Another "prop" gun killing

[stretch]

"The gun was one of three that the film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, had set on a cart outside the wooden structure where a scene was being acted, according to the records. Assistant director Dave Halls grabbed the gun from the cart and brought it inside to Baldwin, unaware that it was loaded with live rounds, a detective wrote in the search warrant application."
"“Cold gun,” the assistant director announced, according to a search warrant filed in a Santa Fe court."

Man - can you imagine taking someone else's word that the gun is unloaded before you point it at another human
being and press the trigger?!

Ya can't treat it like makeup or a piece of your costume.

It's a tragedy for sure - but in the end, Alec Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at the person and pressed the trigger.

The late Jeff Cooper's 4 rules, which I'm sure most of you know:

Rule 1: All guns are always loaded.
(The exception to that is if the action is open and clearly seen to be unloaded. Don't know how to open the
action and check it YOURSELF? Then the gun is loaded.)
Rule 2: Don't point the darned thing at anything you don't want to destroy.
Rule 3: Keep your finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target.
Rule 4: Be absolutely sure of your target and what lies beyond it.

Mr. Baldwin broke 'em all......

-Stretch

[barbarossa]

Sadly in the end the gun will be blamed as they are all evil and should be destroyed.People of course are all blameless and aren t responsible for their actions

[gamekeeper]

If Baldwin walks away with this does it mean that in the future " I was told that the gun was unloaded " would be a reasonable defence for killing somebody? Unless the police can prove intent then manslaughter is the least he should be charged with along with those responsible for safety.

[RIHMFIRE]

Wasn't this idiot convicted for domestic violence???
If so, hes not allowed to be anywhere near guns or weapons of any kind.

Anyway he is finished.....
The victims family will take him and the libs at the movie company to the cleaners....
And there are no excuses....even "prop guns" firing blanks, are never aimed at the so called targets..
They use camera angles to make it look real....these excuses are total BS...

[AJMD429]

From a post on Gateway Pundit:


For everyone saying that Alec isn't responsible are ignorant of what the unions and laws state. This is from Actors Equity Association and you can see how badly Alec failed.


SAFETY TIPS FOR USE OF FIREARMS

Use simulated or dummy weapons whenever possible.
Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.
Unless you are actually performing or rehearsing, the property master must secure all firearms.
The property master or armorer should carefully train you in the safe use of any firearm you must handle. Be honest if you have no knowledge about guns. Do not overstate your qualifications.
Follow all instructions given by the qualified instructor.
Never engage in horseplay with any firearms or other weapons. Do not let others handle the gun for any reason.
All loading of firearms must be done by the property master, armorer or experienced persons working under their direct supervision.
Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.
If you are the intended target of a gunshot, make sure that the person firing at you has followed all these safety procedures.
If you are required to wear exploding blood squibs, make sure there is a bulletproof vest or other solid protection between you and the blast packet.
Use protective shields for all off stage cast within close proximity to any shots fired.
Appropriate ear protection should be offered to the cast members and stage managers.
Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.
Blanks are extremely dangerous. Even though they do not fire bullets out of the gun barrel, they still have a powerful blast than can maim or kill.
Never attempt to adjust, modify or repair a firearm yourself. If a weapon jams or malfunctions, corrections shall be made only by a qualified person.
When a scene is completed, the property master shall unload the firearms. All weapons must be cleaned, checked and inventoried after each performance.
Live ammunition may not be brought into the theatre.
If you are in a production where shots are to be fired and there is no qualified property master, go to the nearest phone and call Actors' Equity Association. A union representative will make sure proper procedures are followed.
State and federal safety laws must be honored at all times.
If any of the above safety tips conflict with the instructions given by a qualified instructor, abide by the instructions from the qualified instructor. If you are still not sure, contact your Equity Business Representative

[Scott Tschirhart]

As with most of these deals there’s probably plenty of blame to go around. The tragedy is that the lady didn’t have to die.

In the last 50 years I have had three negligent discharges with firearms. I say negligent because they were my fault entirely. Fortunately nobody got hurt. I would have been reckless if I had been pointing the gun at anyone. I would expect to pay the price for that.

