I'd like to throw a wrench into this and state that the US and its growing "shootings" problem, can place a lot of the blame at Hollywood and the TV. The cavalier manner in which guns are routinely abused and misrepresented has led to countless millions of people perceiving them in a cavalier way.

Guns are routinely pointed at people in the movies, they are pulled out and used threateningly in many movies. It is very rare indeed to see guns portrayed with the respect and common sense that's demanded in law, so many, especially the young, have subliminally assumed that these kinds of behavior are acceptable, warranted.

Consider the case of the dude who recently shot at the car in his driveway and killed the young woman. Under no circumstances - and this is enshrined in laws at state and federal level - should one ever ever ever discharge a firearm without being 100% certain of the target. One must be able to see the target, identify the target and be beyond any reasonable doubt that it is necessary to shoot - at that target - in order to protect oneself and companions.

That dude will go down for that reason, he did not know/understand/care about, the law, he had perhaps been indoctrinated by the movies and the TV that he has a "right to purtect his praprty" and that's it.

It is close to unheard of to see guns used legally in the US entertainment industry, in so so many movies and shows they are used routinely in an illegal way, so the only exposure many get to the use of guns, is that improper use of guns.

So as long as the entertainment industry misrepresents guns and how to use them, mass shootings and the shooting of hapless people ringing door bells, can only get worse.

Examples:

This is illegal (note, he has his finger on the trigger too)



Guns are not to coerce people (a common theme in the movies) they are only to be pointed at a person with the utmost serious intention of killing them justifiably. Pointing a gun like that in a public setting is likely a felony, even here in Arizona. The gun could kill a person across the street, sitting in their house or just happening to walk by at that instant.

It is the cavalier disregard for or ignorance of, the law, that led to that girl being killed for driving down the wrong driveway, the young kid knocking on the "wrong" door and the poor cheerleader accidentally getting into the "wrong" car.

If - in all these cases - the shooter had understood and respected the laws and acted responsibly, not a single shot would have been fired.

 

I'd like to throw a wrench into this and state that the US and its growing "shootings" problem, can place a lot of the blame at Hollywood and the TV. The cavalier manner in which guns are routinely abused and misrepresented has led to countless millions of people perceiving them in a cavalier way.

Guns are routinely pointed at people in the movies, they are pulled out and used threateningly in many movies. It is very rare indeed to see guns portrayed with the respect and common sense that's demanded in law, so many, especially the young, have subliminally assumed that these kinds of behavior are acceptable, warranted.

Consider the case of the dude who recently shot at the car in his driveway and killed the young woman. Under no circumstances - and this is enshrined in laws at state and federal level - should one ever ever ever discharge a firearm without being 100% certain of the target. One must be able to see the target, identify the target and be beyond any reasonable doubt that it is necessary to shoot - at that target - in order to protect oneself and companions.

That dude will go down for that reason, he did not know/understand/care about, the law, he had perhaps been indoctrinated by the movies and the TV that he has a "right to purtect his praprty" and that's it.

It is close to unheard of to see guns used legally in the US entertainment industry, in so so many movies and shows they are used routinely in an illegal way, so the only exposure many get to the use of guns, is that improper use of guns.

So as long as the entertainment industry misrepresents guns and how to use them, mass shootings and the shooting of hapless people ringing door bells, can only get worse.

Examples:

This is illegal (note, he has his finger on the trigger too)

View attachment 292529

Guns are not to coerce people (a common theme in the movies) they are only to be pointed at a person with the utmost serious intention of killing them justifiably. Pointing a gun like that in a public setting is likely a felony, even here in Arizona. The gun could kill a person across the street, sitting in their house or just happening to walk by at that instant.

It is the cavalier disregard for or ignorance of, the law, that led to that girl being killed for driving down the wrong driveway, the young kid knocking on the "wrong" door and the poor cheerleader accidentally getting into the "wrong" car.

If - in all these cases - the shooter had understood and respected the laws and acted responsibly, not a single shot would have been fired.

Guns and Gun Safety taught to me at an early age. Access to guns without such training is how many people are killed e.g. current incident shooting on set with a trainer, safety specialist on set. Idiots handle guns wrong, expectations of the gun pointing and firing, but checking the gun for myself is what I do, the gun to me is always loaded until inspected. Most experienced actors own and train with them, all he new was clowning around with a deadly device.

