- Messages
- 3,061
- Reactions
- 9,997
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Every time I see those two, I want to hurl.
Fixed it for ya.Every time I see those two, I want to hurl.
LOL -- that's not all I want to hurl at them though.Fixed it for ya.
Yeah, but he didn't check the cylinder, so as Hillary Clinton would say, "What difference at this point does it make?"
But if it was not unusual to have "Dummy rounds" in the revolver prior to a shot and if AB had no reason to suspect that there were any live rounds on the set, would it still be unreasonable to continue practicing with the "Dummy rounds" in place?I would say that if there is anything besides air in the cylinders, you pop them all out and inspect them. Obviously it takes up to 10 seconds with this type of revolver, which is a lot compared to double actions, but not that much. 10s spent in exchange for a life is time well spent.
Also, I've heard that dummy rounds have a hole drilled in the side. That doesn't make any sense to me if time efficiency is an issue. All they need is to have someone load cases with a bullet but with no primer in them. These would be large pistol primers and so the gaping maw at the bottom of each dummy would be super obvious. You wouldn't even have to eject them.
I don't think he has a future. At least one major Hollywood wokie has come out against him. I will bet his interview will turn more against him.Not that ever watch it anyway (except for a few YT clips) but, uh, does AB have a future on SNL?
I mean I HOPE they never create a skit out of the RUST tragedy.
So if you were at a gun shop or a friend's house, and they wanted to show you a gun, and they checked the gun and found it safe before handing it to you, do you still check the gun yourself upon receiving it? There's the answer to your question.But if it was not unusual to have "Dummy rounds" in the revolver prior to a shot and if AB had no reason to suspect that there were any live rounds on the set, would it still be unreasonable to continue practicing with the "Dummy rounds" in place?
I think what happened here is ample evidence that it would not be reasonable to assume anything after you've handed off a firearm to someone else. Every single time it comes into your hands after someone else handled it, you check it.But if it was not unusual to have "Dummy rounds" in the revolver prior to a shot and if AB had no reason to suspect that there were any live rounds on the set, would it still be unreasonable to continue practicing with the "Dummy rounds" in place?
"Every single time I'm handed a gun on a set — every time — they hand me a gun, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I'm pointing it to, we show it to the crew," he told Maron.
"Everyone does it. Everybody knows," he said.
Yes, unequivocally.do you still check the gun yourself upon receiving it?
Fixed it for ya.LOL -- that's not all I want to hurl at them though.
EDIT: for the Feds out there -- insults. I want to hurl insults at them.
Absolutely. They had just come back from lunch. The guns changed hands several times. And again, why NOT check it? Takes virtually no time. Especially when even the IDEA that he was to point it towards her was brought up.But if it was not unusual to have "Dummy rounds" in the revolver prior to a shot and if AB had no reason to suspect that there were any live rounds on the set, would it still be unreasonable to continue practicing with the "Dummy rounds" in place?
But he was told the gun had no rounds in it. If he had checked, anything in the gun would be suspect and should have been removed. Also, you don't fire blanks at people either. They can be dangerous too. So yes, it would be unreasonable.But if it was not unusual to have "Dummy rounds" in the revolver prior to a shot and if AB had no reason to suspect that there were any live rounds on the set, would it still be unreasonable to continue practicing with the "Dummy rounds" in place?
I heard the first story was the assistant director took the pistol off an unattended cart, shook it (presumably heard the BB rattle of the five dummy rounds), said "cold gun" and handed it to AB. And since it was reported that the live round had the same Star Line Star brass as the dummy rounds, then AB would have no reason to suspect that there was any live ammo even if he inspected each cylinder.But he was told the gun had no rounds in it. If he had checked, anything in the gun would be suspect and should have been removed. Also, you don't fire blanks at people either. They can be dangerous too. So yes, it would be unreasonable.
Wokie or not, Clooney made a few pretty valid safety points.I don't think he has a future. At least one major Hollywood wokie has come out against him. I will bet his interview will turn more against him.
George Clooney calls Alec Baldwin’s deadly ‘Rust’ shooting ‘insane’
George Clooney told Marc Maron’s WTF podcast that the death of 42-year-old cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was clearly the result of “a lot of stupid mistakes.”nypost.com
I heard the AD checked three of the rounds but not all of them. I suspect there's a lot that has been heard that's wrong by all of us.I heard the first story was the assistant director took the pistol off an unattended cart, shook it (presumably heard the BB rattle of the five dummy rounds), said "cold gun" and handed it to AB. And since it was reported that the live round had the same Star Line Star brass as the dummy rounds, then AB would have no reason to suspect that there was any live ammo even if he inspected each cylinder.
Yeah, I know, would you trust that they were dummies if you had to hold the pistol to your head and pull the trigger?
Exactly. And Clooney broke the ice in a big way making it safe for others to follow.Wokie or not, Clooney made a few pretty valid safety points.