accept corrections; to the point where this feedback loop you have built between your assumptions of me and your decision to re-parse nearly everything I say to fit that model is so radically divorced from reality, meaningful communication is impossible. Like I can write a sentence that clearly sets out to juxtapose examples reasonable vs unreasonable objections to CRT - and out of that you draw the conclusion that I'm pushing a false dichotomy between acceptance of it or being racist. The literal actual opposite of the meaning of a caveated sentence. And you can't let go of it!
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 09:13:02 Nim: "attacks such as but not exlusive to, twatsplaining, while whining about ad homs." I don't think Ad-Hom means what you think it means. Ad-Hom does not mean "you are being insulting". It means you are basing your argument on the characteristics of the person making it. For example Alice says: "America is more free than Europe". Bob: "You say America is more free than Europe, but we can dismiss that out of hand because you are American and making this out of a misplaced sense of national superiority" Charlie: "That is a very stupid and arrogant thing to say, you are a twat". Bob is making an ad-hominem argument. Charlie is merely being offensive and insulting. Me describing your response to my post back whenever as "twatsplaining" is offensive, but also entirely accurate in context. You were explaining something that was explicitly covered in the post you were replying to, whilst also gratuitously and condescending in so doing.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 09:14:13 Your assumptions about my personality get in the way. *Fixed. Focus on the fucking text Nim. It's not hard. I'm asking you to do less, not more.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 09:52:35 "I don't know what to say" A bald faced lie, since you go on to say a bunch of things. I will respond to the most important parts despite this lie. "because you have 20 years" Over the course of 20 years you have displayed character flaws and confirmed them over and over. It would stupid to just walk into these thread and pretend like I have no idea who you are, what you have said in the past. i.e I have a perception of your motivations and your character. Important things in dealing with people online and offline. "Ad-Hom does not mean" It really doesn't matter that twatsplaining isn't technically an ad hom. I am not getting into another dictionary definition, because you already know that twatsplaining is not accepted as part of a civilized discussion. What do you choose?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 27 10:07:04 "In this case it was expert handling of a gun." No. In this case it was the most basic beginner shit that was ignored.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 27 11:28:48 "that veteran actors were double and triple checking weapons given to them by the armorer to ensure they were “cold or hot,”" Plenty of other actors on this scene were at least obeying the basics. Not alec baldwin or assistant director though. Oops.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 11:59:19 Nim: You can't call me a hypocrite and say I do the same thing I'm complaining about you doing if those are two different things.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Oct 27 11:59:20 " Tw is such a retard. Of course there are reasons for real guns to be on set. You need real guns to shoot blanks for the scene. Blanks are live rounds. There is nothing to 'mechanically' distinguish between a blank and a regular round. Ergo, no such thing as a blanks only gun " Pillz is such a retard for calling someone a retard without the facts. A) There factually are guns that only shoot blanks B) A 'real' gun can be modified to only fit blanks as real bullets are slightly longer (as noted by real armorer on TV)
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 11:59:48 Or, I mean, you can, just not credibly.
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 12:02:02 Nim: "A bald faced lie," Are you serious? Are you going to turn into one of those people that litigate whether it's appropriate to say literally on a figurative context?
obaminated Member	Wed Oct 27 12:41:28 Baldwin may go to jail over this. What would the charge be? Manslaughter? Reckless endangerment?
Seb Member	Wed Oct 27 12:48:14 obaminated: I would think manslaughter if he was. But I suspect in context he will not because it will be difficult to claim recklessness.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 27 13:33:32 So, we are giving a pass to the person who stole the prop and put a live round into it before returning it?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Oct 27 13:34:22 Ya, theres too many idiots involved to hold any 1 of the idiots to high criminal standards of responsibility. Could be minor negligence charges but i doubt they result in jail time. Plenty of financial responsibility. Baldwins gonna pay out 10M to the dead ladies family.
	show deleted posts