Inanimate Objects

[Nomad]

Bullshit. She said no such thing.

Pulling the hammer back starts the cylinder rotation making it impossible to fire if the hammer is released, even original SA's will lock the hammer out and they will NOT fire because the cylinder is not aligned with the barrel.

Again, Baldwin did not follow the first rule of gun safety when he picked up or was handed the gun. Treat it as if it's loaded!


DUMPSTER TRASH DONNIE! doesn't have a damn thing to do with Baldwin's incompetence. He can lie all he wants, he pulled the hammer back all the way and pulled the trigger.

Too bad you don't know as much about guns as you try to imply you do even with all your obnoxious, gasbag bloviating.

From his interview with George Stephanopoulos:

Baldwin told ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos that the incident happened during a marking rehearsal, during which cinematographer Halyna Hutchins directed Baldwin to hold the gun at a certain angle for the film.

“She's guiding me through how she wants me to hold the gun for this angle, and I draw the gun out and I find a mark. I draw the gun out — if I don't, cut. And what's really urgent is the gun wasn't meant to be fired in that angle,” Baldwin said.


“I'm shooting just off … in her direction. I'm holding the gun where she told me to hold it, which ended up being aimed right below her armpit was what I was told, I don’t know. This was a completely incidental shot, an angle that may not have ended up in the film at all,” he continued.

Baldwin explained that as he cocked the firearm he was using — putting the hammer of the weapon under spring tension in preparation for firing — he let go of the hammer, and the gun discharged.

“So then I said to her ‘Now in this scene, I'm going to cock the gun.’ I said, ‘Do you want to see that?’ And she said, ‘Yes.’ So I take the gun, and I start to cock the gun. I'm not going to pull the trigger,” Baldwin told Stephanopoulos. “I said, ‘Do you see the shot? ‘Well just cheat it down and tilt it down a little bit like that.’ And I cock the gun and I go ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’ And she says — and I let go of the hammer of the gun and the gun goes off.”

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kn...-how-gun-misfired-on-rust-set-despite-trigger

Of course your assumptions are BS and your lack of gun knowledge notwithstanding, if the gun was a revovler and it was fully loaded with a bullet in every chamber, and he only pulled the hammer back partially then let it go, the firing pin on the hammer could have struck the primer on the bullet hard enough to discharge it.

Again, it's obvious that your implied expertise on guns is not what you want people to think it is.

As with everything else you open up your nasty, ignorant redneck mouth about.

 

[Into the Night]

It is rare but a gun can go off without pulling the trigger.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that SUV cannot kill people on it's own unless the driver forgets to put it in parking, something faulty in the mechanism or it's one of those self driving SUVs that goes berserk.

Only if the safety mechanism is off. Safety-less guns such as Glocks use a striker action. They cannot go off even if dropped from a considerable height.

One cop was just sitting there when he saw a car (not an SUV) that had no driver, rolling uphill, backwards, on fire.
They still talk about that one down at the station!

Turned out the car was parked at the bottom of the hill, developed some kind of electrical trouble (that started the fire and started the engine). The car, left in reverse (manual transmissions have no 'park' gear), and it started rolling uphill on it's own. It didn't kill anybody, but started a small fire in the ditch where it finally left the road.

During CES of 2018, a self driving car ran over an autonomous robot. The robot was totally destroyed and the car suffered minor damage.

No one was hurt, and since there was no driver for either machine, it basically turned into a shouting match between one group of programmers and another group of programmers on who's fault it was. Nothing like trade shows displaying the latest technology!

 

[Into the Night]

This was a horrible accident! Stupid and preventable!

But was not Baldwin's fault!

GET OVER IT ALREADY !

AND PLEASE STOP WITH ALL THE DRAMA QUEENING AND ATTENTION WHORING! PLEASE!

JUST BECAUSE YOU DID NOT LIKE THE WAY BALDWIN MADE YOUR PRESIDENT OUT TO LOOK LIKE THE WORLD'S LARGEST IDIOT!

