The location of where the handling of firearms takes place is irrelevant to the rules of safe firearm handling. A fact you cannot seem to wrap your mind around. There is no invisible force field around a movie set that deflects common sense and personal responsibility.

Blank ammo for western stage props.

https://westernstageprops.files.word...nspecified.jpg

Ya you're right. At no point in a film is a gun ever pointed in the direction of someone without intent to kill.

Someone needs to go back to 1993 and charge someone with Lee's murder.

:spock: Where have I stated, or even insinuated that Baldwin intended to kill anyone? You're off you're rocker here. Are you some kind of Baldwin fanboi? Someone who's life is so pedestrian that you live vicariously through celebrities to the point of losing touch with reality? "But, it's a movie set! But, He's an actor! But, it's Hollwood, the normal order of things does not apply to these people I want to be!"

Seriously, get a grip.

I knew you would miss the point entirely.

The "point" was pointless in regards to the point of he who holds the weapon is ultimately responsible for the damage it causes.

We're kind of talking past each other here. The factors that suggest or obviate culpability are being weighed. The final decision is with prosecutors and ultimately a jury if necessary. No one is making a 'ruling' here.

But you are asserting that the fact that things have been done in the past and no one got hurt, therefore there is no possibility of culpability. That's not how it works. When bad things actually do happen, particularly involving dangerous instruments, . . . that is when you start tracking down proximate cause and who is responsible.

As regards the Lee case, I'm not going to track down primary documentation of what all went on in deciding how to proceed in the wake of that incident. But in that particular case, it was a particularly random factor that led to the injury and death. The gun was in proper working order, and the proper blanks were in it. What went wrong wasn't checking the normal danger signs like whether it's loaded and what it's loaded with. It happened, discovered through inference after investigation, that in prior use, a close-up was photographed down the chamber, and they but a piece of ordinance in there so you could see the 'bullet.' Then when it was used later, the piece of ordinance had lodged down in the barrel itself, and the blank was loaded behind it.

To find such an odd condition would require someone to do something well beyond normal safe handling of a weapon. Though the prosecutors COULD have charged if they weighed the factors differently, they used discretion to decide that, between the oddity of the facts and presumably the demeanor of the actor responsible, that it would be too difficult to convince a jury for conviction.

That's different from saying 'no one prosecuted this guy, so everyone can relax their standard of care, and stop worrying about how dangerous a gun is.'

I don't know why everyone is fixated on blanks, there's no indication that the gun was loaded or was supposed to be loaded with blanks. The description of the scene is that Baldwin draws his gun and backs out of the room, nothing about the gun being fired. I think it's likely the gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds, i.e. rounds with no powder.

And it's pretty clear who the responsible party is here. Supposedly live ammunition is prohibited from movie sets, which makes perfect sense because there's no reason for it to be there in the first place. There was apparently only 1 armorer on the set of this movie at the time because of a strike from the union employees.

I'll leave you to the math.

That pretty much tells you all you need to know. A head armorer feared putting blanks in a gun.

You're not proving what you think you are proving. The liability of the other people on set is a separate matter from Baldwin's duty with the gun in his hand.

Yawn. I'm out. Let me know when Baldwin escapes prosecution because of his celebrity status.

You should have ceased to hit the post right there.

From what we've heard so far, that's not what happened. It fired when he was taking it out of the holster.

I was going to post something similar earlier, but my give a shit just wasn't there. I mean, is there a bullet on the end or not? It shouldn't be hard to tell a blank round from the real thing, at least for most people.

So you want your actor or actress pulling all bullets out of the gun, making sure they're blanks, then reloading it? That seems super safe.