Yes, yes he did. The same way that Jeff feels that I made a mistake setting foot on a Boeing aircraft without possessing a pilot's license. You know, just in case I need to land it in an emergency.

That doesn't surprise me. I've seen movies where people fire several rounds, the gun goes bang, there's a flash and blood, but the slide and the person's hand doesn't move at all. I've also seen some movies where the person seems to be moving due to recoil, but it looks "off" and the other tells (bang, flash, trigger pull) don't seem to line up correctly.

I assume for scenes where a slide locks back because the mag is empty may be from firing a blank?

I just watched John Wick. I can't imagine that much of the gun-work was done using blanks. There was a lot of very close shooting. Maybe that would have been a good time/place for the electric prop guns that cycle the slide, etc....

Yes, electric guns work the slide and also have muzzle flash. Unfortunately they are substituted for semi autos, no bueno with revolvers.

LOL! Maybe that's the reason for giving retired pilots free airfare..

I do not disagree with what Jeff is saying, are actors that dunce that they cannot take the minimal amount of time to understand a tool they are using?

I would wager that K. Reeves understands how the firearms he is using work and has taken the time to check the tool(s) when it is given to him prior to a shoot.

Why does it have to be one or the other Craigster? There are the safety folks, but why cannot an actor be given a basic understanding?

I'm not saying actors are geniuses or anything.

But really.

Try remembering The Gettysburg Address, grab an AK47, running 50' across the yard, landing on the exact spot that I told you to stand on, look into the camera (with 25-40 people hanging on your every word and hoping to fck you get it right so we can move onto the next scene).

Now, recite The Gettysburg address and remember what Craigster told you about the weapon.

Not so easy is it?

didn't Brando use cue cards?

I fully appreciate that, craigster, and you have my fullest sympathy in dealing with folks like that. But... guns.

This is serious stuff. No room for fragile egos amongst those people, no room for political stances. They have been handed a gun. With it, they have accepted responsibility whether they like it or not.

You mentioned earlier that you don't want this sort "fiddling" with guns. I do appreciate that that is a tough one when dealing with this sort. But, in my world, I expect anyone I hand a gun to "fiddle" with it. As a matter of fact, I demand they do so, while I'm watching. If they are unwilling or unable, I take it back, and they just don't get to handle it anymore.

So, going a bit further off-topic than I already have regarding these "hijinks", I feel I owe you a bit of clarification. I didn't want to get too deep into this, but now I see where my comments could be, and were, misunderstood. My fault entirely. Sometimes, in my defense, these paragraph or two sound bites don't always convey the full story.

Anyway, I hunt with revolvers. One of the unfortunate necessities associated with that sport is dealing with the revolvers and the heavy loads required. The blast and recoil are very disconcerting, even for a guy like me. If I go any period of time without shooting my heavy hunting loads, I very much have to "sneak up" on them. I can't just stuff them in a revolver and shoot them. I will develop a pretty serious flinch almost immediately if I try.

So, what's a poor handgun hunter to do? Well, we employ a version of the "empty chamber" trick. We have someone else load the gun. It may have some heavy hunting loads in it, or it may have nothing but light plinking loads. Or any combination thereof. We just don't know. Some will go "poof", some will go "BOOM!!!!!". And this trains us to deal with it. So, yes, there is actually a practical reason for doing this, and we are all used to it. And we would never, ever, under any circumstances play this "trick" on an inexperienced shooter. That would be mean. Not dangerous in any way, just mean. And it might put them off from shooting. We certainly don't want that.

Good one - I love it. SmileWavy

Not even remotely equivalent, however. To render this somewhat equivalent, I would have to have placed you in the pilot's seat, put the yoke in your hands and your feet on the rudder pedals. Then I would have to have told you "go ahead and wiggle the yoke, play with the rudder pedals - the aircraft is on the ground and the engines are not running. You can't hurt anything." All the while we are actually on final, the runway is coming up quickly, and you have no fcking idea what to do. :D

The above "it just went off" horse manure is as legitimate as "honestly officer, I have no idea how that bag of pills ended up in my pants pocket". Really? :rolleyes:

Anyone who remembers MM understands what an insult that is.

Yeah, huge cringe with that comparison.

No, I’d question what the protocol is surrounding being on set with a deadly weapon. I wouldn’t be wishing that Heston hang. That’s just stupid.

Exactly, that’s where it gets dicey for him. To what extreme did they cheap out on production?

Emo much? Of course it’s not that simple.

Read about it. Its all over in the msm. I'm still trying to understand how zactly a live round got into the workplace then into the firearm when that is supposedly not allowed......

No harm no foul Jeff, I understood what you meant by "hijinks", I'm an Army vet :D.

And I wasn't taking a dig at Boeing, just that your version of safety on the job building and maintaining aircraft is just as important as ours is with regard to firearms safety wise.

I could imagine going to some of the countries you've been to trying to solve an issue, you must have cringed many a time with the way they followed their own "protocol". i know I have when traveling and working on "location". SmileWavy

One competent person is better than two of anybody in a deal like this

Were I a staunch anti gun person, there is no way I could make my living glorifying guns and violence. How could you live with yourself?

I read that it was budgeted at $7 million. That would barely cover the cast salary on an episode of "Friends".

I'd be interested to know what the other talent in the industry has to say about this. Do the other actors blame Baldwin for cutting corners or are they sympathetic? How do they think this will impact other movies involving guns? Will Baldwin end up as a pariah? I would think this is gonna cause a real shake-up in the industry.

Time will tell, I suppose.

Yes it is.

It concerns me, knowing that you claim to be a "gun owner", that you think it is more complicated than that. Or that there is any emotion whatsoever involved in this. There simply is not, nor did I convey any in that post.

We have had a number of gun discussion recently, you and I. From them, I have determined that in your view, the only path to gun safety is to restrict access. The only safe gun is one that no one ever handles.

My approach, of course, is diametrically opposed to yours. Mine is one of education. In my estimation, if everyone who is even remotely likely to come into contact with a firearm is familiar with not only their safe operation, but, additionally, the consequences of handling them in an unsafe manner, everyone is that much safer. No "forbidden fruit". No mystery.

And, well, through this tragedy, we have been presented a ready example of the outcome of your approach. Only certain people are allowed to "fiddle with" firearms on a production set. Folks who are completely unfamiliar with firearms are then allowed to handle them, being told that the "experts" have ensured their safety. And now, as a result of this approach, someone is dead.

Had Alec Baldwin been allowed to "fiddle" with this revolver, had it been a requirement that he do so and inspect it to ensure it was "cold", this poor young lady would still be alive.

Your approach is flawed. Fatally flawed.