Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I’m not a gun expert but I know for a fact they don’t go off unless the safety is off and the trigger is pulled. Why wouldn’t he check the safety at least if he didn’t intend to pull the trigger? We need Columbo on this one!
I was not debating the veracity of AB's claim to have not pulled the trigger, only the notion that his previous comment somehow was inconsistent with his claim.
BTW, look for "P320 drop fire" or "slam fire" for examples of how guns can indeed go off without the trigger being pulled.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gun did go off right? Why would it then be inconsistent with his claim that he didn't pull the trigger if the order of events were
- AB is handling gun, at some point gun is directed towards victim
- hand of Zeus causes the gun to fire
- hearing the unexpected BANG and seeing the victim fall back, he thinks it's a heart attack (from the shock of the BANG I suppose) or the wadding from the gun (it did go BANG after all and it SHOULD have been loaded with blanks)
How is that some kind of "gotcha" moment?
You lost me?
It was the hand of Baldwin that caused the gun to fire. That was the only hand that was on the gun when it discharged. It's inconsistent with his claim because the only way that gun could go off is with his finger on the trigger while he was pulling the hammer back with his other hand. Or if the hammer was fully retracted and he then pulled the trigger.
How much crack is he smoking? He doesn't even realize he pulled the trigger. It's a revolver, which had to be cocked and then the trigger pulled. Baldwin believes the gun did these steps completely on it's own.
Really?
Wow. Just wow. Revolvers simply DO NOT "go off on their own".
It was the hand of Baldwin that caused the gun to fire. That was the only hand that was on the gun when it discharged. It's inconsistent with his claim because the only way that gun could go off is with his finger on the trigger while he was pulling the hammer back with his other hand. Or if the hammer was fully retracted and he then pulled the trigger.
I was not debating the veracity of AB's claim to have not pulled the trigger, only the notion that his previous comment somehow was inconsistent with his claim.
BTW, look for "P320 drop fire" for an example of how guns can indeed go off without the trigger being pulled.
You can't compare a Sig P320 to a Model 1873 Single Action Army revolver. They are two entirely different kinds of guns. Besides Baldwin did not drop the revolver that was in his hands. It went off while he was handling it.
With all due respect it's apparent that you do not know too much about guns.
You can't compare a Sig P320 to a Model 1873 Single Action Army revolver. They are two entirely different kinds of guns. Besides Baldwin did not drop the revolver that was in his hands. It went off while he was handling it.
I'm not comparing, when someone makes a statement such as:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
... I know for a fact they don’t go off unless the safety is off and the trigger is pulled.
I was pointing out examples of where that is not true, guns can and do go off without a finger squeeze. Whether the gun in question has the ability and what conditions might cause it to occur, I don't know. However, I do know that no one on this forum has actually examined said gun to verify that it was functioning properly when they keep claiming that the ONLY way the gun could have gone off is ...
I thought standard practice, for anyone who ever handles a firearm, is to open and check its status as soon as it's handed to you, no matter what anyone says about its status. And always to point it in a safe direction until the person holding it has personally confirmed its status.
How on earth could any sane person supervising a work site where firearms will be handled, not make instruction in their safe handling mandatory for all workers on that site, to include passing a test on safe handling? I mean, I can't even use an electric hoist or drive a fork truck at my workplace without completing instruction and passing a test. Those who regularly do those activities are regularly re-trained and re-tested.
David Hall has his own recollection. (Though with him, consider the source.)
NEW YORK -- An attorney for "Rust" assistant director Dave Halls says she was told by her client that actor Alec Baldwin did not pull the trigger on the prop gun that discharged on the film's set, killing one crew member and injuring another.
Quote:
"Dave has told me since the very first day I met him that Alec did not pull that trigger," Halls' attorney, Lisa Torraco, told ABC News' Kaylee Hartung in an exclusive interview airing Thursday on "Good Morning America." "His finger was never in the trigger guard."
You realize, right, that "Dave told me..." is hearsay. We'll have to find out what Dave says on the witness stand when the issue becomes whether he had his eyes riveted on the trigger guard of the gun the entire time.
We'll also have to hear whether experts determine if the gun is working properly, in which case it could not have fired while it was in Baldwin's hand unless the trigger had been pulled back.
I thought standard practice, for anyone who ever handles a firearm, is to open and check its status as soon as it's handed to you, no matter what anyone says about its status. And always to point it in a safe direction until the person holding it has personally confirmed its status.
To be fair on that specific point: If the gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds (or blanks, but blanks would not have been used for that kind of scene), not even opening the gate and checking the chambers would have prevented the incident because the case butts of Hollywood-style dummy and live rounds look the same from that view. Even worse, latest information is that on that set the dummy and live rounds were made from cases from the same manufacturer...so even the manufacturer markings on the butts of the cases would have been the same.
Dummy and live rounds would have been identical in appearance, as seen through the gate of the gun, even if Baldwin had checked it.
That's why the role of the armorer is so incredibly important...as important as a range officer on a military shooting range (and nobody of any military rank outranks the range officer on his own range).
To be fair on that specific point: If the gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds (or blanks, but blanks would not have been used for that kind of scene), not even opening the gate and checking the chambers would have prevented the incident because the case butts of Hollywood-style dummy and live rounds look the same from that view. Even worse, latest information is that on that set the dummy and live rounds were made from cases from the same manufacturer...so even the manufacturer markings on the butts of the cases would have been the same....
Well, that needs to stop. Basic safety practice in any field tells you that you never make dangerous things look like safe things. That's why in any commercial setting, hazardous materials must be kept in their original containers or containers that clearly indicate what's in them (no carbon tet in the orange juice bottle!)
It sounds to me like not only that one set, that one movie, that one production company, but the whole industry needs to be gone through from stem to stern, for a firearms safety review, and I'd suggest that the whole thing be managed by a couple crusty Marine Master Gunnery Sergeants. And tell them not to soft-pedal what they have to say.
Whole thing sounds totally indefensible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