However I understand that we are human and we make mistakes. I don’t think Mr. Baldwin intended to hurt anyone and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Old Savage]

Wrong 44, the responsibility lies with Baldwin. It was his responsibility to check the condition of the gun.

[Old Savage]

We may eventually find out the actual chain of events as depos and interrogations occur from a wide variety of people present.

He is kind of a nut when he gets into a rant.

Possible scenario, he was gesturing with the gun during a discussion/rant. Seems you never know what is true early on after incidents not planned. And, I doubt we know now.

[44shooter]

Doc, those stated policies do change things. I can't say whether the shot was intentional or not but definitely against those guidelines. However I do know that real guns are pointed at actors. How many times have you seen a muzzle poked into someone with a finger on the trigger? Maybe those shots use disabled guns. Think about all the battle scenes with muzzles sweeping everywhere and people running and falling and dropping rifles. I still really doubt it is routine for actors to inspect a firearm every time they are handed one. I may be wrong but I suspect most wouldn't know what to look for. Even if they did I doubt they bother. They certainly should though.

I had a negligent discharge once in my house. I had been dry firing a revolver in my office. Then I loaded it to put it in my nightstand before bed. For some reason I drew down on an electrical socket on the way and before I knew it the cylinder was rotating and BANG. Muscle memory from what I had just been doing I guess. I don't think I'm an idiot but that was an idiotic moment. I knew it was loaded and put my finger on the trigger and pulled it without thinking. I was alone and of course I would not point it at someone I wasn't trying to kill. It only takes a moment to mess up. Sounds like several people messed up here.

[Blaine]

Wrong 44, the responsibility lies with Baldwin. It was his responsibility to check the condition of the gun.

One systemic problem is that The Talent expects to see a loaded gun. Loaded with blanks. That's why you don't POINT IT AT ANYBODY.

[Sixgun]

Most drunk drivers don't intend to kill people either but sometimes whole families (one here last week) are wiped out so what is society supposed to do .....say 3 Hail Mary's and then tell them to go about their business?.....

Most everyone here is guilty of drunk driving...we just were not caught, at least I wasn't.

There is NO defense for this piece of garbage.... he was very experienced with guns, he knew the rules and he knew the consequences of a fast moving bullet that's headed for flesh. He is arrogant to a major fault.

Although I believed and still believe Trump was and is the savior of Capitalism even he said one time, "I could shoot someone on Fifth Ave. and people would still vote for me."

It's the mindset of self elevated elitists...only thing that is important is them.

[KWK]

The doctor's copy is accurate. I note it does allow for firearms to be pointed directly at another person, with suitable precautions.

I have to admit I lean toward 44shooter's position. One would think the Association's rule "The property master or armorer should carefully train you..." would cover spotting the difference between a live and blank round, but I have to think "All loading of firearms must be done by the property master" generally means actors assume a gun is safe. So who violated the "Live ammunition may not be brought into the theatre" rule? (Interesting they use the UK spelling for theater.)

On the other hand, the final word there is "Check the firearm every time you take possession of it" which obviously Baldwin failed to do. He simply assumed the guy who handed it to him did that, and that guy in turn assumed the armorer loaded it suitably. All three share in the blame. The question is who gets the lion's share of it. From the standpoint of experienced shooters, clearly Baldwin is at fault. From the standpoint of actors, it may appear the armorer is at fault. The sheriff and prosecutor will decide.

[marlinman93]

When my kids were small and I was teaching them safe gun handling, the most important rule I taught them was to check a gun whenever anyone handed it to them! Even if they'd just watched the other person check it; you can't assume they did a good job. So we practiced checking firearms as the kids passed them from one to the next one.
The other rule was you can't handle any firearm unless you can show me you know how to check it, and are physically strong enough to work the slide, or action well enough to make the gun safe. The kids were always happy when they were able to finally work the slide on one of my semiautos, and could check to ensure it was safe.
When my wife and I were young we didn't have the extra funds to buy a decent safe. So my guns were under the stairs in a closet, and all our kids knew it. We never had an issue with them touching guns, or telling their friends about my guns. I'm sure they were far safer, and better trained than many adults are.
Somebody on the film set should ensure every person who might handle prop guns during the filming, is well trained in safety before any firearms are brought to the set for filming!

