Ultimately, though, as someone that is very familiar with guns, I have a hard time sympathizing with Baldwin. You brought real guns onto the set, and you pointed them at people. Primarily people that had no business having the guns pointed at them. It wasn't even another actor during filming, which I would have at least understood to some degree. It seems like the perfect storm of things had happened for him to "accidentally" kill this person he didn't like.
At the end of the day, any actors / set workers handling real firearms should have thorough training before using them. Trigger discipline, how to check the chamber, identifying cartridge types, emptying the chamber before setting it down, not aiming at people who aren't even actors...
the scene involved pointing the gun towards the camera, which means the gun is pointing towards the crew.
> Trigger discipline
How do you maintain trigger discipline when the scene requires you to point a gun at someone, or in someones general direction, with your finger on the trigger?
> check the chamber, identifying cartridge types, emptying the chamber before setting it down
If an actor tries to check the chamber, messes with the cartridges, the gun immediately goes back to the armorer to be made safe before being handed back to the actor, if the actor check again, guess what happens?
It's very important to understand that on a film set the standard rules do not apply, or more precisely the rules apply in different ways.
I hope this tragedy serves as a lesson for those who are “anti-gun” who seem to think there’s nobility in being willfully ignorant about a simple mechanical device.
So you personally inspect your car for suitability, your food for safety, all amusement parks, buildings, tools, etc that you come into contact with? Yes, modern society would not be possible without outsourced responsibility.
>Negligence does not differ for actors.
Of course it does. Those with more knowledge and training are held to higher standards in specific contexts. That's why we have licensing and such. The question is how do guns fit into this context.
I'm a Harvard-trained lawyer with over 15 years of criminal litigation experience, including in homicide. I have a former client right now serving a sentence for involuntary manslaughter (he was originally charged with murder).
You don't need to listen to me. I have neither the ability nor the desire to force you to listen to me. But I promise you I know what I'm talking about.
Given how much thought, refinement and bloodshed are behind those rules, to not follow them seems immoral. Anyone handling a gun has a moral obligation to following the safety rules. Do to otherwise is criminal negligence.
I.e. I can understand the perspective that not checking a gun you are handed is always gross negligence even though I have friends that I don't think would know that.
* All guns are always loaded
* Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.
* Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
* Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
If you aren't willing to learn the difference between dummy rounds, blanks, and live rounds, then you shouldn't be pointing firearms at people and pulling the trigger.