Switzerland has many people trained to use guns, gun awareness is taught and people know what will happen when the gun is pointed and fired.

U.S. Is filled with violent people, unhappy children, entitled.

kv

 

Consider the case of the dude who recently shot at the car in his driveway and killed the young woman.

It's even worse - https://abcnews.go.com/US/6-year-parents-neighbor-shot-after-basketball-rolls/story?id=98717589

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-cheerleaders-shot-wrong-car-practice-rcna80366

Don't knock on a door in Kansas City - https://www.npr.org/2023/04/17/1170479923/ralph-yarl-kansas-city-teen-shooting

 

MOD NOTE: Let's please be extra careful to avoid taking this thread political.

I personally have several firm opinions about this, but am going to refrain from saying anything to avoid the emotions and the politics. This is NOT the proper venue for such discussions.

 

The NRA Eddie Eagle Gun Safety education program started in 1988 to teach children to avoid firearms but has met significant resistance in the public education realm. NOT how to use firearms safely but how to avoid firearms for children. Because it is from the NRA it has met significant blowback to an otherwise very important educational opportunity. Eddie Eagle is the doppelganger to Smokey Bear in the fire protection realm. If the money spent in education for drug avoidance (DARE, etc.) was also spent on firearms avoidance I do believe it would make a difference. We require education and both a written test and performance exam to operate a motor vehicle and now even motorized watercraft so maybe it is also time to consider some education and performance testing in the firearms arena. At the very minimum firearms safety and handling. EDIT: Which is required in most states to obtain a hunting license.

 

People forget that the 2nd amendment is itself just that, an amendment, a change to the original constitution; if the nature of weapons legality was changed once then it can be changed again.

 

The nature of legality of weapons has never been changed by an amendment.

The Bill of Rights was an amendment to the constitution, in this context "amendment" meant "addition".

And yes, the Bill of rights can be further amended, but that requires a constitutional convention.

 

The nature of legality of weapons has never been changed by an amendment.

So what did change as a result of that 2nd amendment? something must have else why make it?

 

The constitution changed, the Bill of Rights was added.

 

So what did change as a result of that 2nd amendment?

James Madison proposed the 2nd amendment to allow arming of the civil militia units without costing the US government for supplying their arms. According to title 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes. The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Edit: Basically, any male eligible to be drafted who is a citizen or wishes to be. Or, any female already serving in the National Guard. Yes, as I understand it, there are men in our armed services who are not citizens(?) but have taken the oath to defend our country. This is merely history, please do not let it become politics.

 

I'd like to throw a wrench into this and state that the US and its growing "shootings" problem, can place a lot of the blame at Hollywood and the TV. The cavalier manner in which guns are routinely abused and misrepresented has led to countless millions of people perceiving them in a cavalier way.

So by saying that, are you saying no one outside of the USA sees these movies or tv shows?

 

My own views. Apparently money talks. Negligence on the part of Alec Baldwin resulted in the death of a young woman. The gun in this case needed not only a trigger pull but being a single action revolver the gun needed to be cocked, hammer pulled back and locked before trigger was pulled. Baldwin was screwing around with a very real gun loaded with live ammunition. Even blanks used in a prop gun can do very real physical harm at close range. Along with gun ownership or even simply handling a gun goes responsibility. Apparently that does not apply to Hollywood actors.

I have guns, real guns. My guns have their own little house within my house.



The safe is actually a safe not what is a common RSC (Residential Security Container). Empty weight is 1500 LBs. The floor is concrete and the safe is secured to the deck using 1/2" lag bolts. A good actual safe with safe ratings like this runs about $3,500 but you get responsible security for your guns. Here nor there but I like the tried and true old fashion combination tumber lock much better than the new electronic locking mechanisms which I see as junk.

Baldwin acted in a totally irresponsible manner resulting in two injuries, one fatal. What happened here just reenforces my belief we have a judicial system more enmeshed with the rights of criminals over the victims.

Ron

 

My personal view on it is, if the movie set had a armorer in charge of the firearms, the principle responsibility is theirs.
In handing a Gun to an actor, they are responsible for there being no rounds of live ammo in the gun at all.
Baldwin, by his own admittance, new very little about firearms, so he probably never had a safety lesson on an any such armory.
Fortunately, having lived in countries that have had very strict gun laws, The main experience I have had with weaponry is in the British Army, where utmost safety is taught.
,

 

My own views. Apparently money talks.
[...]. What happened here just reenforces my belief we have a judicial system more enmeshed with the rights of criminals over the victims.

