Advice on weaponry

[Andy]

Pronounced "Man Urine". An excellent shooter, I must say.

 

[Uwe]

-Uwe-

 

[Asus]

I like suppressor on all, make life better, Less noise, sleep better.
But as beginning post 4.5 lead single shot air rifle will do it (competition one, not bb red robin...).
Not gonna read it all.

Use full auto bb to have fun, rest of the ammo to expensive.

 

[Uwe]

-Uwe-

 

[vreihen]

^^^^^ Buy it NOW link or it doesn't exist! ^^^^^

Probably produced by these folks:

https://www.blacksheep-innovations.com/services

Looks more useful than Mopar's "Ram Box" storage bins that they cut through the top of the bed rails on their newer Ram pickups.....

 

[Uwe]

 

[vreihen]

.

 

[Uwe]

-Uwe-

 

[Crasher]

Ouch…

 

[vreihen]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/911425278123048960

 

[Uwe]

^^^^ He fucked around, and he found out! ^^^^

-Uwe-

 

[Crasher]

Half of me aggress, the other half doesn't. I like our Police not being routinely armed, I feel it makes them easier to liaise with. When I am abroad or in a UK airport where the Police are armed, I feel uncomfortable. In the two visits I have made to the USA I have found the attitude to guns alarming but if a suspected criminal would always expected to be armed, you could not criticise anyone for having their own guns. We have extremely strict gun control here but it won't stop the most determined animal as our brutally murdered MP David Amess shows, you can do a lot of harm even without a gun.

 

[Bruce]

Historically speaking, man has always found ways to kill other men. As long as some desire to do away with others, does it not make prudent sense to protect oneself to the best of one's ability?

The first layer of protection is to avoid the places where conflicts arise. The next layer is to use one's intellect to de-escalate whenever possible. The final step is to defend oneself.

Yet, there are many times when innocent bystanders get harmed or killed. There is no possibility of protecting oneself.

In the case of Alec Baldwin, even if the pistol was loaded wrong with live ammo, what the hell was he doing pointing the gun in the direction of people without knowing it was safe?

Simply put, he was responsible for his failure to safely handle the firearm. Rule #1 - never point a gun in the direction of anyone - keep it safe - loaded or unloaded.

Constant reminders must be given because it is easy to let up the vigilance of muzzle discipline and point a muzzle towards another human. And then what? Saying you are sorry does not cut it.

Andy, Uwe, Eric and Peter, are always spot on with their reminders of gun safety. They make sure the Ross-Tech shooters know where the muzzle is pointed and where fingers should be when a gun is loaded and ready to fire.

 

[Uwe]

I look at it this way:

Did he point that gun at a person?
- Yes he did.

Did he pull the trigger while it was pointed at a person?
- Yes he did.

He is therefore guilty of negligent homicide.

Full stop. No excuses that it was the armorer's fault.

That fact that he claims he believed it wasn't loaded is irrelevant. One of the cardinal rules of gun safety is to treat all guns as though they are loaded at all times. The rule exists because guns that "were not loaded" have killed plenty of people. You hand me a gun and tell me that its not loaded? The first thing I do is check it myself. But even after I've determined myself that it isn't loaded, I'm not going to point it at anyone, and if I'm going to pull the trigger (for example to do a function check), it will be pointed in a safe direction, even if I've verified myself that it's not loaded.

-Uwe-

 

[Quintus Rotam]

... what the hell was he doing pointing the gun in the direction of people without knowing it was safe?

Perhaps the movie script called for one of those dramatic close-ups of the main character pointing and firing a gun at someone, intended to give the viewer a first person experience. The camera and its operator would in that case be facing the muzzle. Similar movie scenes have been featured before.
Also, reports state that a crew member handed the gun to Alec, using the words "cold gun" to confirm it was safe to use in that scene. I wouldn't expect actors to be experts in everything they portray on screen - they have dedicated professionals as advisors and assistants for that. Evidently, this one was neither dedicated nor professional.

 

[Bruce]

@Quintus, there is blame for the armorer. But I am with Uwe all the way. Ultimately, the person handing the gun is responsible. The person handling the gun must be schooled and trained in gun safety. The person with the gun should not have pointed it at anyone without knowing that the gun was safe. If blanks are supposed to be in the gun, then test fire it.

The person shot was not another actor but instead was a cinematographer - not involved in the acting nor directing of the acting. Her role is to work with the camera crews... Sorry, this is on Baldwin.

It is a tragic accident that should have/could have been avoided had proper safety protocols been followed.. The armorer and Baldwin must bare the burden of their actions or lack thereof.

 

[Bruce]

In one report from CNN:

Baldwin was handed a gun by Dave Halls, the film’s assistant director, who did not know the weapon contained “live rounds.”

That implies the gun may not have been a prop? The plot thickens.

 

[morris39]

I look at it this way:

Did he point that gun at a person?
- Yes he did.

Did he pull the trigger while it was pointed at a person?
- Yes he did.

He is therefore guilty of negligent homicide.

Full stop. No excuses that it was the armorer's fault.

That fact that he claims he believed it wasn't loaded is irrelevant. One of the cardinal rules of gun safety is to treat all guns as though they are loaded at all times. The rule exists because guns that "were not loaded" have killed plenty of people. You hand me a gun and tell me that its not loaded? The first thing I do is check it myself. But even after I've determined myself that it isn't loaded, I'm not going to point it at anyone, and if I'm going to pull the trigger (for example to do a function check), it will be pointed in a safe direction, even if I've verified myself that it's not loaded.

-Uwe-

I own guns and completely agree with the making safe, trigger handling, looking, pointing and shooting etc rules. That in my view applies to normal civilian situations. Does it apply exactly in a simulated situation where there is dedicated person (armourer) responsible for safety? I don't know the iron clad rules in that situation bit if in fact the armourer is principally responsible, the shooter is not morally responsible. I would consider that similar to a borrowed gun misfiring and killing someone nearby despite all precautions. The fault still belongs to someone, manufacture? negligent maintenance? act of god?

 

[stefdds]

In one report from CNN:

That implies the gun may not have been a prop? The plot thickens.

That implies the gun may not have been a prop? The plot thickens.

Precisely Bruce ! What on earth was a functioning "real" firearm doing on that set !! With todays technology (dub in sounds) and realistic model making a plastic replica could have easily been used. There was no reason for a actual firearm to be even available (IMO). Its a (lets pretend ) movie for heavens sake.

 

[vreihen]

.