[CowboyTutt]

"The question is who gets the lion's share of it. From the standpoint of experienced shooters, clearly Baldwin is at fault. From the standpoint of actors, it may appear the armorer is at fault. The sheriff and prosecutor will decide." Well articulated. I believe the armorer is responsible for safety on the set. It also appears safety protocols were not followed. While he may avoid criminal liability, AB will be named in a suit in civil court and will cost him millions and most likely ruin his career and rightfully so IMHO. -Tutt

[JOG]

It appears the facts are being suppressed. Let's hope Alec takes the punishment for pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger.
I think multiple people bare some responsibility in this perfect storm of a screw ups!
In the end AB should be charged!
Johnny

[wvfarrier]

Its my understanding that Thell Reeds daughter was the armorer who replaced the original

[AJMD429]

.

When I teach someone about handling firearms, my usual habit after finishing with any one gun, and we only have one gun out at a time, is that I will unload it and open the action to show them the chambers as how we verify the gun is unloaded, then I will put it back in its case. With many guns like semi-automatic 1911s and so forth, after verifying it is empty I point it down range and 'dry' fire it in a safe direction. The student becomes used to that routine, and me looking at them and expecting them to nod to verify that they see the chamber is empty and understand the concept for that particular gun.

Sometimes after we have shot a gun, I will do the usual open the action and show them the empty chamber thing, and they will nod in agreement that the gun is unloaded, then I will distract the student by gesturing on the other side of them and asking them to hand me the case for the gun. While they are reaching for the gun I quickly slip a cartridge in to the firearm, and then as they are handing me the gun case I do what we have done several times already at that session, which is to casually point the firearm down range and drop the hammer. The resultant "BANG...!!!" always makes them jump, especially if I have had them remove their hearing protection beforehand.

Then we have the obvious discussion, where I ask them "...we did check the chamber on that gun didn't we...? I thought sure we did...!". They invariably look puzzled and say "Yeah - I just saw you check it...". Depending on how to startled they look, I may not reveal to them that I did it intentionally until after the days' shooting is done; I want the lesson to sink in.

When I, as a person they at that time regard as a 'reasonably experienced' shooter, experience an unexpected accidental discharge, particularly when they saw the same empty chamber that I apparently did, it seems to drive home the lesson that even when you think a gun is unloaded, or rather even when you KNOW a gun is unloaded, it is STILL loaded...!

The other thing I do is I will remove the barrel and slide from my Taurus 92, which has a laser/light rail on the frame. Obviously at that point the gun cannot discharge, because it does not have a chamber (or barrel or slide) and there will be no magazine or ammunition in the gun of course. I will stand beside the person I'm instructing and we will talk about something regarding the firearm or some other thing and I will make sure I leave the laser on, and get it pointed at one of their feet or their lower leg. It's easy to do that without the gun appearing to point towards them. Then I stop and look them in the eye so they look up at me instead of at the gun and I say "...by the way....am I keeping this gun pointed in a safe direction...?". They will look down to see, and realize that the gun is pointing at part of their anatomy. I confess to them that I did that intentionally to show them how easy it is to have your muzzle pointed at someone while you're distracted discussing something, and how no matter how many times I checked the firearm, I could not bring myself to do the same stuff with an intact firearm. Only because they firearm physically has no chamber barrel side magazine or ammunition at that point is it something I could do.

Two good lessons learned for the new shooter, at least.

[Scott Tschirhart]

Hell, I keep my guns loaded unless I am cleaning them or they are stashed in the safe. One gun stays loaded no matter where I put it. An unloaded gun is a pretty poor excuse for a club.

But this is real life and Mr. Baldwin's shooting was on a movie set. Very different things.

[marlinman93]

Hell, I keep my guns loaded unless I am cleaning them or they are stashed in the safe. One gun stays loaded no matter where I put it. An unloaded gun is a pretty poor excuse for a club.

But this is real life and Mr. Baldwin's shooting was on a movie set. Very different things.

