Alec Baldwin fires prop gun on movie set, killing cinematographer

[Edge-]

Even when used on set “safely” there’s inherent danger.

The same can be said for the use of cars, fake melee weapons, choreographed fist/martial arts fights, literally every stunt done in films ever etc. etc.

There’s 0 reason real guns should be used to make movies. Absolutely 0. And people like you going “but they safe” when we’ve had multiple injuries and deaths are being stupid. If they were safe there’d be 0 deaths and zero injuries.

Then let's also get rid of vehicles of any sort (cars, boats, helicopters), the entirety of the stunt profession, and now we're looking at needing to even do things like have totally open sets with nothing that could be tripped over by the actors.

Safety precautions mitigate danger, they don’t make something inherently safe. Even with proper safety protocols someone can be injured by a blank.

Everything has an element of danger to it, some more than others. That's why those safety precautions exist and, in the context of film, are overwhelmingly effective at preventing serious accidents outside of very rare occurences like this when the precautions aren't followed.

[Endus]

Everything has an element of danger to it, some more than others. That's why those safety precautions exist and, in the context of film, are overwhelmingly effective at preventing serious accidents outside of very rare occurences like this when the precautions aren't followed.

Hell, walking out your front door has an element of danger to it. Eating any food you have to chew. Taking a shower or bath. Etc.

Practically nothing exists without some risk factors associated with it.

[Benggaul]

Uh huh it just happened to have live ammo. Cause that’s normal right? And the accidentally quote is from him himself. I’m quoting his own comments. But go head and believe cops love to kill people on purpose. Because that always goes well. lmfao

Either way this is manslaughter. Hope he gets the shit sued out of him

Yes. It did. And that's not on him, but the armorer as has been mentioned numerous times. But I can tell at this point you're just trolling, so I guess you'll just disappear when he's not charged. Toodles.

[Edge-]

Yep, nobody claims car stunts or any other stunt is safe. Let alone stunt performers. Fuck, they get a big pay bump for all this kinda shit because of the INHERENT DANGER. It isn’t because it’s safe but “lol we pay more cuz it’s so kewl we’re willing to have you die or get seriously injured”.

So it's literally just quibbling over semantics then, which I guess is super super exciting.

I mean fair to a point but also like, you clearly know what we're arguing and that none of us believe it's 100% safe so I'm not sure what you're getting out of keeping this up.

[Edge-]

It’s literally debating over whether a statement is accurate or not, yes. I get since Trump people like to pretend words can mean wtf we want, but that’s not how it works.

Jesus, are you just always looking for a fight or something? You know what we meant even if we used imprecise language and clarified it repeatedly, yet still you persist in arguing.

[Edge-]

You’ve basically agreed at this point but still refuse to acknowledge there’s zero reason to keep using them.

Because if we follow this line of logic, then we shouldn't use cars. Or stunt people. Or have choreographed fight scenes of any sorts, weapons or not.

Guns are dangerous. Just as car stunts or driving scenes can be. Just as fight scenes can be. But with safety protocols in place, and when they're followed, the danger/risk is significantly minimize and fairly negligible, which the track record speaks to given how rare of an occurrence this is.

[Edge-]

Nah, see most of those can be done with literally zero chance of fatalities.

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...ry?id=80728600

Motorcycle accident caused a death
Another motorcycle accident caused a death
A freakin train caused a death
Drowned causing death
Car crash causing a death
Helicopter crash caused a death

So no, there's always the chance of fatalities and freak accidents. If you look, the use of firearms on set has a better track record than the use of vehicles in stunts.

The stuff that carries ANY risk of death? Yep, get it the fuck out. There’s no reason for people to die just so you can see Alec Baldwin play cowboy.

Literally anything on set can cause a death if standard safety rules aren't followed.

Trip over electric cables and break your neck? Possible. Exposed electrical wire fries someone? Possible. Choke on something from the crafts services table? Possible.

Hell, people already confuse live stunts for cgi because they’re too risky for a rational brain to accept. Why put that many lives at risk for a fucking movie?

...rarely. Let's remember how janky a lot of CGI still looks like in Black Panther. CGI can be used to enhance stunts, and often is, but you're essentially arguing to kill off an entire profession because there's the risk of injury death and like...man, that'll hit a lot of professions where that's simply part of the job, even if it's exceedingly rare.

[Beet]

Imagine being this much of a snowflake just because he made fun of your dear leader.

Wait who is my dear leader? Do you mean Trump? Imagine believing the only people who find Baldwin a hypocrite are Trump supporters. The world isn’t black and white. I know that’s hard for you to handle though. Nuance and all that.

[Edge-]

I said most, not all.

I didn't imply "all", I was pointing out that even if most can be done safely that there's still risk. There is always risk. It wasn't a "gotcha" attempt at all dude, I'm not in some "hostile" argument with you, we're having a discussion.