The only thing I disagree with here is that what you've said represents merely your views/opinions. I would argue that it is an observation of fact. Not only in judicial system. Don't forget about lobbyists; those with enough money can legally buy their own laws.

 

My personal view on it is, if the movie set had a armorer in charge of the firearms, the principle responsibility is theirs.

Absolutely I agree and they had an armorer on the set who had that job. The so called "armorer" should also be hung out to dry. There is no reason for one person to have a bullet pass through and another to be dead. Nothing short of negligence.

Ron

 

The only thing I disagree with here is that what you've said represents merely your views/opinions. I would argue that it is an observation of fact. Not only in judicial system. Don't forget about lobbyists; those with enough money can legally buy their own laws.

I really should not get started on my view of lobbyist. Sometimes in subjects like this I do start with "in my view" or "in my opinion". I do this simply because it's not like suggesting to a forum member why I would suggest a NPN verse a PNP in a circuit application. It goes much deeper. My so to speak love affair with the gun goes back to 1958 when a friend of my uncle gave me my first rifle, a .22 Remington Single Shot Model 510P. I was 8 years old. Growing up NYC (of all places) I just enjoyed the shooting sports. Sadly today we have no shortage of lobbyist stuffing money into out legal system. Hooray for my side. Yes, our elected officials are bought and sold daily on the big hill.

So while I can point to fact sometimes I can really only express an opinion or view so I tend to word things that way. What happened on that movie set is another example of what I call a perfect storm where a collection of things which could go wrong come together. Like Max pointed out. They had an armorer on the set who should have prevented this, then Alec Baldwin who having no clue managed to shoot and kill someone. When things like this happen it takes a collection of irresponsible people. They should all be held accountable.

Ron

 

Regarding Baldwin I think the problem is easy to solve, just takes some will or some new laws. Make it illegal to use real guns when making movies, period. Instead safe but realistic looking and sounding replicas should be the law, no other option.

Hollywood can easily afford stunning quality replicas, and then the armorer jobs is easier and meaningful, they just verify that all guns are replicas and all "ammo" is not real ammo. They can stipulate that the replicas be incapable of chambering real ammo etc.

This is a replica Colt Python for example:



I had a 8.5 inch, Smith Wesson model 29 years ago too from same (Japanese) manufacturer, easily good enough for movies. I have a real model 27 here now and the quality of the replica is clear, very accurate.

In fact here's an image of that model 29 replica:



Even someone who knows guns would be hard pressed to see these are not real, only if you know where to look and what to look for and in a movie that's likely not obvious. The model 29 (mine is long lost and the one above is likely old) was blued too, exactly like the real gun, same process, same color, it wasn't cheap paint or anything, but true blueing.

There is no reason at all to rely on the use of real, deadly firearms in the entertainment industry, what's wrong with people...

 

What he was using was a replica of the Single Action Colt that is made in Italy. But it is a completely fire able one as are many used for Cowboy Shooting sporting competitions since the originals are expensive when you can find one still fire able. Also, Replica firearms, toy and prop guns must have a blaze orange plug in accordance with government regulations and international laws. So modifying them to remove the orange would be illegal...

 

MOD NOTE: Let's please be extra careful to avoid taking this thread political.

I personally have several firm opinions about this, but am going to refrain from saying anything to avoid the emotions and the politics. This is NOT the proper venue for such discussions.

Kind of hard not to take it political when in reality it is.

 

What he was using was a replica of the Single Action Colt that is made in Italy. But it is a completely fire able one as are many used for Cowboy Shooting sporting competitions since the originals are expensive when you can find one still fire able. Also, Replica firearms, toy and prop guns must have a blaze orange plug in accordance with government regulations and international laws. So modifying them to remove the orange would be illegal...

I see. Well laws can be changed, I'm sure something other than a weapon that can take live ammunition, is possible. The obvious problem - to me here - is that people want to use real guns, it is asking for trouble and is frankly insane.

I also don't think anyone cares about the exact model of gun used in 99.99% of movies, any weapon that fits the historic period is fine, in fact they could even assemble their own guns, its been done before...