quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Pale Horse:

Absolutely. I mean they wouldn’t call him in from his trailer just to fire the gun for an audio or lighting test, but if he’s already there with the gun they also wouldn’t bother substituting him with some stagehand. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons that someone would have wanted him to fire the gun onset without anyone recording.

Well, I think that's quite absurd. To believe an actor like Alec Baldwin would be wasting his time firing blanks so the camera and lighting effects people can fine tune their shots strikes me as ridiculous. And anyway, from all accounts, firing blanks off on set in such a manner without all the previous discussed protocols simply would never happen. An armorer would no doubt have to be present.

Furthermore, this whole discussion seems moot since we know none of this happened. Regardless of anything else, what we do know is that there was a negligent discharge. There wasn't any lighting or audio testing going on in regards to firing blanks.

I don’t know if there was or wasn’t and I’m not arguing anything. I’m simply saying that based on my 21 years of experience working in the entertainment industry on movies, TV shows, concerts, award shows, festivals, live theater, concerts, sporting events and corporate events, it’s believable that if Alec Baldwin was standing there holding the gun, someone might have asked him to fire it.

If your decades of experience in the industry tells you different then I guess that is what it is.

"There are MANY law firms involved".

AB is toast, couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

The definition of Karma!

"NM jury's understand guns" - Love it.

“ it’s believable that if Alec Baldwin was standing there holding the gun, someone might have asked him to fire it.”

If this was the case , he would have stated if from the start, rather than the kabuki theatre he’s engaged in and all his various excuses.

Jesus Christ. This is exactly why I’ve stayed out of this thread.

Look I’ve not spent the hours and hours reading all the shit and watching all the videos on this like some of you have. I don’t know what he said or she said or what anyone said.

Literally all I was doing was saying that an event that two members were disagreeing on was plausible. I’m not defending anyone or coming up with half assed theories or anything else.

Sorry for adding any actual experience to the discussion. I’ll let you all have your thread back.

Whoah there, National Velvet. Everything's cool.

A hatful of oats and a good brushing and you'll be good as new.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Whoah there, National Velvet. Everything's cool.

A hatful of oats and a good brushing and you'll be good as new.

Never was a big fan of oats. A good brushing though, well that sounds nice.

The tone of my post makes it seem as though I’m more worked up than I am. I’m not, it’s just another reminder to not get involved in some threads.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
I'm learning that terms such as "rehearsal" can involve many different aspects to the process.

True.
My point was that his actions with the gun could very well have been just his own practice with what he was going to be doing in the scene, and that could be rehearsal as well, but without all the rest.

We are told that we can become proficient with an optical sight on a handgun by drawing and aiming the gun 10,000,000 times (or maybe a little less ), and also that dry firing is an excellent way to hone our trigger control proficiency. I’m guessing, therefore, that at least a few of us here have combined the two elements into one sequence of action. Something like that isn’t too much different from what the actor is depicted in the animation as doing, and for basically the same reason: to become proficient with manipulating the gun in a competent and confident manner. The big difference, of course, is that no responsible gun owner would practice drawing, acquiring a sight, and pulling the trigger along with pointing the gun at some nearby person who could serve as a convenient target.

Ah, gotcha now.

Re-reading your previous comment, I see now that I focused too much on your last sentence regarding the use of a blank during a rehearsal, while missing the context of your point about combining training actions.. which I completely agree with.

During draw practice with an unloaded gun at home, I mix in a combination of dry fire trigger pulls on some draw repetitions with no trigger pulls on other draw reps. I'm skiddish about conditioning a reflexive trigger pull on every draw, rather than building in an assessment point first into the draw... so, combining two different elements into one training sequence, as you say.

Thanks for the explanation, as I managed to miss your larger point.

quote:

Originally posted by Modern Day Savage:
I'm skiddish about conditioning a reflexive trigger pull on every draw, rather than building in an assessment point first into the draw....

That’s an excellent point that does bear emphasizing regardless of how obvious it should be.

I have actually read posts from people who say that if they draw their guns in a defensive situation, they’re going to invariably shoot as part of the sequence.

Another example relates to the commonly taught technique for dealing with an autoloading firearm malfunction. At one time it was “tap, rack, bang.” At some point, though, the “bang” part became criticized as an automatic unthinking action, and it was changed (by many of us) to “reassess the need to keep shooting.” But not everyone agrees. I have often attended the sort of professional training that is so frequently touted here as the cure for all of our firearms-related shortcomings. During one session the instructor ridiculed the “reassess” part of the process by saying that if we have to clear a malfunction in the middle of a firing string, there’s no conceivable way we wouldn’t want to keep shooting immediately after getting the problem fixed.

Both attitudes are literally mind-boggling for me.
Police officers have been sued or even threatened with criminal prosecution for shooting an assailant in the back because he abruptly turned away as a defensive reaction as the officer was pulling the trigger at speed for a shot. What would a jury think if just as we started drawing our weapon the other guy suddenly dropped his knife, threw up his hands, and, “Oh, hey, man: Don’t shoot!” and yet we fired automatically as part of our draw sequence?
We’re supposed to be thinking human beings, not mindless automatons, just as your comment makes clear.

I recall Bruce Gray writing about becoming too automatic regarding malfunctions in competition causing him to have a "close call" when he was serving as a police officer. He was rightfully upset that his competitive training took over too well. It could have been disastrous.