I also keep several loaded guns, and in various places around the house, or on my person. But that has nothing to do with safe gun handling.
If somebody hands me a gun and tells me it's unloaded, I'm still going to check it, and I'm still not going to point it at him and pull the trigger.
Those last two things make anyone who does them responsible for what happened.

[marlinman93]

And then there's this great video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O6gudW ... nSchneider

[.45colt]

Thanks for posting the link MarlinMan 93. it confirms what a lot of us have said or thought.

[KWK]

For what it's worth, a report this morning on the Wall St Jnl site says they were indeed working on a scene where Baldwin would draw and point at the camera. It doesn't say if he planned to fire towards the camera. He was seated and practicing a cross draw when the gun went off. They still haven't said if the projectile was a bullet or something else blown out the barrel.

[barbarossa]

Hell, I keep my guns loaded unless I am cleaning them or they are stashed in the safe. One gun stays loaded no matter where I put it. An unloaded gun is a pretty poor excuse for a club.

But this is real life and Mr. Baldwin's shooting was on a movie set. Very different things.

I also keep several loaded guns, and in various places around the house, or on my person. But that has nothing to do with safe gun handling.
If somebody hands me a gun and tells me it's unloaded, I'm still going to check it, and I'm still not going to point it at him and pull the trigger.
Those last two things make anyone who does them responsible for what happened.

Maybe the whole point of not checking to see if the gun is loaded yourself is a Hollywood legal round about way of getting off of the hook if something goes wrong.It doesn’t t make sense not to check any gun given to you on a movie set as it takes all of a minute or so to do it.Like working in a plant would you take somebodies word that a piece of machinery was locked out before working on it or would you lock it out yourself.It is a poor tradesman that counts on someone else for safety

[marlinman93]

Maybe the whole point of not checking to see if the gun is loaded yourself is a Hollywood legal round about way of getting off of the hook if something goes wrong.It doesn’t t make sense not to check any gun given to you on a movie set as it takes all of a minute or so to do it.Like working in a plant would you take somebodies word that a piece of machinery was locked out before working on it or would you lock it out yourself.It is a poor tradesman that counts on someone else for safety

When I was working every person involved in a project shutdown had to add their lock to a "gang lock" with multiple holes, so not any one person could turn it on, unless every person on the project removed their lock.
Maybe Hollywood should have locked boxes for gun storage, and everyone involved in a scene has to remove their lock before a gun can be returned to the set?

[CowboyTutt]

Naw, they are just going to ban the use of real guns on movie sets. There is already a petition going around to do just that with 25000 signatures already.
-Tutt

[Hagler]

octagon,

You are thinking of Jon-Erik Hexum, 1984:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum#Death

On October 12, 1984, the cast and crew of Cover Up were filming the seventh episode of the series, "Golden Opportunity", on Stage 18 of the 20th Century Fox lot. One of the scenes filmed that day called for Hexum's character to load bullets into a .44 Magnum handgun, so he was provided with a functional gun and blanks. When the scene did not play as the director wanted it to in the master shot, there was a delay in filming. Hexum became restless and impatient during the delay and began playing around to lighten the mood. He had unloaded all but one (blank) round, spun it, and—simulating Russian roulette—he put the revolver to his right temple and pulled the trigger,[6] apparently unaware of the danger.

Some blanks use paper or plastic wadding to seal gunpowder into the cartridge. This wadding is propelled from the barrel of the gun with enough explosive force to cause death or serious injury if the weapon is fired within a few feet of the body, particularly at a vulnerable spot such as the temple or the eye. The paper wadding in the blank that Hexum discharged did not penetrate his skull, however the explosive effect of the muzzle blast caused enough blunt force trauma to fracture a quarter-sized piece of his skull and propel this into his brain, causing massive hemorrhaging.[1][7]

Hexum was rushed to Beverly Hills Medical Center, where he underwent five hours of surgery to repair his wounds.[7] On October 18, aged 26, six days after the accident, Hexum was declared brain-dead.