It is the fault of Baldwin and the fault of the armorer. You are supposed to always check the gun.

 

[AProudLefty]

Only if the safety mechanism is off. Safety-less guns such as Glocks use a striker action. They cannot go off even if dropped from a considerable height.

One cop was just sitting there when he saw a car (not an SUV) that had no driver, rolling uphill, backwards, on fire.
They still talk about that one down at the station!

Turned out the car was parked at the bottom of the hill, developed some kind of electrical trouble (that started the fire and started the engine). The car, left in reverse (manual transmissions have no 'park' gear), and it started rolling uphill on it's own. It didn't kill anybody, but started a small fire in the ditch where it finally left the road.

During CES of 2018, a self driving car ran over an autonomous robot. The robot was totally destroyed and the car suffered minor damage.

No one was hurt, and since there was no driver for either machine, it basically turned into a shouting match between one group of programmers and another group of programmers on who's fault it was. Nothing like trade shows displaying the latest technology!

That must have been quite a sight to see!

 

[Into the Night]

Okay, so who cocked the gun?

Some guns are naturally 'cocked', such as striker action guns. Glocks use this design. They cannot fire even if dropped from a considerable height. There is no hammer in a Glock.

Others, such as the AR-15, use a hammer that cocks when you rack the weapon. Firing the round recocks the hammer automatically.

The only reason someone racks a Glock is to load the chamber with a round or to clear the chamber of a round. Even with a round in the chamber, a Glock will not accidentally fire if dropped. You have to pull the trigger.

 

[Into the Night]

That must have been quite a sight to see!

It was quite entertaining, yes.

 

[Into the Night]

However, a single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can fire without either the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled. When the hammer is down on that kind of revolver, the firing pin protrudes and, if a live round is loaded in the chamber underneath, a sharp enough jolt can cause the pin to strike the round’s primer with enough force to set it off.

This is why the “cowboy load” was developed. When carrying an old-style single-action revolver, it’s best practice to leave the chamber underneath the hammer unloaded. That way, a jolt can’t unintentionally set off a round.

None of that means Baldwin’s story is entirely accurate. It’s not clear if drawing a gun from a holster in this state would be enough to set it off. It still seems more plausible Baldwin pulled the trigger. But, the gun firing without the trigger being pulled is not as far-fetched as it sounds at first.

https://thereload.com/analysis-yes-alec-baldwins-gun-could-have-fired-without-him-pulling-the-trigger/

In revolvers, that's true, whether they are single or double action.
Baldwin pulled the trigger to fire the gun. He didn't check the round in it at the very least. The gun did not go off accidentally. It had a live round in it instead of a blank.

How that live round got into the gun is also in question. Did the armorer put it there? Did Baldwin put it there? What the hell is a live round doing on ANY movie set?

 

[Into the Night]

It was absolutely 100% Baldwin's fault. How was it not?

Correct. He at the least should've checked the gun.
Where did the live round come from?

 

[AProudLefty]

Correct. He at the least should've checked the gun.
Where did the live round come from?

That's the question, isn't it? It's almost as if it was sabotaged.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Some guns are naturally 'cocked', such as striker action guns. Glocks use this design. They cannot fire even if dropped from a considerable height. There is no hammer in a Glock.

Others, such as the AR-15, use a hammer that cocks when you rack the weapon. Firing the round recocks the hammer automatically.

The only reason someone racks a Glock is to load the chamber with a round or to clear the chamber of a round. Even with a round in the chamber, a Glock will not accidentally fire if dropped. You have to pull the trigger.

This was a single-shot 1870s-type pistol. There's only one. It's .44 cal and shoots .45 Long Colt cartridges. Back in the day the cartridges were paper sometimes.

Colt 1873 single action.

 

[RB 60]

Too bad you don't know as much about guns as you try to imply you do even with all your obnoxious, gasbag bloviating.