I am not familiar with the single action gun being used in the filming but recall on old revolvers that the standard carry procedure was to have the hammer over an empty chamber as they did not have a half cock position to protect from a dropped weapon. Being Devil's Advocate here, could Baldwin have pulled the hammer back far enough (which he should not have done) to have enough inertia to ignite a primer but not have been far enough to engage the sear? When he released the hammer but not pulled the trigger could it have fired? Not defending anyone including him as there should have been no live rounds on the set but he may have actually been telling the truth about not pulling the trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by bettysnephew:
Being Devil's Advocate here, could Baldwin have pulled the hammer back far enough (which he should not have done) to have enough inertia to ignite a primer but not have been far enough to engage the sear?

No.

The one Colt SAA revolver I owned did have a half cock notch, but the traditional advice was always that half cock notches were not to be relied upon for carry or to make the guns drop safe as they were usually thin and somewhat fragile. That’s where the expression “going off half-cocked” originated. The usual guidance for traditional design single action revolvers was to leave an empty chamber under the hammer as the only sure way to prevent a discharge if dropped.

We can speculate forever, but to me by far the most likely explanation for what happened was what was depicted in the law firm’s animation: The actor was practicing (yes, “rehearsing”) an action that required him to draw the gun, cock the hammer, aim at a target, and pull the trigger. The reason the gun discharged was because of that action and because it contained a live round and the gun functioned as it was designed. Anything else seems like a far stretch, especially with no evidence to support it.

Lest we conservative gun owners forget at our own peril, countless unintentional discharges have occurred for precisely the same reason: the trigger of a loaded gun that was thought to be unloaded was pulled and the gun functioned as designed. As we’re enjoying the delicious thoughts of an antigun public figure being hoist with his own petard, that’s the most important lesson to be remembered about this tragic incident.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The one Colt SAA revolver I owned did have a half cock notch, but the traditional advice was always that half cock notches were not to be relied upon for carry or to make the guns drop safe as they were usually thin and somewhat fragile. That’s where the expression “going off half-cocked” originated.

It came from flint locks with the priming pan igniting with the gun at half cock.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
It came from flint locks with the priming pan igniting with the gun at half cock.

Thanks. I was not aware of how far back the term originated but it of course continued with later designs that incorporated the half cock hammer position.

The term itself in reference to impulsive actions taken without good thought and analysis is actually somewhat of a distorted corruption of the firearms related failure. If a firearm goes off “half-cocked,” it’s usually because of a mechanical failure or due to unsafe handling such as putting pressure on the trigger with no intention to fire. But many expressions that originally related to firearms continue in use today.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by bettysnephew:
Being Devil's Advocate here, could Baldwin have pulled the hammer back far enough (which he should not have done) to have enough inertia to ignite a primer but not have been far enough to engage the sear?

No.

I had to write a police report on a case where just that happened. Fellow was adjusting his saddle. Hammer snagged on the taco, and was drawn back not quite to half cock. He moved, hammer fell. Revolver discharged in the holster.

He suffered a wound in his lower right leg. Ammo was Remington SJSP, in .357 magnum. Revolver was a J. P. Sauer and Sohn. No transfer bar safety, just a firing pin mounted to the frame.

Accident occurred in front of well over 100 people, several of whom were looking at him right as it happened. I had to explain all this to the insurance folks, as the man was a member of the Governor's Ceremonial Guards, doing a PR detail at a benefit for children of some sort.

On the Pietta, is there not a Safety position that the hammer would catch first before the half-cock position? And doesn't this first position engage with only about a quarter of an inch or less pull of the hammer? It's almost immediate. Would the hammer even have enough force prior to that first position to set off the primer? I doubt it. If you listen again to the way Baldwin describes what happened, he pulled the hammer back way farther than that.

So again, No. What Baldwin described could not have happened without him having pulled the trigger. Unless of course there was damage to the firearm.

I've actually heard stories of SA guns going off in which the hammer was pulled back before the first safety notch. Yes it only moves a fraction of an inch, so we're talking a one-in-a-billion super-sensitive primer.

But even if Mr. Baldwin is giving an accurate recounting, this doesn't relieve him of responsibility. He still broke the first cardinal rule of gun safety, that all firearms are loaded unless you yourself check it.

^^^^^

Ok, that's fair enough. But of course, Baldwin explained that he "pulled the hammer back as far as he could without cocking the hammer." Surely that means he went way beyond at least the safety catch.

But again, as you say, nothing here relieves him of responsibility.

My money is on that Baldwin had his finger ON THE TRIGGER and when he pulled the hammer back, the gun was good to go, as designed.

quote:

Originally posted by Plugugly:


I had to write a police report on a case where just that happened. Fellow was adjusting his saddle. Hammer snagged on the taco, and was drawn back not quite to half cock. He moved, hammer fell. Revolver discharged in the holster.

He suffered a wound in his lower right leg. Ammo was Remington SJSP, in .357 magnum. Revolver was a J. P. Sauer and Sohn. No transfer bar safety, just a firing pin mounted to the frame.

I have the same gun in .45LC, it did the EXACT same thing, except it caught my belt loop.

The first cock "safety" on these have the hammer still touching the firing pin.

The revolver, which is now in police custody, will be (has been) found to have been in proper working order and when the police test it, they will find that they will not be able to fire it except in the manner its designers/manufacturer intended.

And by the way, anyone who has fired a Colt Single Action Army or its replicas knows that the cylinder will not index fully to the next round if the hammer is brought to only half cock, and they also know if the hammer is pulled past half cock but is not fully locked in the fire position, the hammer will fall to the half cock position. This, also, will be (has been) tested by the police on this particular revolver.

Bottom line: when this matter reaches the courts, Baldwin's lie will be proven to be exactly that. His bullshit will not save him this time.