With his mother's permission, his body was flown to San Francisco on life support, where his heart was transplanted into a 36-year-old Las Vegas man at California Pacific Medical Center.[8] Hexum's kidneys and corneas were also donated: One cornea went to a 66-year-old man, the other to a young girl. One of the kidney recipients was a critically ill five-year-old boy, and the other was a 43-year-old grandmother of three who had waited eight years for a kidney. Skin that was donated was used to treat a 3+1⁄2-year-old boy with third-degree burns.[9]

Hexum's body was then flown back to Los Angeles. He was cremated at Grandview Crematory in Glendale, California, and a private funeral was held. His ashes were scattered in the Pacific Ocean, near Malibu, California, by his mother. He left an estate estimated to be worth $255,000.[10] The death was ruled accidental.[11] His mother later received an out-of-court settlement from 20th Century Fox Television and Glen A. Larson Productions, the production team behind Cover Up.[1]

The episode on which Hexum had been working was broadcast on November 3, 1984, two weeks after his death. Cover Up continued production without Hexum's character. Three weeks later, in the episode "Writer's Block", aired on November 24, Antony Hamilton was introduced as agent Jack Striker, posing as a new member of the modeling team.[12] Hexum's character Mac is noticeably absent, said to be on another mission. At the end of the episode, Henry Towler (Richard Anderson) breaks the news that Mac has been killed on the other assignment and would not be coming back.[13] As the tears flow, the camera pans back, and a memoriam written by Glen Larson appears onscreen:

When a star dies, its light continues to shine
across the universe for millenniums.
John Eric [sic] Hexum died in October of this year ... but the lives he touched will continue to be brightened by his light
... forever ... and ever.

Shawn

[marlinman93]

The state Attorney General was on one of the national news programs yesterday stating "how tough it is to prove criminal intent" and if she couldn't, then they can't charge anyone in this reckless shooting. I hesitate to even call this an accidental shooting, as it certainly wasn't an accident like the news is calling it. It's a clear cut case of neglect, or ignorance of safe gun handling.

[barbarossa]

I think that civil court is where this case will have it s biggest impact.Gross negligence on all counts will result in multiple people being sued which will end in non disclosed settlements after being dragged out in the courts for years to come.That’s what hurts rich people the most they hate being separated from their money

[AJMD429]

.

Greg Gutfield had a good piece on this - too bad Alex Baldwin won't watch it - https://youtu.be/WdG9HIaAMxY

[Grizz]

baldwin is the only one responsible for that death. i watched a couple of seconds of snooze coverage trying to figure out who was responsible. that is the stupidest question of the month for sure.

but it does go to show how absolutely ignorant all the ranters actually are . . .

[KWK]

Reports today say the gal was killed by a conventional bullet. It also indicates the cylinder had a mix of live and dummy rounds, apparently only the single live one. It does sound as if the armorer goofed and neither Baldwin nor the guy who handled the revolver before him checked. I wonder if the revolver had been used in the plinking done off set there.

Most people in Hollywood are ignorant of firearms. I'll guess the armorer will be blamed, and Baldwin will continue on. If the gal's family wishes, I have to believe Baldwin and his company can be held liable for large civil damages. I have no idea if criminal charges are likely. One of the negligent homicide charges might apply.

[1894cfan]

FYI, just found out that lady's next project was to be a documentary on Hollyweird pedophiles! No wonder baldwin had an oops! She was likely killed to prevent her from doing her documentary! The "RUST" western movie production was likely set up to get her out and away from Hollywood on a set that had firearms around so this could happen. YMMV

[Grizz]

I doubt he will be able to claim ignorance, some article has him bragging about his "gun-play skills", so what's his excuse. I wonder about this kind of stuff. The lady got killed. By someone pointing a loaded firearm at her and pulling the trigger. Someone with bragged up gun-play skills. My guess is the lady turned him down and turned him out of the trailer. dot dot dot

[octagon]

Hagler that is indeed the bonehead I was thinking of, had not recalled he was diced up for parts. Remember when "Don't play with/horse around with guns" was a standard rule, I guess it's covered by the others ...
I recall a 13yo kid accidentally shot his brother in the forehead with a 30-30 while horsing around , he later killed himself in his grief.

