Explain please. What gun control measures are being advocated as a result of this incident?
Alec Baldwin shooting
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11652
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Well, for starters:
You wanna make some kinda law to enforce personal inspections and mandatory trainings? If not, then you leave it up to the studios and they can do what they damn well please to whatever level of legal and/or moral risk they deem acceptable. It reduces to a simple business proposition.Mister Moose wrote: Why isn't it standard protocol for every actor who will fire a prop gun be personally responsible, to be trained to inspect firearms, be trained in the dangers associated with blanks, and be required to personally check each gun he is given to shoot, each time, each scene?
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11652
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
I think you're shooting from the hip here. There's a difference between gun control, usually new laws that place additional limitations on firearm ownership, and existing legal standards that apply to all kinds of dangerous conduct - "ordinary care" and "negligent homicide". I don't think the standard of ordinary care for any firearm involves pointing the gun at a person, or placing your finger on the trigger, or failing to check the gun you are holding.Coydog wrote: ↑Oct 27th, '21, 12:47 Well, for starters:
You wanna make some kinda law to enforce personal inspections and mandatory trainings? If not, then you leave it up to the studios and they can do what they damn well please to whatever level of legal and/or moral risk they deem acceptable. It reduces to a simple business proposition.Mister Moose wrote: Why isn't it standard protocol for every actor who will fire a prop gun be personally responsible, to be trained to inspect firearms, be trained in the dangers associated with blanks, and be required to personally check each gun he is given to shoot, each time, each scene?
-
- Double Diamond Skidder
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Dec 16th, '17, 14:35
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
another BS garbage diatribe from DHSdeadheadskier wrote: ↑Oct 27th, '21, 07:41 What's clear is certain people feel that those who are big meanies to Trump don't deserve due process. You know, a full investigation and evidence based hearing.
Had it been James Woods or Clint Eastwood who pulled the trigger, these same folks would simply say, "Thoughts and prayers" and move on with their lives
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
1) Watch a few more movies, you'll see all sorts of interesting behaviors regarding guns over the last 100 years or so. I've also heard they perform stunts with cars, trains and planes that some might consider negligent. Context is key.Mister Moose wrote: ↑Oct 27th, '21, 13:36I think you're shooting from the hip here. There's a difference between gun control, usually new laws that place additional limitations on firearm ownership, and existing legal standards that apply to all kinds of dangerous conduct - "ordinary care" and "negligent homicide". I don't think the standard of ordinary care for any firearm involves pointing the gun at a person, or placing your finger on the trigger, or failing to check the gun you are holding.Coydog wrote: ↑Oct 27th, '21, 12:47 Well, for starters:
You wanna make some kinda law to enforce personal inspections and mandatory trainings? If not, then you leave it up to the studios and they can do what they damn well please to whatever level of legal and/or moral risk they deem acceptable. It reduces to a simple business proposition.Mister Moose wrote: Why isn't it standard protocol for every actor who will fire a prop gun be personally responsible, to be trained to inspect firearms, be trained in the dangers associated with blanks, and be required to personally check each gun he is given to shoot, each time, each scene?
2) Standard of ordinary care? Who's standard? Are these standards codified in the law for all to see? If so, then this clearly falls in the realm of gun control and regulation. If not, then it's up to the private sector to come up with standards they deem acceptable and their standards might differ from yours.
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11652
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
1) Oh c'mon. Movies have entire special effects departments, back lots, CGI, green screens and sound stages to make something look real when it isn't. Do you think monkeys really flew in 1939?Coydog wrote: ↑Oct 27th, '21, 14:111) Watch a few more movies, you'll see all sorts of interesting behaviors regarding guns over the last 100 years or so. I've also heard they perform stunts with cars, trains and planes that some might consider negligent. Context is key.Mister Moose wrote: ↑Oct 27th, '21, 13:36 I think you're shooting from the hip here. There's a difference between gun control, usually new laws that place additional limitations on firearm ownership, and existing legal standards that apply to all kinds of dangerous conduct - "ordinary care" and "negligent homicide". I don't think the standard of ordinary care for any firearm involves pointing the gun at a person, or placing your finger on the trigger, or failing to check the gun you are holding.
2) Standard of ordinary care? Who's standard? Are these standards codified in the law for all to see? If so, then this clearly falls in the realm of gun control and regulation. If not, then it's up to the private sector to come up with standards they deem acceptable and their standards might differ from yours.
