Good summary of a lot of newish information in this video.  Also makes some good points.  As many have already stated, it does seem like there was severely lacking safety protocols on the set.  Live ammo on set, prop gun used after hours with real ammo shows lack of control of the prop, no one checking status of gun, inexperience/negligence.   

(Sorry, this video was posted earlier so i deleted it)

My opinion/guesses: Whether Alec should have checked it himself is a good question to come up.  Not sure if that will hold up in court because there may be no legal requirement for the actor to double check a prop gun handed to him by a "qualified" person.  Definitely would have been a life saving practice here.  I question whether most actors would know what to check so it would require actors to get some basic firearm handling training (not prop gun handling, real training like an NRA class) which would be a great thing actually.  Now, if there was no "qualified person" on set, that is a separate issue.  I imagine that sometimes a scene may require the actor to handle a gun in a manner that violates at least two rules so I won't personnally bring that up as a primary cause.  Because of this assumption, they gotta be damn sure it is unloaded.  Maybe there is such a thing as a non-functional prop gun ( ) that they could swap in and out of the scene and edit at the end but that seems a little impractical.  Again, just guessing.

Only a Democrat can equate "safety" with "a total ban." 

How does that increase safety?  Safety would involve having a certified and trained armorer or firearms instructor on set and exclusively preparing and managing the props.

When your 10 year old crashes his bicycle and gets a head wound, does taking his bike away "increase bike safety?"  No!  You buy the kid a helmet, and you teach him HOW TO BE SAFE.  That way, if he's ever riding another bike, even one you didn't buy him, he knows more about riding safely.

If they required training of everyone handling guns on the set, they would be SAFER when handling guns OFF the set.  That equates to "increased gun safety."

If they required a certified trainer, armorer, etc, they would ensure everyone handling the guns was properly trained, thereby increasing safety.

So, what happens when someone gets injured with a non-firearm prop gun from not practicing gun safety?  Ban those too?

This really gets old.

I watched all 3 John Wick movies over the last couple of days.  I don't remember anyone being killed in real life on those movie sets ...

and I'm almost positive there were a few scenes with guns being fired.

If Alec Baldwin was just an actor in this movie they were making, I'll cut him some slack. 

But he also is a producer of the movie.  Which makes him responsible for everything in the movie, including safety.

The producers and directors are the ones that affect the working environment and team atmosphere.  They are the ones that can either foster a great team that works with and respects each other or create an atmosphere that is toxic and in this case dangerous.

Looks like profit was the driving force to the point where they abused labor and working conditions.

Alec Baldwin should be held accountable.

“No Rick, the OTHER head!”

If Alec Baldwin was just an actor in this movie they were making, I'll cut him some slack. 

Even if he were just the actor I still think he screwed up a little. I learned in stage combat that we don't point the blank firing guns at other actors  but just to the side of them. Maybe Alec Baldwin was never taught this safety measure but it could have saved a life.

“No Rick, the OTHER head!”

heads

so the thing where HG removed the spent casing from the prop gun when she handed it to the deputies, was she trying to do some monkey business with the evidence?  seems like that she probably would've rushed to check what the heck kind of cartridge it was immediately after the shooting, almost as a reflex, not later when the deputies arrive?

so the thing where HG removed the spent casing from the prop gun when she handed it to the deputies, was she trying to do some monkey business with the evidence?  seems like that she probably would've rushed to check what the heck kind of cartridge it was immediately after the shooting, almost as a reflex, not later when the deputies arrive?

There's no question it was a LIVE round in the gun when it killed the crew member.

But, I agree, all props, should have been put down immediately, and everyone ordered to leave the area.  There should have been crew members stationed around it to keep everyone out until the police arrived.  Evidence can't be trusted if there are crew members handling it.

It's possible someone fired from a distance at the same moment Baldwin pulled the trigger, making it look & sound like he did it.

I think I saw that in a movie once!   

One of the leading liberal spokesmen used this quote in one of his recent videos.



I say the liberal doth protest too much. Everything in this thread is well-thought out, and not malicious in the least. The gun community has been emphasizing safety as a means of minimizing accidents like this. I recall a hunting accident where Dick Cheney shot his friend, a Texas attorney. The NY Daily News chastised Cheney for never publicly apologizing to his friend. David Letterman parodied Cheney in a silly skit.



Nobody is an angel. Let us be humble enough to learn from our mistakes. In carpentry, they say we should measure twice and cut once. With weapons, check at least three times and shoot once, further making sure to not harm innocents in the area.

“Charges on the table”

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-movie-shooting-criminal-charges-on-the-table-district-attorney.amp

Not gonna hold my breath, but will be interesting if anything comes of this.

She was a beautiful person. RIP.

Here me out on this one.

A mass shooting is 4 or more people.

So Baldwin, 2 who got shot makes 3 people. Was there a 4th there as well?  Or was the set totally closed off.

So this would make Baldwin a mass shooter. How come MDA or ET hasn't labeled this incident as such?  We all know how they love to combine active and mass shootings alike.

Here me out on this one.

A mass shooting is 4 or more people.

So Baldwin, 2 who got shot makes 3 people. Was there a 4th there as well?  Or was the set totally closed off.

So this would make Baldwin a mass shooter. How come MDA or ET hasn't labeled this incident as such?  We all know how they love to combine active and mass shootings alike.