[barbarossa]

A statement by the assistant director says it all “He said he checks the revolver for ammo by opening the hatch and spinning the drum”

It is obvious you have people playing with guns that they have no business doing so.They have such a disdain for firearms they refuse to learn the most rudimentary basic knowledge of guns and true safety procedures.This is the type of ignorance that gets people killed.The same goes for the young woman pretending to be the set armourer obviously someone way out of her depth.Lucky for her I believe this will probably be her last job doing so ,as I doubt any production company would be willing to hire her

[1894cfan]

The set armorer is reputedly the daughter of Thell Reed, who has been in the movie industry himself for DECADES! You would think that Thell Reed would teach his kids all about firearms!

[barbarossa]

Probably a case of too much too soon,she probably got the job skating on her Fathers reputation.I think in time she might of had the experience to properly do the job ,now she will have a black mark on her career that will be hard to erase.To be fair to her though being new to the business she was probably in a situation where she was dominated by over bearing egos that she couldn’t control

[KWK]

A statement by the assistant director says it all “He said he checks the revolver for ammo by opening the hatch and spinning the drum”

That would show him if it was empty, but there were three types of cartridges around the set, live, dummy, and blank. Spinning the cylinder while looking at one end won't tell the whole story. Dummy and live rounds look the same from the front. Blank and live rounds would look the same from the rear, or does the armorer prepare the dummy rounds and paint the base a particular color, such as is done with proof rounds, so they can be identified from the rear? SAAMI calls for a black oxide case finish with a dummy, or a case with no primer pocket. Is there a standard for blanks?

[AmBraCol]

never-trust.jpg

[wvfarrier]

Baldwin has been in A LOT of movies that involve the use of firearms. Are we expected to believe no one ever educated him on the basic tenants of.safety?

[AJMD429]

Baldwin has been in A LOT of movies that involve the use of firearms. Are we expected to believe no one ever educated him on the basic tenants of.safety?

There is a certain amount of self-anointed 'valor' or virtue-signaling some people feel when it comes to being ignorant of firearms. Knowing too much would mean they somehow 'liked' firearms, and for some people it is more important to show disdain for all-things-gun-like than it is to be competent and safe when handling them.

from https://guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

VI. The Valor of Ignorance[84]

A recent interview with Dr. Robert Tanz of Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago is as illuminating as Dean Prothrow-Stith's frank avowal of the stark hatred which underlies her anti-gun advocacy. Dr. Tanz and his colleague at Children's Hospital, Dr. Katherine Christoffel, "plan to do to handguns what their profession has done to cigarettes ... turn gun ownership from a personal-choice issue to a repulsive, anti-social health hazard."[85]

Because the validity of this goal is severely undercut by Professor Gary Kleck's research on the defensive value of firearms, the interviewer asked Dr. Tanz about that research. It should be noted that there is legitimate controversy--among criminologists--about aspects of Kleck's work in this area. Based on an exhaustive data analysis, Kleck concludes that guns are more often used by victims to defend themselves each year than misused by criminals to commit (p.537)crimes.[86] This conclusion rests on consistent results in ten surveys yielding estimates of the numerical frequency of defensive gun use. Yet inconsistent data are obliquely found in a different survey vehicle which, however, was not specifically designed to address defensive gun use. To the extent that these data do address that issue, they yield figures of less than 100,000 defense uses per year, far below Kleck and Gertz's figures of two million or more. This disparity is emphasized by Kleck's primary critic, Duke University economist Philip J. Cook, who feels that there are "persuasive reasons for believing that the [other survey vehicle] yields total incident figures that are much too low while Kleck's survey(s) may yield total incident figures that are much too high."[87]

Some criminologists agree with Cook.[88] Others accept Kleck's data,[89] as do we and as does at least one who challenges another aspect of Kleck's findings.[90] For the purpose of this Article, who is right does not matter. Even the most scrupulous attention to the canons of scholarship cannot guarantee that every conclusion is noncontroversial and error-free; where relevant data are partial and conflict, even the most competent scholars may reach inconsistent conclusions. What the canons of scholarship do demand, in order to minimize the likelihood of error (much less "sagecraft"), is what Cook's critique of Kleck did: cite Kleck, describe what Kleck says, and proceed to criticize. If only the health advocacy literature against firearms were so scrupulous and forthright.