2) I would start with the criminal court's standard. And of course the other real world determinant is the insurance company's standard. And are you really trying to bundle negligence case law into gun control? I think you might be the only one.
All I've done is ask questions on what happened related to what firearm instructors would consider ordinary care. Those aren't my standards.
You're trying to make a gun control point where none really exists. This is an accident of carelessness, not of violation of background checks, purchasing a firearm, illegal magazine, caliber, or firearm type.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
I'm still pro 2A. I am alive today because my uncle carried, Hats off to sheriff Ray Holland. May he rest in peace. My half brother was murdered in Sept of 2020. My father was EX military and a LEO. We were taught from a young age to treat firearms with respect. 1.Is it loaded? 2. Ask how it it operates and verify safety is on. 3. Accept the firearm for inspection and clear the action in a safe direction to make sure it is empty. 4. Never touch a firearm without consent or supervision. AKA don't f around. 5.Never handle or fire a gun for the first time with out instruction. Basic rules kept me alive.
Alec Baldwin was anti 2A. He had no reason to even touch a firearm. They make CGI now. My 2 cents.
Alec Baldwin was anti 2A. He had no reason to even touch a firearm. They make CGI now. My 2 cents.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
If you think mandatory training is not a gun control issue, search on “Constitutional Carry”.Mister Moose wrote: You're trying to make a gun control point where none really exists. This is an accident of carelessness, not of violation of background checks, purchasing a firearm, illegal magazine, caliber, or firearm type.
Seven states require a permit to open carry a handgun, but do not require training. Sixteen additional states do not require a permit and also do not require training. In fact Texas, which previously required training, just passed a law that among other things, specifically dropped their training requirement because it was considered an infringement on 2A rights.
You ask why Baldwin was not trained to handle a handgun? We don’t know what level of training, if any, he had, but in New Mexico, it is explicitly not required for open carry.
Maybe it should be.
-
- Signature Poster
- Posts: 19671
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 09:35
- Location: New York
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Having been at the range and watched someone handle a firearm without training …. It’s terrifying.
Last edited by XtremeJibber2001 on Oct 28th, '21, 07:39, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
I'm not sure how you came to this moronic conclusion, but whatever.
Baldwin is a stone thrower, and his glass house just got shattered. Karma.
I get all the news I need from the weather report
- Simon and Garfunkel
- Simon and Garfunkel
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Do you believe training should be mandatory in order to open carry a handgun or is that moronic?
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Too soon?
- Attachments
-
- FB_IMG_1635436133281.jpg (25.52 KiB) Viewed 781 times
I get all the news I need from the weather report
- Simon and Garfunkel
- Simon and Garfunkel
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
Ok, that's a good one.
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11652
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
No where did I say mandatory training. You're still trying to make a gun control point where none exists. It is not training that is required, it is exercising ordinary care. There are many dangerous items, chemicals, objects and machines that can cause injury or death if handled negligently, that do not require training or licenses, including skis, poles, and riding lifts, and in this case, an open carried handgun in New Mexico. Even if you had training (required or not) and behaved negligently you would still bear liability, correct?Coydog wrote: ↑Oct 28th, '21, 07:17If you think mandatory training is not a gun control issue, search on “Constitutional Carry”.Mister Moose wrote: You're trying to make a gun control point where none really exists. This is an accident of carelessness, not of violation of background checks, purchasing a firearm, illegal magazine, caliber, or firearm type.
Seven states require a permit to open carry a handgun, but do not require training. Sixteen additional states do not require a permit and also do not require training. In fact Texas, which previously required training, just passed a law that among other things, specifically dropped their training requirement because it was considered an infringement on 2A rights.
You ask why Baldwin was not trained to handle a handgun? We don’t know what level of training, if any, he had, but in New Mexico, it is explicitly not required for open carry.
Maybe it should be.
Re: Alec Baldwin shooting
I see, so in MooseSpeak, when you openly question the firearm training of actors with:
My bad.
it actually has nothing to do with training and translates to "Did Alec Baldwin exercise ordinary care when handling the firearm?"”Mister Moose” wrote: Why isn't it standard protocol for every actor who will fire a prop gun be personally responsible, to be trained to inspect firearms, be trained in the dangers associated with blanks, and be required to personally check each gun he is given to shoot, each time, each scene?
My bad.