And 90% of gunfight sequences already use CGI because blanks don’t provide a cinematic enough effect. Airsoft, acting, cgi. Done.

CGI to enhance certain elements, yes. Which doesn't mean CGI can completely replace it and be remotely convincing.

I mean, you see that last Rambo movie or the Expendables movies? Nary a blood squib in sight, and the CGI blood is often distractingly bad.

[PhaelixWW]

Cops are very aware that they are working with live ammunition and get regular training. Baldwin was handed a gun that was supposed to hold blanks and it accidentally went off during the scene. Two very different situations.

It wasn't even "supposed to hold blanks". He was told, very specifically ("cold gun!") that it didn't contain even blanks. It should either have been empty or contained only dummy rounds.

Airsoft, acting, cgi. Done.

Eeeexcept no.

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah, better to keep having people die on set because it’s too hard to act like an airsoft gun is a real one.

Lol. "Keep having"? Thirty years, bruh. And those are due to gross negligence, not simple safety mistakes. Fail harder.

No, see a cold gun is one that’s not currently holding blanks or live ammunition. It’s either empty or loaded with dummy rounds. It doesn’t mean it can’t because on a set of a western every gun is a real gun(for the most part). They can all hold and fire ammunition, including blanks and actual cartridges.

You REALLY REALLY REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension. You're just embarrassing yourself further.

[Endus]

Nah, see most of those can be done with literally zero chance of fatalities.

Again, eating a sandwich from Craft Services has a non-zero chance of fatality. You're using an unworkable standard here that you do not, by your own admission, apply to other circumstances. It's hypocrisy.

- - - Updated - - -

No, see a cold gun is one that’s not currently holding blanks or live ammunition. It’s either empty or loaded with dummy rounds. It doesn’t mean it can’t because on a set of a western every gun is a real gun(for the most part). They can all hold and fire ammunition, including blanks and actual cartridges.

You realize the reason they use "real guns" is because "real guns" are far safer for using blanks with than whatever alternative you could come up with?

You can't plug the barrel when using blanks; the gun will back-blast onto the one firing and it could damage the weapon, creating a risk of it injuring someone.

With proper safety precautions, the chance of fatality is already near-zero. As demonstrated by 30 years without incidents. The issue here was not "there were guns on set". It's that safety precautions were suborned.

[Benggaul]

Jesus, are you just always looking for a fight or something? You know what we meant even if we used imprecise language and clarified it repeatedly, yet still you persist in arguing.

That's their thing. Has been for years. The last time I made sure it would be the last time.

[unfilteredJW]

That's their thing. Has been for years. The last time I made sure it would be the last time.

Nailed it.

[Machismo]

Some people make it very clear that they don't have a clue about firearms, firearm safety, or even common sense.

[uuuhname]

He’s a hypocrite.

not sure how that logic tracks. aside from people having an axe to grind with Baldwin for purely petty reasons.

[Endus]

What non-real gun fires blanks?

None. That's sort of the point. Anything you do to try and make the gun more "safe" will, necessarily, make it less safe than a real gun.

Using blanks is the equivalent of using a prop sword that doesn't have an edge. Can you still hit someone really hard in the head with it and do damage if you're careless? Sure. You still need safety precautions. But the potential for injury if mishandled is not grounds to stop using things entirely, it's grounds to ensure safety precautions are followed.

You're pearl-clutching over the wrong issue, to distract from the real issue, and it's no better than people fearmongering about weed candy or razor blades on Halloween.

[ghotihook]

What non-real gun fires blanks? And your strawman is noted. I was being pretty clear about stuntwork and the like. Shit that requires insurance. Check the posts.

A starter pistol can fire blanks and not real bullets.

[PhaelixWW]

Multiple people bruh. So you can enjoy a movie bruh. Nice to see you dismissing it though. For your entertainment. Bring back the lions and gladiators eh?

Lulz. They weren't the "acceptable cost" of that entertainment. They were caused by negligence, and should never have happened. They weren't caused by the regulated of firearms on set, as evidenced by the fact that they happen so rarely that many of this forum's users weren't alive the last time it happened, despite the millions (perhaps billions?) of blanks that have been fired on sets since then.

Like, it's understandable that you keep failing to address that fact, because it makes your argument look like shit.

The other thing you failed to address is how you nearly word-for-word repeated what I said as if it was a correction. You'd be better served to just admit the screw up, rather than shoving your head in the proverbial sand.

You're really low-effort, aren't you? Classic Scoobs.

[ghotihook]

If it can fire blanks it can fire real bullets. It may explode in your hand, but it’ll set them off.

Absolutely not true. Modern starter pistols cannot shoot real bullets without heavy modification. You can easily google this...