|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> It’s Starting /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1638461405 Message started by MnSpring on 12/02/21 at 08:10:05 |
|
Title: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 12/02/21 at 08:10:05 “ Alec Baldwin says he "didn't pull the trigger" in fatal "Rust" movie set shooting “ "Alec Baldwin says he never pulled the trigger on a prop firearm that discharged on the "Rust" movie set." "The trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger," Baldwin told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger, never." And by the same type of people who want to BAN a person from a School, for being Acquitted !!!! |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/21 at 08:25:16 The report is so distant from obvious reality that I'm wondering if someone didn't Edit his statement. The direction the bullet went tells where it was pointed. I've never seen a primer light off without the hammer hitting it. Maybe a malfunction could cause the hammer to fall. But said malfunction would have to have Occurred just exactly then and no time prior or since. I'm more inclined to call Booschiit |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 12/02/21 at 16:52:29 " This image released by ABC News shows actor-producer Alec Baldwin, left, during an interview with “Good Morning America” co-anchor George Stephanopoulos. Alec Baldwin, who reportedly discharged a firearm that he was told was unloaded on the set of his movie, said he never pulled the trigger. Jeffrey Neira, ABC News via Associated Press " |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 12/02/21 at 18:22:50 If I recall correctly a F.lli Pietta long can discharge if it is cocked and impacted hard enough. The debate was over a gun discharging when using it to pistol whip. The real issue is if the heavy impact is activating the trigger mechanism, or if the hammer is somehow released without the trigger mechanism being activated. I don't know enough about the internals to say but I do know it takes substantial impact, which is not what Baldwin was doing. They have the gun, they can test it for hammer failure I would hope. Personally I don't believe him. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/21 at 23:25:31 Personally I don't believe him. No,, I'd say nobody does. It's a gun Not a Kodak. You CAN aim a Kodak at someone Point and shoot is a Feature |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/21 at 04:16:59 Is he so completely full of himself as Alec Baldwin the actor, not Alec Baldwin a human being, that he can’t imagine this happened? How can he say he never pulled the trigger? Does he not understand how that sounds? That’s what I mean about him being full of himself, he can’t see reality. Is this some kind of bizarre set up for claiming mental illness or something? It wouldn’t surprise me. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 12/03/21 at 05:53:00 Well given the nature of our brains I think it is plausible that he believes he did not pull the trigger. He actually when you look at the whole thing and not just the selected portions people tell you is important, can see he was saying he pulled the hammer back and then let it go. During most of our active shooter Sim-drills in schools Participants will shoot a kid. Not accidentally as in aiming at the shooter but a kid runs in the way, I mean stops, turns, lines up the target and pulls the trigger, and that target is a kid. Everyone has a degree of disbelief, however some will acknowledge this and work through the process to improve, and some will refuse saying they "would never" shoot a student or that they have been shooting guns for "too long" to make such a mistake etc. Even with video footage, and marking cartridge impacts on the student, they still say it's not possible. Again, there's video and impact marks, and they still say it never happened. So there is something in our brains that illogically deals with negligent discharge actions. I think with Baldwin he is either convincing himself that he never pulled the trigger, truly thinks it, or is being counseled to say this by legal or PR advisement. Or he pulled the hammer back like he stated in the interview and somehow that sentence was left out of the discussion. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 12/03/21 at 06:06:23 Oh yeah I forgot to post the actual words. Not that this reduces accountability, it just applies context, and that assists in uncovering truth. "the hammer as far back as I could without cocking the actual gun, I'm just showing. I go, ‘How 'bout that? Does that work? You see that? Do you see that?’ And then she goes, ‘Yeah, that's good.’ I let go of the hammer, bang! The gun goes off.” |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 12/03/21 at 06:51:56 Un F ucking Believable ! Baldwin will get away Scot FREE !!!!!! “Baldwin, who authorities have said was practicing with the gun when it discharged, also said he bore no responsibility for the shooting and felt no guilt about it.” “Actors shouldn’t be the “last line of defense,” he said, noting that it was the responsibility of the armorer, or the crew’s weapons specialist,” “He insisted that he bears no responsibility for the shooting, and when asked whether he felt guilt, he said, “No.”” “I feel that someone is responsible for what happened, and I can’t say who that is,” he said. “But I know it’s not me.” And from a UL One-sided Source. https://news.yahoo.com/5-takeaways-alec-baldwin-first-121747480.html |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 12/03/21 at 08:21:57 If a prosecuting attorney said he wasn't responsible I might say he was going to get away "Scot FREE !!!!!!" but this is the defendant claiming he did nothing wrong. I'm pretty sure that's been tried and has failed before. Like millions of times. Who cares if Baldwin says it is somebody