One of the ultimate goals of scholarly writing is to provide readers with the full information necessary to review the matter and to make up their own minds. Returning to Dr. Tanz, it is clear that he has no place in this debate--no basis for forming an opinion, much less for commenting on the debate--because he (p.538)"acknowledges that he has never read a word Kleck has written,"[91] nor does he claim even to have read Kleck's critics. Yet Dr. Tanz unhesitatingly informed the interviewer that Kleck's figures are wildly exaggerated, that the actual number of defensive uses is "only about 80,000" annually.[92]

Dr. Tanz is also apparently ignorant of the now established fact that the very survey data he embraces against Kleck confirms a different Kleck finding which would equally appall Dr. Tanz, if only he knew of it. These data show that, far from defensive gun use endangering them, gun-armed victims who resist robbery or rape are injured far less often than either those who resist with other weapons or than those who submit.[93] Gun-armed victims are also much less likely to be robbed or raped than those who take Handgun Control's advice never to resist: "[T]he best defense against injury is to put up no defense--give them what they want, or run."[94](p.539)

It bears emphasis that Kleck and others who have discussed these facts add various caveats, the most important of which is that a gun is not a magic wand that renders resistance successful and risk-free regardless of the circumstances.[95] Rather, a handgun is precisely analogous to a fire extinguisher. Each is a tool which provides an option for action--an option which may be exercised or not, depending on what the circumstances dictate.

I think that Baldwin's disdain for guns and the 'gun culture', combined with his arrogance, made it only a matter of time until he caused such a tragedy. We all are vulnerable to accidents despite taking great precautions, but to not even TRY to be safe is inexcusable.

[Carlsen Highway]

The Armourer on the set is in charge of firearms safety and is who loaded the gun with a live round and took it to a movie set; so inexperienced she didn't know what she had done, and too negligent to check. She should go to prison for criminal negligence. (I heard this woman had already been told off by Nicolas Cage for careless firearms handling in a different incident.)

The Assistant director should not have been handling firearms, again the Armourer should have been doing that. You could make a case for criminal negligence for him also, he took the firearm and gave it to the actor and told him it was not loaded, without know if it was true because he didn't check.

I would make the case that all three of them are guilty of the same charge as someone who shoots a person instead a deer when out hunting, by shooting through bushes. Manslaughter. Give them all two years.

[Grizz]

the onus belongs to the trigger man, not anyone else. UNLESS you believe that gun control means confiscating all of them.

the trigger did not move itself. the gun did not point itself at a human being. the culpability rests with the one who pointed and pulled the trigger. who can say if he intended to kill the woman? who knows what was in his head? what we do know is that he aimed the gun at a person and pulled the trigger.

no one else is responsible for those facts.

[barbarossa]

They have all lawyered up so the blame game is starting now.If it is possible to find out who brought live ammo on to the set they will get the lion share of the blame but the young woman who’s job it is to control access,store,maintain etc has her head on the chopping block unless she can prove that her authority was either over ruled or undermined.No excuse poor safety procedure especially involving firearms including point a gun at a person loaded or not

[Sarge]

[Scott Tschirhart]

The Armorer is being blamed but she has now broken her silence on the matter.

Hannah Gutierrez (Reed) is holding the producers of the film responsible.

Says that she has no idea where the live rounds came from and would not allow live rounds to be used under any circumstances.

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/hann ... 235100531/

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/rus ... 55141.html

Since the Sheriff's Department found live rounds on the set, this statement is problematic.

[KWK]

Says that she has no idea where the live rounds came from and would not allow live rounds to be used under any circumstances.

Yet there are reports of plinking being done off hours. With what weapon I have not read.

That the police are still looking at this a week later suggests there is smoke in the air yet. It's quite curious.

The Yahoo article linked was weird. The friend of the gal who died blames both the armorer and the assistant director but holds the triggerman blameless? All three failed to notice the revolver had a live round in it! Obviously everyone is in CYA mode.

[GunnyMack]

There were 480 episodes of Bonanza filmed- no one got shot!

[Jay Bird]

Now THATS my type of humor! Love it! But be careful Sarge, the board police (Norman Bates) is watching.

[Blaine]

Oh, call the Waaaabulance.