From his interview with George Stephanopoulos:



Of course your assumptions are BS and your lack of gun knowledge notwithstanding, if the gun was a revovler and it was fully loaded with a bullet in every chamber, and he only pulled the hammer back partially then let it go, the firing pin on the hammer could have struck the primer on the bullet hard enough to discharge it.

Again, it's obvious that your implied expertise on guns is not what you want people to think it is.

As with everything else you open up your nasty, ignorant redneck mouth about.

It is virtually impossible. Period. Show us the actual SA handguns you own and how they will malfunction in the way Baldwin claims.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In revolvers, that's true, whether they are single or double action.
Baldwin pulled the trigger to fire the gun. He didn't check the round in it at the very least. The gun did not go off accidentally. It had a live round in it instead of a blank.

How that live round got into the gun is also in question. Did the armorer put it there? Did Baldwin put it there? What the hell is a live round doing on ANY movie set?

A single action revolver normally has three positions for the hammer. Down where it rests against the round in the top chamber, if there is one. Slamming the hammer hard or dropping the gun might cause the chambered round to go off but it can't be a casual bump. It takes more than that. The second, is half-cocked. This is the "safe" position. The hammer is off the chamber and round but cannot be dropped onto it either, you need to fully cock the gun first. Full cocked. In this position it is ready to fire on a trigger pull. Some modern single actions have a second safety included that when put in the safe position keep the gun from firing.

 

[Nomad]

It is virtually impossible. Period. Show us the actual SA handguns you own and how they will malfunction in the way Baldwin claims.

The gun firing without the trigger being pulled is not as far-fetched as it sounds at first.

A single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can fire without either the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled. When the hammer is down on that kind of revolver, the firing pin protrudes and, if a live round is loaded in the chamber underneath, a sharp enough jolt can cause the pin to strike the round’s primer with enough force to set it off.

 

[RB 60]

The gun firing without the trigger being pulled is not as far-fetched as it sounds at first.

A single-action revolver with the old-style firing mechanism can fire without either the hammer being cocked or the trigger being pulled. When the hammer is down on that kind of revolver, the firing pin protrudes and, if a live round is loaded in the chamber underneath, a sharp enough jolt can cause the pin to strike the round’s primer with enough force to set it off.

Is that how your SA operates? Funny, mine doesn't. But then, if you knew what you're talking about, you'd know that.

 

[Nomad]

Is that how your SA operates? Funny, mine doesn't. But then, if you knew what you're talking about, you'd know that.

The gun they were using was an antique, clown.

It was from the 1800's.

Because that's the era in which the movie was set.

Jeez, you're fucking thick-headed.

 

[RB 60]

The gun they were using was an antique, clown.

It was from the 1800's.

Because that's the era in which the movie was set.

Jeez, you're fucking thick-headed.

The gun was a Pietta replica. A modern firearm.

Do you own an original peacemaker? I do.

 

[Flash]

Okay, so who cocked the gun?

Baldwin said he pulled the trigger back and asked if that was far enough for the shot, it then went off.

 

[RB 60]

Baldwin said he pulled the trigger back and asked if that was far enough for the shot, it then went off.

If he pulled the trigger back without the hammer being fully cocked, the gun cannot and will not fire.

 

[Nomad]

Baldwin said he pulled the trigger back and asked if that was far enough for the shot, it then went off.

He pulled the HAMMER back, not the trigger.



.

 

[Nomad]

The gun was a Pietta replica. A modern firearm.

Do you own an original peacemaker? I do.

Look at the firing pin on one that is exactly the same as they were using...

Don't tell me that it could not accidentally strike a primer and discharge a bullet if the hammer was pulled back even slightly.

And the assistant director on the set has backed Baldwin's claim that he did not have his finger on the trigger.

According to him, Baldwin's finger was sticking straight out forward, parallel with the barrel at the instant the gun went off.

Looks like you all are going to be disappointed once again.

Not gonna get to exploit the death of a woman for political points.

Awwwwwww...... how sad for you poor little Dumpster Trumpsters.