else's fault. Of course the manipulation of facts doesn't work both ways right? It's not like any source claimed Baldwin said he never pulled the trigger and left out the part where he explained why that was. Accurate or not it is pertinent to the conversation when somebody says they pulled back a hammer and let it go. If I recall correctly modern replicas are still made without a transfer bar and this does decrease safety because it mitigates the trigger pull. I don't know if this model had half-c ock options but I was always taught that is not a true safety method as accidental discharge can happen. (Its pretty well known that 1911's half-c ock could discharge the weapon) None of this releases the responsibility for the general safe handling of a weapon. Flagging is flagging. According to the Single Action Shooting Society and the NSSF: carrying the gun with the hammer “down” (uncocked) on an empty chamber, but it should be noted that you should never carry a single-action revolver with the hammer down on a loaded chamber. https://www.sassnet.com/ |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Hiko on 12/03/21 at 17:17:19 Alec Baldwin says someone is responsible but not him!!!! The final responsibility for firearm safety is the person handling the firearm He did not check for live ammunition He did not check the firearm was pointed in a safe direction He allowed the hammer to fall on a live cartridge A person died because of his negligence in not following basic firearm safety But he is not responsible in any way !!! |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 12/04/21 at 21:42:55 "A person died because of his negligence in not following basic firearm safety But he is not responsible in any way !!!" Yeah there's going to be a lot of blame-game on this one. I think after talking to some people that are experienced with single action pistols that he could have discharged the weapon without pulling the trigger. Still stupid, but plausible. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/04/21 at 23:39:44 discharged the weapon without pulling the trigger. After much Gain of Function research he figured out how to make a pistol more deadly. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/21 at 05:08:09 534C4A4D50576656665E4C400B390 wrote:
It’s early and the Mrs. is still sleeping so I didn’t laugh out loud but I sure chuckled out loud! |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 12/05/21 at 06:06:28 5A7A78706D7A1F0 wrote:
I have had a bit of experience with Single Action Firearms. Shooting/Owning 'drilled through', (cartridge) real Colts and Colt clones. And original/clone, cap & balls. Please explain how a S/A can be fired with out pulling the trigger ? Holding the trigger down, while pulling the hammer back, then letting the hammer fall. (as in 'Fanning' or 'Slip-hammering') Is STILL, 'Pulling The Trigger !' |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Serowbot on 12/05/21 at 08:05:15 6B487556544F4841260 wrote:
You're not as gun savvy as I thought. Of course a single action revolver can go off without pulling the trigger. That's why the firing pin block was invented. Bumping the hammer or catching it on something can put enough pressure on the primer to fire. Cowboys had the habit of keeping one chamber empty to prevent this. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 12/05/21 at 09:19:54 5442554850454853270 wrote:
Excellent SPIN Grasshopper ! A S/A firing, When Broken, OR When Dropped, OR When Something Hits The Cocked Hammer, very hard! 'Could' fire without pulling the trigger. (Which was not even remotely the case here) "...Cowboys had the habit of keeping one chamber empty to prevent this..." Yes, yesterday, AND today ! And, Anybody that uses, hunts with, carries, a 'non transfer bar' S/A. Tell us all what many called it, 100 (+/-) years ago. (Ruger)"...The early models of the Blackhawk still operated the same way as the Colt, in that the hammer was half-cocked to load and unload and that the firearm was not safe to carry with all six chambers loaded due to the hammer resting upon the sixth chamber.[10] In 1973, in order to eliminate accidents occurring from the hammer jarring against a round loaded in the sixth chamber, Ruger introduced the New Model Blackhawk. The New Model Blackhawk did not require the hammer to be half-cocked for loading and unloading, and it employed a transfer bar mechanism which prevented the cartridge under the hammer from being fired without the trigger being pulled. The New Blackhawk was seen as limiting firearms accidents and legal liability. Ruger then began offering a retrofit program, offering free transfer bar conversions to earlier variants of the Blackhawk. ..." Tell us all, WHY, Ruger did that ! The point remains. Baldwin PULLED THE TRIGGER ! Unless the firearm was damaged/broken which NO ONE has ever stated. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by verslagen1 on 12/05/21 at 09:31:27 not plausible... https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/12/03/alec-baldwin-abc-interview-safety-expert-reaction-sot-newday-vpx.cnn |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by verslagen1 on 12/05/21 at 09:46:18 Didn't someone say Alec Baldwins hand was injured in a previous movie? Perhaps he had nerve damage? Still not an excuse, but a probable cause if it was. In MHO, he should be held mostly responsible and each one who handled the gun will be partially responsible. And since he hired everyone, there will be additional counts of responsibility. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Serowbot on 12/05/21 at 14:55:26 Let's not go off half cocked over this... ;D Somebody had to say it... :-? |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 12/05/21 at 15:12:58 Some S/A pistols can have the hammer pulled back and released enough to discharge the weapon without the trigger being compressed. This is why it is a well known process to not have 6 rounds in the cylinder. Not fanning. Pulling back, the hammer not locking back and letting go. 1911's can do this. Multiple pistols can do this. You want Baldwin to be lying so you must come up with reasons for the trigger to be pulled. People who don't give a sh!t about what Baldwin says can see that it is plausible for a pistol of that style to discharge without the trigger being compressed. So people with no emotional investment into Baldwin will say they don't know. People with emotional investment will create reasons for pistols to never fire without a trigger pull. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 12/05/21 at 16:21:08 6747454D5047220 wrote:
On a NOT broken, Pietta, S/A. Go for it ! |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 12/16/21 at 11:49:55 ... Ripple of Hope Awards Ceremony in New York City. organized by the Robert F. Kennedy Foundation ... ... The ceremony undoubtedly ran smoothly and efficiently by the master of ceremony icon Alec Baldwin. ... ... The Baldwin rehabilitation campaign launched two weeks ago with a George Stephanopoulos interview during which a tearful Mr. Baldwin essentially denied responsibility for what happened. He claimed, “I didn’t pull the trigger” of the loaded single-action revolver he was pointing while assuring the faithful that criminal charges were not in the works. The New York affair is a sign that Mr. Baldwin is being readmitted into the ranks of the acceptable with open arms. ... ... Mr. Baldwin had earlier hinted that the whole affair was the fault of various staff members. He called fellow actor George Clooney “not helpful” when he told reporters he assumed every gun he was ever handed on a movie set was loaded and that he had a personal responsibility to check it out himself. After pondering all this for a while, Mr. Baldwin has apparently decided the gun itself was responsible. ... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/dec/13/alec-baldwin-shooting-proves-progressives-protect-/ Yep, clearer every day. he will walk, because, "the gun itself was responsible" And the DFI, FDS, Socialist Sheepol believe it. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 12/16/21 at 12:12:11 It also states that the pistol discharging from hammer pull alone is "beyond highly unlikely". |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/16/21 at 15:43:32 Early reports stated That Gun had been being used for plinking. No reported malfunctions. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 12/16/21 at 17:05:22 Those that believe/support/apologize for him. Do this: Take a non broken, Single Action, non transfer bar handgun. Any One, Any Brand. Any Age. Load (all six chambers), with a case, that is only primed. DO NOT, point it at anything. You do not want to shoot. Now c ock the hammer, and let it drop. With OUT Touching the Trigger ! (As the Lier said he did) Do that, 10,000 times. Then report here. After that do it, 1,000,000 times, Then report here. Then do it, 100,000,000 times. Then you can admit, Baldwin is a Lying POS gun hater, who will get a slap on the wrist, because he kissed the right butts. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 12/16/21 at 18:53:56 I don't think people that support Baldwin and think he is not at fault come here and would bother to report anything on this forum. I would want to see the analytics of the gun used before I start doing experiments on a non-malfunctioning gun. This is one of those guilty until proven innocent type of situations I guess. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 12/16/21 at 20:02:05 18383A322F385D0 wrote:
Like the, IRS, States Game & Fish Dept's, and the ATF, functions. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 12/16/21 at 20:42:33 Like the, IRS, States Game & Fish Dept's, and the ATF, functions. Like a lot of things I imagine. I just don't care to replicate the actions I disagree with. "The IRS does it!" isn't exactly the justification I'd like to use for my actions. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 01/18/22 at 08:02:43 How long has it taken, for Baldwin to finally turned over his phone ????? (after a court order for evidence) Was it the SPIN of, "The actor added that he and his attorney were following a process required when one state requests information or evidence from a subject who lives in another state. "It's a process that takes time. ..." Or was it finding someone to, 'wipe' the phone of anything that could possibly be incriminating ? (Wait, did he call Hillery, and ask her who ?) |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Serowbot on 01/18/22 at 08:47:19 Aren't you glad that Trump is complying with everything? |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by WebsterMark on 01/18/22 at 11:04:04 Do you dream of Trump? |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 01/18/22 at 11:04:09 Refresh my Memory. How many people did Trump, personally KILL By being totally, irresponsible ? |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Serowbot on 01/18/22 at 12:59:31 1D3E032022393E37500 wrote:
Innumerable. 1/6 riot, maskless rallies, drone strikes in Syria,... |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Billynoneck on 01/18/22 at 21:02:48 I personally think this one is a bit of a hard one as I had read somewhere that the armorer was completely incompetent and that that gun had been recorded as having misfired twice before. For whatever reason the armorer, whos sole job is to see to the safety and handling of all firearms on set (what should have been their only job but I believe they where also the prop master as well or something like that) As far as the actor is concerned they are being handed a SAFE PROP and not a loaded deadly weapon, but at the same time, I can't help but feel it is the responsibility of everyone that touched that gun to have checked it so they could pass it on with first-hand knowledge of if it is loaded or not. One thing I was always taught about guns is never point a gun at anything you don't want dead Sorry if I got the facts wrong I haven't looked into it too much |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 01/18/22 at 21:13:57 "One thing I was always taught about guns is never point a gun at anything you don't want dead" This is good gun handling safety but rarely applies on film. People point guns at others constantly on film sets. Can you imagine trying to make a war film and nobody points a gun at another person? It could be done through creative camera angles and dummy guns but why make all that extra work for yourself. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Billynoneck on 01/18/22 at 21:19:59 That's a very good point, I know that actors are told to point next to the target rather than at it when they can but as you say that's just not possible a lot of the time. Having said that it leads me to ask why are they even using real guns in the first place? that's just insane to me |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Eegore on 01/19/22 at 07:13:44 Money. I have a cousin that has worked in film production for years and like most things she indicates cost is why certain, especially antique weapons are used instead of "prop" guns. It's more efficient in some cases, and only the word "some" with the exemption off all other words, that in some cases it is more efficient to double-use a weapon. The same weapon purchase can be used to fire blanks, and up close for acting shots. I also know an armorer that worked on larger war film sets and he said it's easier/cost effective to get historical functioning guns than to have props made at the scale he needed and then having post-production CGI every action and firing effect. The availability was mostly due to reenactment groups by his assessment. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an eventual prop-only requirement in Hollywood considering the alternatives available at this time. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Billynoneck on 01/19/22 at 22:09:55 4D6D6F677A6D080 wrote:
Makes sense but I think you are right, with things like this happening and the ease and accessibility to CGI (just look at youtube) it will be interesting how long its aloud to continue |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 01/20/22 at 07:17:40 A person, is totally irresponsible, and a Lier, and simply because, he is the Darling of the, Liberal, Fairy Dust Sprinkling, gun hating Socialists. He will get off with a ‘hand slap’. It is all those, ‘other people’ who were in the chain. (Including the Manufacture of the Ammunition) fault. And the result is: “… how long its aloud to continue …” WOW, Like someone having a RED car, driving over someone. And that someone Sued the Supplier of the paint, tires, gas, oil, etc, etc, etc, on that car. Instead of the DRIVER, who was the One, Final, Last, person who drove that car and ran over someone. Eegore, have your students, do the math, and figure the % of firearms used in Movies/TV, that there was NO Indent, and ones that were. Would be interesting to know how many “0’s”, in front of the number. My guess would be 6. 0.0000001 % It is clear, the answer is, to BAN, firearms from use in movie/TV making, when a tiny, tiny, minuscule, % of people are killed by a firearm in movie/TV making. Makes absolutely perfect sense to ban the thing, then punish the person who did it. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 01/20/22 at 07:57:02 343F3A3A2F38393833353D560 wrote:
And the 'last' person in that chain, Was NOT RESPONSIBLE ! (according to the, 'last' person in that chain) And the 'last' person in that chain, will NOT be punished, for NOT DOING, what he was, TAUGHT/TOLD/SHOWN, TO DO. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Billynoneck on 01/20/22 at 10:51:30 yeah not what I was meaning, I think the last person in the chain is just as responsible as the first. my apologies if i didn't make that clear |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/20/22 at 14:28:22 Responsibility is on whoever is holding it. Nobody, not my friend who is awesome with guns,nobody,, nobody can hand me a gun and tell me it's Safe without ME having a look. We simply don't handle weapons in a crowd. I can't imagine having a gun on a set with people all around and NOT inspecting it. Not being Qualified to open it and inspect what it is loaded with and know what they do is not an excuse. Get educated or get someone to hold your hand and point out exactly what the gun has in it and show you it's Safe. The use of the word Misfire Is confusing. To me that says the trigger was pulled and nothing happened. I'm thinking that to them it's saying it fired unexpectedly. But, that is just guessing. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by Billynoneck on 01/20/22 at 20:42:48 3E2127203D3A0B3B0B33212D66540 wrote:
I 100% agree that responsibility is on the person holding the weapon. but I don't believe that removes responsibility from the person whose job it is to make sure the weapon is safe, IMO both are to blame for what happened. Yes sorry, the wrong phrase on my part, "fired unexpectedly" is better |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/20/22 at 22:51:31 And I didn't express my whole thought either. The armorer Is responsible, also. |
|
Title: Re: It’s Starting Post by MnSpring on 02/06/22 at 15:43:15 "...Alec Baldwin files to dismiss lawsuit over fatal Rust shooting incident..." "...The actor's prop firearm accidentally fired ..." (Now it's a, 'PROP' ? And it, 'Accidentally Fired' ?) "... Alec Baldwin 'to make return to filming in secret UK project' after fatal Rust shooting ..." Yep the Ultra Liberal Darling of the UL DFI FDS Socialists. Will get off ! |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |