Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
We discussed all of that at length when it happened, Peter. My opinion (and that's all it is) has not changed. It does not matter how that gun wound up loaded. Not one whit. What matters is that Mr. Baldwin did not personally check that gun when it was handed to him. From the moment he took possession, he became responsible for that gun, and whether or not it was loaded. That is the single most basic rule of firearms handling. Someone tells you the gun they just handed to you is "unloaded", the first thing you do is check. Each and every time, without fail, no excuses. Mr. Baldwin failed to do that, and as a result, Mr. Baldwin killed that lady. No one else killed her, no one else shares any responsibility whatsoever. Not even the guy who loaded it.
Sorry, there is simply no wiggle room here. There are never any "do overs" when it comes to this. These rules are absolutely inviolable, for anyone and everyone who handles firearms under any circumstances. No quarter. I don't care who they are, how "important" they are, if they have convinced others that such plebeian tasks are below their exalted station - it is their responsibility and theirs alone. Accepting possession of a gun is accepting responsibility for its condition and anything that happens with it while in your possession. Period.
|
cant go along with its the actors responsibility.
what if they handed a gun to someone like angelina jolie, jen anniston, or julia roberts. do you think any of them would or should have the knowledge to be held responsible for checking a gun. once handed to them their responsibility falls in not letting the gun out of their site.
thus the purpose of the armorer.
for that matter, would you hand a gun to biden and expect him to know how to check it, what about KH. (they should only be given water pistols)
it does matter how the gun got loaded.
suppose someone wanted her dead.
live ammo is not suppose to be on a set