Re: OT. Movie Prop Guns

I agree, but the user was not a responsible gun owner. How many actors know how to properly check? That is why they hire professionals to handle such things but evidently, they hired some idiots.

Not sure who, but someone should spend some time in jail. Two people, the one that should have checked, also the one that hired him.

Looks like numerous individuals will share the blame and probably no one will go to jail. They could be sued in civil court.

Why would any responsible production company allow live fire on the set, whether the people were off work or not?

It still would not explain how live rounds got into the armorer's possession and how they got loaded into a prop gun. The reality is the armorer was incompetent by her own admission and the asst director may have loaded the gun.

The should not have let the production people fire the guns at all , especially just to shoot at cans and stuff while not working. Someone probably left a few live rounds in the gun after they got through 'playing with them'.

Still the armorer should not have let the guns be used just to 'play ' with and should have checked them each time before letting the actor touch them.

Even if I'm practicing with SnapCaps the muzzle is pointed in a direction where there are no people.

If they can't handle firearms responsibly they should stick to making sitcoms.

New Mexico might not be as happy go lucky as California.

.. even when your cinematographer is trying to capture your best side .. John T.

Baldwin and his ilk are proudly gun-ignorant.

Sorta' funny, really, for that virulent anti-gun crowd. Guess they never heard of "know thine enemy"

That got me thinking more. Initially I thought the same thing, that you would not think any live rounds would ever be there. IDK what the practice is. I would think it's possible that some movies do require live rounds for scenes, eg how did they film all those old westerns with bullets ricocheting off boulders as they were doing shoot outs? So upon further reflection, it seems to me that live rounds would be required for filming some scenes.

We'll have to see. It's possible the gun was loaded from whenever it was used for recreational shooting and it was somehow taken instead of the intended gun that was properly loaded.

The more facts you have, the harder it is to make rash speculation.

I say, No facts for me!

Trading on this woman's death. You're right, what scum.

He should be hanged, from a tree in Florida.

They are totally differnt things. Are the people who make movies about gangsters or murderers, or Jesse James, or Crusaders, or crucifying Jesus, who also woulddn't do those things in real life and dont' think others should do them, are they also doing something wrong? Are they hypocrites? What about authors who write novels about such topics?

If the movie were promoting gun ownership, you'd have a point** but it looks like this one does the opposite. **But it's hardly just Democrats who act in movies that promote views they don't have. You can't get enough work if you insist on supporting the message of every movie you're in. In fact if you judged most actors and actresses by the moview they're in, they'd seem to have no conscience at all.

What about people who go to such moviews or read such novels, but oppose the NRA and want a restrictive gun public gun policy? Are they doing something wrong too? Are they hypocrites?

(FWIW, there are some roles I would not play in a movie, and there are some movies I wouldn't play any role in, or work on the crew for, but I'm positive this is not one of them.)

"The film's plot follows a 13-year-old orphan who goes on the run with his long-estranged grandfather (Alec Baldwin) after he is sentenced to death for the accidental killing of a local rancher, according to the film's official page on IMDb." But even if it were an intentional** murder of the rancher, with a gun, I don't see anything contradictory in Baldwin playing the grandfaher of the shooter.

IOW, you're grasping at straws.

So he's against the NRA and wants a more restrictive policy on guns. Movies are not supposed to be real life. This one is an exception where someone got killed.

You are pretty convincing here.

The fact remains the best way to sell an obscure type of gun is to have it show up in a few movies or TV shows. The Colt Single Action Army was a dead product line. They stopped making them. Then after the western craze on TV, they were hot again, mostly for new gun buyers who wanted a gun like they saw on TV. Bill Ruger made a fortune. Same with Dirty Harry and the .44 Magnum. S&W had them languishing in warehouses until Harry told us "it is the most powerful handgun in the world" (although not really true) and they couldn't make them fast enough. They were sold mostly to people who didn't have a clue what to do with them. Most were resold with 6 or fewer rounds missing from the box of ammo they bought with the gun. You can't get better product placement than to have your gun show up in a movie. Hollywood sells guns.

Maybe revenge for Baldwin's betrayal of Trump on Saturday Night Live.

Payback's a bitch.

Only primitive minds are motivated by revenge.

Cindy Hamilton

I meant to say portrayal. And, do not forget, Trump has often said he is a counter puncher. Not actually revenge but natural reaction to getting punched in the first place.

True. When you lower the bar on decency, it gets lowered for everyone.