Technically:

The FBI has no official definition for mass shooting.  In fact, they are trying to relabel the stats to "mass killing", to better capture that fact that a given number of victims dies, whereas "shooting" would not necessarily achieve the same number of deaths but would still qualify under "mass shooting".  The glaring hole in most of this is the term "shooting."  That doesn't allow for mass murders by other than firearms.  What if a team holds 20 people hostage in a bank, then they kill 2 by knife, 2 by bludgeoning, and 2 by firearm?  That's 6 dead in a single event within the same structure.  If they were all killed by the same person using firearms, it would be a mass shooting by most current definitions.  Mass killing should categorize these types of events, however rare, in a way that takes the focus off the weapon used. (My opinion)  The OK City bombing is an example of mass killing where no guns were involved.  Should that not be included in the stats for mass shootings?

In 2013, Congress defined mass shootings as a single incident that leaves three or more people dead.

In its research essay "Mass Shootings in the United States," the Rand Corporation said,
"There is no standard definition of what constitutes a mass shooting, and different data
sources—such as media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies—
frequently use different definitions when discussing and analyzing mass shootings."

"The U.S. government has never defined mass shooting as a separate category of crime,"
according to Rand, "and there is not yet a broadly accepted definition of the term."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/definitions-of-mass-shooting-vary/ar-BB1fJ0nQ

Even though the FBI routinely releases data on mass shootings, any body count used to categorize such events is often judged to be arbitrary -- which it is.  Whether 3 or 4 or more constitutes a mass shooting or mass killing, all committed in close proximity to each other and in a single event -- an event that could extend over man y hours -- it's all arbitrarily decided.  Those who want to paint the US as a nation having an epidemic of mass shootings will include gang, domestic violence, and any shooting that takes place where more than 3 or 4 "targets" are gathered.  The fact that only 1 or 2 were killed or wounded should not recategorize the mass shooting.  If a good guy with a gun stops a mass shooting before 3-4 people are killed (other than the mass shooter), are we not able to interpret the intent of the killer was to kill as many as possible? 

Most organizations doing the math exclude the mass shooter in the number of deaths.  So, 3 dead plus the gunman would not equal the 4 fatalities necessary to qualify as a mass shooting, assuming 4 is the standard being used.

This is one area I think the CDC or other agency could spend some of that research money they are getting.  They could map out new categories and redefine existing ones to create a standard for each that's based on common sense, not arbitrary decisions or activists' desires to manipulate the data.



This is probably a bit off-topic, but it follows onto the question about whether Baldwin is a "mass shooter".  I think he would have had to demonstrate intent to shoot multiple people before we can go there.

Technically:

The FBI has no official definition for mass shooting.  In fact, they are trying to relabel the stats to "mass killing", to better capture that fact that a given number of victims dies, whereas "shooting" would not necessarily achieve the same number of deaths but would still qualify under "mass shooting".  The glaring hole in most of this is the term "shooting."  That doesn't allow for mass murders by other than firearms.  What if a team holds 20 people hostage in a bank, then they kill 2 by knife, 2 by bludgeoning, and 2 by firearm?  That's 6 dead in a single event within the same structure.  If they were all killed by the same person using firearms, it would be a mass shooting by most current definitions.  Mass killing should categorize these types of events, however rare, in a way that takes the focus off the weapon used. (My opinion)  The OK City bombing is an example of mass killing where no guns were involved.  Should that not be included in the stats for mass shootings?

In 2013, Congress defined mass shootings as a single incident that leaves three or more people dead.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/definitions-of-mass-shooting-vary/ar-BB1fJ0nQ

Even though the FBI routinely releases data on mass shootings, any body count used to categorize such events is often judged to be arbitrary -- which it is.  Whether 3 or 4 or more constitutes a mass shooting or mass killing, all committed in close proximity to each other and in a single event -- an event that could extend over man y hours -- it's all arbitrarily decided.  Those who want to paint the US as a nation having an epidemic of mass shootings will include gang, domestic violence, and any shooting that takes place where more than 3 or 4 "targets" are gathered.  The fact that only 1 or 2 were killed or wounded should not recategorize the mass shooting.  If a good guy with a gun stops a mass shooting before 3-4 people are killed (other than the mass shooter), are we not able to interpret the intent of the killer was to kill as many as possible? 

Most organizations doing the math exclude the mass shooter in the number of deaths.  So, 3 dead plus the gunman would not equal the 4 fatalities necessary to qualify as a mass shooting, assuming 4 is the standard being used.

This is one area I think the CDC or other agency could spend some of that research money they are getting.  They could map out new categories and redefine existing ones to create a standard for each that's based on common sense, not arbitrary decisions or activists' desires to manipulate the data.



This is probably a bit off-topic, but it follows onto the question about whether Baldwin is a "mass shooter".  I think he would have had to demonstrate intent to shoot multiple people before we can go there.

Damn, you went into some deep detail. My post was more of me being snarky.  Another question is if a shooter kills 2 and then themselves, now do we have 3 deaths?  (just being a smartass now)

Damn, you went into some deep detail. My post was more of me being snarky.  Another question is if a shooter kills 2 and then themselves, now do we have 3 deaths?  (just being a smartass now)

I did mention that in my "book report."   

Most organizations doing the math exclude the mass shooter in the number of deaths. 
So, 3 dead plus the gunman would not equal the 4 fatalities necessary to qualify as a
mass shooting, assuming 4 is the standard being used.

This whole "definition of a mass shooting" problem arises because of the media and anti-gun activists.  They decide which definition they want to use in a story, and there's no definitive source to dispute them.  The media tends to create confusion sometimes to make their facts seem more significant, but most of the time is just because they are ignorant -- they think they know what the words mean, but they are wrong.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

...