Lying Gasbag Alec Baldwin Claims Gun Fired Itself.

Lying Gasbag Alec Baldwin Claims Gun Fired Itself.

Famous people often have a hard time understanding when it is appropriate to say nothing.

 

None of which would have happened were Baldwin not a rabid anti-gunner and had taken the time at some point in its privileged life to learn how to safely handle firearms. Simple trigger discipline = Halyna Hutchins still alive.

 

Even rabid anti-gunner George Clooney called bullshit on this.

 

It's called negligent discharge of a firearm. And it can be both civilly and criminally actionable.

 

exactly!!! .........and don't worry about those that are more interested in putting others down , with name calling etc...........than they are in having a decent civil discussion.........where all opinions matter as do different perspectives.

 

The woke Baldwin realizes (or should realize) he's gonna be the next 'Cuomo' and be taken out by the woke vigilante mob for using a gun for any reason. Baldwin's tryin' anything to not get axed by the woke mob.

BTW, there are vigilantes in the GOP too. One such vigilante is named Liz Cheney.

 

Which it is..(BS).... and it has nothing to do with anyone's personal position on weapons. Not everyone is a weapons "enthusiast"

 

Har har? I guess... stop murdering humor. It's done nothing to you.

 

Can't argue that. Lots of questions, all seem to have the same answer- failure to follow safety protocol. Multiple failures.
Why was there any live ammunition even allowed on the film site? That would seem to be an obvious need and a pre-emptive safety rule.
Why was the weapon pointed at anybody? I was chewed out at 8 years old for pointing a cap pistol at grandpa. Again, fundamental rule. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill. .

Anything that can be hazardous has safety protocols. Especially applicable to the untrained, unfamiliar or unskilled, because the protocols protect against things that person hasn't thought of or is ignorant of.
Proper attention to protocol by those besides Baldwin would also have changed the situation. A sequence of errors obviously set the stage for the fatal one, so there was more than one incompetent person on the set.

We have to wait and see how this shakes out.

 

I am far from being an 'enthusiast', but basic understanding of how a weapon works especially if you are required to handle it, is common sense. You wouldn't handle a cross bow without knowing how it works, or drive a car without knowing how it works. Why would a gun be any different?

 

Of course that's what he said. "A gun is too complex to understand and they can go off at anytime." Says the guy who frequently uses guns in his job and after decades still doesn't know how to handle one.

 

If you use guns in your work be it acting or security and you don't take the time to inform your self as to the possibilities you are a dangerous idiot, and I don't care what your political alignment is.

 

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but thank you for the post.

 

Bullshit? You dispute that guns do not fire themselves?

Basic firearm safety dictates you clear a weapon any time it comes into your possession. It couldn't be simpler with a revolver: If I am handed a revolver, the first thing I do is press the cylinder release and open the cylinder. If I see the backs of six cartridges, I push the hand release back and empty the cartridges into my hand. Now I know the weapon is clear. Baldwin did not take the ten seconds it takes do that and its friend is dead. Ten seconds to ensure the weapon is clear and the cinematographer enjoys a nice steak dinner that evening with the crew. You've just perfectly illustrated how ignorance of firearms gets people killed. Bravo!

100% false. You take possession of a weapon, you clear it. Period.

How does thee fallacy me? Let me count the ways...

1. Argumentum ad hominem: I am not the topic of this thread.
2. False binary: There is more than Trump/Not Trump
3. Red Herring: You have no evidence that your opponent is a "Trumper" but you also have no argument so you need to derail the discussion with irrelevant taunts.
4. False dichotomy: It is possible to criticize an arrogant blowhard who killed someone and not be a "Trumper."

Wow! Four fallacies in ONE SENTENCE! This may be a new record!

Be better than this. I know you can. I've seen it.

Criticizing the killer of that someone is now somehow a problem?

 

But it the opinions come from a false understanding, from woeful misinformation (or worse, disinformation as is often the case with firearms) then those opinions are easily subject to scrutiny and correctly dismissed. In other words, your opinion is meaningless if you can't back it up with facts.

If you cannot substantiate a position with facts, then you are just flapping your lips. Contributing to the noise. I won't tell you to shut up. but I will point out where you're wrong -- where your opinion is invalid, PARTICULARLY when your opinion supports policy-making based on false information, as is again often the case when it comes to firearms.

See: Credibility.

If a person is going to take a position on a topic, it behooves them to be knowledgeable enough on the topic to speak intelligently about it. Otherwise you'll end up like this clown:



Of course at least DeLeon above had the good sense not to muzzle-sweep an entire courtroom with a finger on the trigger like this absolute idiot:

And I can point out the folly of your views because I can prove they are not based on reality.

 

I don't have any opinions about guns that is rooted in technicality. I don't need to know how one works if I believe we'd be better off without them amongst the general population. I don't need to know how one works if I believe that - at the very least - people who have been professionally diagnosed as mentally ill shouldn't be able to buy a gun. I don't need to know how one works if I believe that there should be no 'carry' laws. I don't need to know how one works to know that hunting shouldn't need anything 'automatic'. (Of course, you can correct me on the proper term of 'automatic').

You don't agree with my views - and I accept that. But I don't need any specific working knowledge of guns to hold those views and I have a right to them as well. Just as you, with our laws, have to right to own one.

 

could have been sabotage, maybe by a disgruntled employee or Trump supporter, we do not know yet

 

Baldwin's remarks were probably scripted by his lawyer.

 

A Trump supporter caused Baldwin to act stupidly?

 

The real issue is: Who put live ammunition in weapon which was a prop? I assume that in shows like this where weapons are fired frequently, no live ammunition is present.

 

possibly, no one knows who put a real bullet in a gun that was supposed to have blanks yet

"maybe by a disgruntled employee or Trump supporter, we do not know yet"

 

The vast majority of gun owners ask for and would welcome policies that kept people with mental issues from having guns, so a lot of gun people agree with that part. There's a lot of other steps that should be taken too- but politics literally refuse to consider. Like the aspect of a gun theft being no different than the theft of your TV; classed as a petty theft and not getting any investigative effort.
It's also true that what you think you don't need to know does matter, because not understanding almost anything disqualifies your opinion.

Guns are not malicious, they don't stalk people, they are simply mechanical devices. The thing to fear is the person that embraces violence as reasonable- the person using the weapon; ANY weapon.
Passing gun laws is not going to reduce their numbers or attitudes- and sadly right now, over and over we see that the latest criminal had been arrested 50 times before and was put back on the street, often with zero bail.

 

Numerous rules were violated. Employees had already quit because of accidental discharges. Employees were using the guns with live rounds for target practice. There was not supposed to be any live rounds on the set. Baldwin should have checked the weapon himself, especially give the conditions he was allowing on the set. The set was an accident waiting to happen.

Baldwin should have been more worried about what was in the gun than what was in our wallet.

 

Those are indeed primary questions. With anything inherently hazardous. there are usually multiple protocols used so they back up the safety concerns; you might say redundant on the safe side.
Live ammo on the set was certainly a major break of what should have been standard protocol. I've not heard anything that would imply there was a purpose or need for that.

 

which is why I say it seems like sabotage