I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
That raises some questions, starting with what the script that
he was rehearing called for.
Did it call for just drawing the gun, not firing, or firing? If it's the latter,
it would point more toward him deliberately pulling the trigger. Did
it call for it to be cocked when pointed?
Was the gun cocked when it was in his holster? I would think probably
not. What is the normal process when drawing a single action pistol
like that to be ready to fire? I would think it would be un-cocked in the
holster, then as you remove it from the holster you pull the hammer back
as you're moving it towards the intended firing position? If you have the
hammer part of the way back and let it slip, does it have enough energy
to fire? I would think the answer is probably yes, depending on how far
back it is.

Then we have the assistant director, who handed the gun to Alec,
saying that Alec had his finger outside the trigger guard, along the
side of the gun, the whole time. Does anyone believe this guy, who
admits he only casually opened the revolver and did not really inspect
what was in it, was so attentive that he watched where Alec's finger
was as he was doing his quick draw rehearsal?

There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?

It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled

It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.

It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
of a defect in the gun.

The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
I'm betting on number one or two.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 9:22:40 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

I did some Googling, and Baldwin explained what he says happened:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2021/12/02/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-interview-george-stephanopoulos/8839098002/

During the rehearsal, Hutchins instructed Baldwin where to point the gun, the actor said, and guided him to aim it "right below her armpit."

“I’m holding the gun where she (Hutchins) told me to hold it," Baldwin, 63, told George Stephanopoulos in an ABC special that aired Thursday night and will stream afterward on Hulu. "In the scene (being rehearsed) I would have cocked the gun, and I said, ‘Do you want to see that? And she said yes. So I take the gun and I sort of cock the gun, I’m not going to pull the trigger."

Hutchins told him to "tilt it down a little bit," he said. "I cock the gun and I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’ And I let go of the hammer of the gun and the gun goes off."

When Hutchins hit the floor, Baldwin initially thought she had fainted or had a heart attack. "The notion that there was a live round in that gun didn't dawn on me until 45 minutes to an hour later," he said.

Baldwin recalled standing over Hutchins for a minute as she laid on the floor.

“Was she conscious?” Stephanopoulos asked. “My recollection is yes," Baldwin replied.

The last part is really something. Baldwin claims he didn't know for 45 minutes to an hour
that he had just shot two people? Two people surely didn't both have heart attacks, there
must have been blood, etc. He expects people to believe that? He was also asked if he felt
any guilt and he said no. George S brought up what George Clooney, who I',ve never seen go
off on anybody said, which was that in any scene he has ever done, he personally opened and
inspected the gun and showed it to all the other people involved. Baldwin dismissed that as
some people just feel the need to get involved in this.

I also don't think he helped himself by saying that he "let go of the hammer", rather than it
slipped or similar. Sounds like he had it pretty far back, but not far enough to lock and then
he just let it go, something those of us familiar with guns would not do, even if we knew it
was unloaded. It can damage the gun to dry fire it.

On 12/3/2021 11:17 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 9:22:40 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

> I also don't think he helped himself by saying that he "let go of the hammer", rather than it
> slipped or similar. Sounds like he had it pretty far back, but not far enough to lock and then
> he just let it go, something those of us familiar with guns would not do, even if we knew it
> was unloaded. It can damage the gun to dry fire it.
>

No matter how you look at it, stupidity is the cause. Do they need that
much reality in the scene to give n avowed anti-gun guy a real gun? He
probably had no idea about releasing the hammer.
Hollywood is famous for it props. This should not have been a real gun.
There should be no real ammo on the set
Even if a real gun is the base it should have been made incapable of
firing a bullet.

Perhaps more than one person is responsible. This was not a "mistake"
it is plain stupidity on the part of a few people.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 8:22:40 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
> I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
> That raises some questions, starting with what the script that
> he was rehearing called for.
> Did it call for just drawing the gun, not firing, or firing? If it's the latter,
> it would point more toward him deliberately pulling the trigger. Did
> it call for it to be cocked when pointed?
> Was the gun cocked when it was in his holster? I would think probably
> not. What is the normal process when drawing a single action pistol
> like that to be ready to fire? I would think it would be un-cocked in the
> holster, then as you remove it from the holster you pull the hammer back
> as you're moving it towards the intended firing position? If you have the
> hammer part of the way back and let it slip, does it have enough energy
> to fire? I would think the answer is probably yes, depending on how far
> back it is.
>
> Then we have the assistant director, who handed the gun to Alec,
> saying that Alec had his finger outside the trigger guard, along the
> side of the gun, the whole time. Does anyone believe this guy, who
> admits he only casually opened the revolver and did not really inspect
> what was in it, was so attentive that he watched where Alec's finger
> was as he was doing his quick draw rehearsal?
>
> There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?
>
> It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
>
> It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
>
> It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
> of a defect in the gun.
>
> The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
> I'm betting on number one or two.

I've probably seen too many Law & Order type shows. Lawyers tell their
clients to shut up and stay that way. Duct tape has many uses.

On 12/3/2021 11:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 11:17 AM, trader_4 wrote:
>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 9:22:40 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
>
>> I also don't think he helped himself by saying that he "let go of the
>> hammer", rather than it
>> slipped or similar.  Sounds like he had it pretty far back, but not
>> far enough to lock and then
>> he just let it go, something those of us familiar with guns would not
>> do, even if we knew it
>> was unloaded.  It can damage the gun to dry fire it.
>>
>
> No matter how you look at it, stupidity is the cause.  Do they need that
> much reality in the scene to give n avowed anti-gun guy a real gun?  He
> probably had no idea about releasing the hammer.
> Hollywood is famous for it props.  This should not have been a real gun.
> There should be no real ammo on the set
> Even if a real gun is the base it should have been made incapable of
> firing a bullet.
>
> Perhaps more than one person is responsible.  This was not a "mistake"
> it is plain stupidity on the part of a few people.

Says he did not pull the trigger but pulled the hammer back and before
fully cocked he released it.

I have been searching for a statement of his that I thought I saw in
wiki and if so was removed where he bragged about skills with horses and
firearms that helped his acting.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 06:22:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

>I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.

Was he lying then or is he lying now?

I own a SAA and it will not fire if you pull the hammer back almost
all the way (before it catches) and let it go, unless you pull the
trigger. Sam Colt thought of that and put the half cock notch there.
When Clint is "fanning" his Colt, he is holding the trigger down. It
doesn't pop out until the hammer catches so you don't have to "Pull"
it if you are holding it down.
Side note, most "gun dumb" people put their finger in the trigger
guard as part of holding a gun. Putting it along the side is a trained
behavior.

In article <qutkqgttglj1b9q5r049rt4sc21la5l7fj@4ax.com>,
gfretwell@aol.com says...
>
> I own a SAA and it will not fire if you pull the hammer back almost
> all the way (before it catches) and let it go, unless you pull the
> trigger. Sam Colt thought of that and put the half cock notch there.
> When Clint is "fanning" his Colt, he is holding the trigger down. It
> doesn't pop out until the hammer catches so you don't have to "Pull"
> it if you are holding it down.
> Side note, most "gun dumb" people put their finger in the trigger
> guard as part of holding a gun. Putting it along the side is a trained
> behavior.
>
>

I have never owned a SAA but have a double action one. From what I
recall the half cock was where you pulled the hammer back while you
loaded it so the cylinder would rotate. It may have also served as a
safety item so if the hammer slipped and the trigger was not pulled the
notch would catch the hammer.

Up around 1970 something many of the reporductions of the SAA the firing
pin would rest on the primer if a round was in the cylinder under the
hammer and could fire if the hammer was hit. Then the later ones were
modified to where the firing pin did not rest on the primer and could
not fire if the hammer was hit. Even the double actions were modified
in a similar way.

On 12/3/2021 3:39 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <qutkqgttglj1b9q5r049rt4sc21la5l7fj@4ax.com>,
> gfretwell@aol.com says...
>>
>> I own a SAA and it will not fire if you pull the hammer back almost
>> all the way (before it catches) and let it go, unless you pull the
>> trigger. Sam Colt thought of that and put the half cock notch there.
>> When Clint is "fanning" his Colt, he is holding the trigger down. It
>> doesn't pop out until the hammer catches so you don't have to "Pull"
>> it if you are holding it down.
>> Side note, most "gun dumb" people put their finger in the trigger
>> guard as part of holding a gun. Putting it along the side is a trained
>> behavior.
>>
>>
>
> I have never owned a SAA but have a double action one. From what I
> recall the half cock was where you pulled the hammer back while you
> loaded it so the cylinder would rotate. It may have also served as a
> safety item so if the hammer slipped and the trigger was not pulled the
> notch would catch the hammer.
>
> Up around 1970 something many of the reporductions of the SAA the firing
> pin would rest on the primer if a round was in the cylinder under the
> hammer and could fire if the hammer was hit. Then the later ones were
> modified to where the firing pin did not rest on the primer and could
> not fire if the hammer was hit. Even the double actions were modified
> in a similar way.
>

I have a Ruger Super Blackhawk as a fun toy. Wiki gives some history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Blackhawk

The transfer bar got put in in the '70's apparently when someone got
shot dropping a gun on the hammer and sued Ruger. Now other makers are
using it. Single or double actions the guns will not fire unless fully
cocked and trigger is pulled.

On 12/3/21 8:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
> That raises some questions, starting with what the script that
> he was rehearing called for.
> Did it call for just drawing the gun, not firing, or firing? If it's the latter,
> it would point more toward him deliberately pulling the trigger. Did
> it call for it to be cocked when pointed?
> Was the gun cocked when it was in his holster? I would think probably
> not. What is the normal process when drawing a single action pistol
> like that to be ready to fire? I would think it would be un-cocked in the
> holster, then as you remove it from the holster you pull the hammer back
> as you're moving it towards the intended firing position? If you have the
> hammer part of the way back and let it slip, does it have enough energy
> to fire? I would think the answer is probably yes, depending on how far
> back it is.
>
> Then we have the assistant director, who handed the gun to Alec,
> saying that Alec had his finger outside the trigger guard, along the
> side of the gun, the whole time. Does anyone believe this guy, who
> admits he only casually opened the revolver and did not really inspect
> what was in it, was so attentive that he watched where Alec's finger
> was as he was doing his quick draw rehearsal?
>
> There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?
>
> It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
>
> It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
>
> It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
> of a defect in the gun.
>
> The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
> I'm betting on number one or two.
>
>

Complete , 100% insanity to have other than a solid-barrel weapon on the
set.

Sounds can be easily dubbed in.

The main blame here is on the weapons "expert."

In article <soeb6f$700$1@dont-email.me>, philo@privacy.net says...
>
> > There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?
> >
> > It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
> >
> > It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
> >
> > It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
> > of a defect in the gun.
> >
> > The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
> > I'm betting on number one or two.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Complete , 100% insanity to have other than a solid-barrel weapon on the
> set.
>
> Sounds can be easily dubbed in.
>
> The main blame here is on the weapons "expert."
>
>
>
>

Is it possiable to chack the finger prints on the bullets like in the TV
shows ?

Maybe on the gun to see who had it in their hands. While this may not
tell who loaded the gun, it should tell who handled it. Should narrow
the search to a few people.

On 12/3/21 6:42 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <soeb6f$700$1@dont-email.me>, philo@privacy.net says...
>>
>>> There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?
>>>
>>> It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
>>>
>>> It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
>>>
>>> It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
>>> of a defect in the gun.
>>>
>>> The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
>>> I'm betting on number one or two.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Complete , 100% insanity to have other than a solid-barrel weapon on the
>> set.
>>
>> Sounds can be easily dubbed in.
>>
>> The main blame here is on the weapons "expert."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Is it possiable to chack the finger prints on the bullets like in the TV
> shows ?
>
> Maybe on the gun to see who had it in their hands. While this may not
> tell who loaded the gun, it should tell who handled it. Should narrow
> the search to a few people.
>

Yep.

I'm sure a lot when wrong here.

On 12/03/2021 09:48 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> No matter how you look at it, stupidity is the cause. Do they need that
> much reality in the scene to give n avowed anti-gun guy a real gun? He
> probably had no idea about releasing the hammer.
> Hollywood is famous for it props. This should not have been a real gun.
> There should be no real ammo on the set
> Even if a real gun is the base it should have been made incapable of
> firing a bullet.

I watched 'Ride With the Devil' last week. There were a few guns
involved, like about 250.

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/5/50/RWTD_01.jpg/600px-RWTD_01.jpg
https://movieberry.com/static/photos/19017/21_midi.jpg
https://www.teenidols4you.com/blink/Actors/jonathan_meyers/jonathan_meyers_1191429766.jpg

Despite all the gunfights between the Jayhawkers, Bushwhackers, and
Union troops nobody got killed.

They did have a three week bootcamp for the actors where they were
trained on the weapons using both blanks and live ammunition. Baldwin's
el cheapo production may have skipped that step.

'Ride With the Devil' was a box office bomb but it wasn't a bad movie.
It would be canceled today because the word 'nigger' gets used a lot.
Even worse, the starring nigger fights for the South.

The DVD has an interview with with Jeffery Wright who played the former
slave. The movie was made in 1999. 20 years later I don't think as
intelligent a take on his role and what it meant would be accepted.

In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:56:24 -0800 (PST), Dean
Hoffman <deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 8:22:40 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
>> I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
>> That raises some questions, starting with what the script that
>> he was rehearing called for.
>> Did it call for just drawing the gun, not firing, or firing? If it's the latter,
>> it would point more toward him deliberately pulling the trigger. Did
>> it call for it to be cocked when pointed?
>> Was the gun cocked when it was in his holster? I would think probably
>> not. What is the normal process when drawing a single action pistol
>> like that to be ready to fire? I would think it would be un-cocked in the
>> holster, then as you remove it from the holster you pull the hammer back
>> as you're moving it towards the intended firing position? If you have the
>> hammer part of the way back and let it slip, does it have enough energy
>> to fire? I would think the answer is probably yes, depending on how far
>> back it is.
>>
>> Then we have the assistant director, who handed the gun to Alec,
>> saying that Alec had his finger outside the trigger guard, along the
>> side of the gun, the whole time. Does anyone believe this guy, who
>> admits he only casually opened the revolver and did not really inspect
>> what was in it, was so attentive that he watched where Alec's finger
>> was as he was doing his quick draw rehearsal?
>>
>> There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?

My last part, starting at "finally", is the most interesting, afaic.
>> It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
>>
>> It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
>>
>> It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
>> of a defect in the gun.

I can pretty easily imagine that the hammer was back and after a little
while of pulling it back with his thumb, his trigger finger squeezed
without his trying to squeeze it, and that he doesn't know he squeezed
it. I've had similar events, not with a gun but when one or more
fingers squeezed or gripped something while I was concentrating on
something else. I've learned to be more careful**, but i don't think
I'm at 100%. **Not because of any mortal danger, but I don't want to
squeeze a tube of glue when I don't intend to, etc. I don't want to
lift my arm to look at my watch and spill the glass of water in my hand.
>> The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
>> I'm betting on number one or two.
>
> I've probably seen too many Law & Order type shows. Lawyers tell their
>clients to shut up and stay that way. Duct tape has many uses.

Just on CNN listened to a little of what he said, and one of the injured
parties came up to him early on, put his hand on his shoulder, and said,
paraphrasign "You know you're not at all responsible, right?" and then a
while later, he's suing him. I believe it. If the guy wanted to sue
someone and why wouldn't he, his lawyer told him he had to sue everyone
involved or they'd all blame it on the one who wasn't sued.

And then after that, some woman, not the host, commented that he didn't
really take responsibilty, and someone played a recording where he said,
"Someone is responsible, but it's not me". So I don't know why she
included the word "really". He flat out didn't take responsibility, but
she seemed to think it was a failed apology and taking responsibility
was missing from it. And that he should do that. But if he's not
responsible, he shouldn't have to do that, except maybe to make injured
parties feel better, and I don't think that applies here.

Finally, let me assume more than one person could have failed to do his
job. And of course I think, I would never have taken the gun without
checking whether it was dangerous or not, because I'm a great guy, and I
guess Baldwin is not as great as I am: So what should he have done that
he didn't do.

It was a revolver, right? From the side when closed you can't see a
thing.
If you open the gun you can see the back of each bullet, but blanks
look the same as live shells, right?
And from the side when open you can't see a thing either because no
bullet is longer than than the cylinder, none of them stick their nose
out.
So what he was could have done, should have done, is open the gun and
look at each bullet from the front to see if they have a lead slug in
the hole, is that right? But in all my years of watching tv, and
firing a handgun myself a couple times, I've never seen anyone do that?
Do people do that? Do you do that when you look at your gun? Woudl
you have thought to do that if you were an actor and the prop guy handed
you a gun?

On 12/3/2021 8:56 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 8:22:40 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
>> I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
>> That raises some questions, starting with what the script that
>> he was rehearing called for.
>> Did it call for just drawing the gun, not firing, or firing? If it's the latter,
>> it would point more toward him deliberately pulling the trigger. Did
>> it call for it to be cocked when pointed?
>> Was the gun cocked when it was in his holster? I would think probably
>> not. What is the normal process when drawing a single action pistol
>> like that to be ready to fire? I would think it would be un-cocked in the
>> holster, then as you remove it from the holster you pull the hammer back
>> as you're moving it towards the intended firing position? If you have the
>> hammer part of the way back and let it slip, does it have enough energy
>> to fire? I would think the answer is probably yes, depending on how far
>> back it is.
>>
>> Then we have the assistant director, who handed the gun to Alec,
>> saying that Alec had his finger outside the trigger guard, along the
>> side of the gun, the whole time. Does anyone believe this guy, who
>> admits he only casually opened the revolver and did not really inspect
>> what was in it, was so attentive that he watched where Alec's finger
>> was as he was doing his quick draw rehearsal?
>>
>> There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?
>>
>> It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
>>
>> It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
>>
>> It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
>> of a defect in the gun.
>>
>> The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
>> I'm betting on number one or two.
>
> I've probably seen too many Law & Order type shows. Lawyers tell their
> clients to shut up and stay that way. Duct tape has many uses.
>

Maybe they should look at the video?

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:11:19 PM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 06:22:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
> Was he lying then or is he lying now?
>
> I own a SAA and it will not fire if you pull the hammer back almost
> all the way (before it catches) and let it go, unless you pull the
> trigger. Sam Colt thought of that and put the half cock notch there.
> When Clint is "fanning" his Colt, he is holding the trigger down. It
> doesn't pop out until the hammer catches so you don't have to "Pull"
> it if you are holding it down.
> Side note, most "gun dumb" people put their finger in the trigger
> guard as part of holding a gun. Putting it along the side is a trained
> behavior.

That's interesting. So either Baldwin is lying, doesn't remember what
he really did, or the gun is broken. The assistant director that admits he
didn't correctly check the gun, only opened it and gave it a quick look,
says that Baldwin had his finger at the side of the gun the whole time.
i have a hard time believing he was paying that close attention to what
Baldwin was doing. And Baldwin was rehearsing for this movie,,
the focus was on the gun in his hand, cocking it. I don't
recall ever seeing 1800s gun slingers in western movies holding their
finger at the side when drawing down on someone. There could be other
footage shot that shows what he was doing for other scenes too. Sounds
like BS to me.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 7:42:51 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <soeb6f$700$1...@dont-email.me>, ph...@privacy.net says...
> >
> > > There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?
> > >
> > > It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
> > >
> > > It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
> > >
> > > It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
> > > of a defect in the gun.
> > >
> > > The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
> > > I'm betting on number one or two.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Complete , 100% insanity to have other than a solid-barrel weapon on the
> > set.
> >
> > Sounds can be easily dubbed in.
> >
> > The main blame here is on the weapons "expert."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Is it possiable to chack the finger prints on the bullets like in the TV
> shows ?

Sure. But the story is that the assistant director and armorer opened
the gun after the shooting and found several rounds and one empty.
If they took them out to look, then any fingerprints aren't likely to be
probative. That was another dumb move, screwing around with the
gun afterwards.

>
> Maybe on the gun to see who had it in their hands. While this may not
> tell who loaded the gun, it should tell who handled it. Should narrow
> the search to a few people.

Same problems, only worse.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 12:21:18 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
> In alt.home.repair, on Fri, 3 Dec 2021 08:56:24 -0800 (PST), Dean
> Hoffman <dean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 8:22:40 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
> >> I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
> >> That raises some questions, starting with what the script that
> >> he was rehearing called for.
> >> Did it call for just drawing the gun, not firing, or firing? If it's the latter,
> >> it would point more toward him deliberately pulling the trigger. Did
> >> it call for it to be cocked when pointed?
> >> Was the gun cocked when it was in his holster? I would think probably
> >> not. What is the normal process when drawing a single action pistol
> >> like that to be ready to fire? I would think it would be un-cocked in the
> >> holster, then as you remove it from the holster you pull the hammer back
> >> as you're moving it towards the intended firing position? If you have the
> >> hammer part of the way back and let it slip, does it have enough energy
> >> to fire? I would think the answer is probably yes, depending on how far
> >> back it is.
> >>
> >> Then we have the assistant director, who handed the gun to Alec,
> >> saying that Alec had his finger outside the trigger guard, along the
> >> side of the gun, the whole time. Does anyone believe this guy, who
> >> admits he only casually opened the revolver and did not really inspect
> >> what was in it, was so attentive that he watched where Alec's finger
> >> was as he was doing his quick draw rehearsal?
> >>
> >> There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?
> My last part, starting at "finally", is the most interesting, afaic.
> >> It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
> >>
> >> It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
> >>
> >> It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
> >> of a defect in the gun.
> I can pretty easily imagine that the hammer was back and after a little
> while of pulling it back with his thumb, his trigger finger squeezed
> without his trying to squeeze it, and that he doesn't know he squeezed
> it. I've had similar events, not with a gun but when one or more
> fingers squeezed or gripped something while I was concentrating on
> something else. I've learned to be more careful**, but i don't think
> I'm at 100%. **Not because of any mortal danger, but I don't want to
> squeeze a tube of glue when I don't intend to, etc. I don't want to
> lift my arm to look at my watch and spill the glass of water in my hand.
> >> The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
> >> I'm betting on number one or two.
> >
> > I've probably seen too many Law & Order type shows. Lawyers tell their
> >clients to shut up and stay that way. Duct tape has many uses.
> Just on CNN listened to a little of what he said, and one of the injured
> parties came up to him early on, put his hand on his shoulder, and said,
> paraphrasign "You know you're not at all responsible, right?"

I wouldn't count on that being accurate. Baldwin also said that he didn't
realize he had shot anyone until 45 mins to an hour later. He thought the
director had a heart attack or something. That is one for the record books.

and then a
> while later, he's suing him. I believe it. If the guy wanted to sue
> someone and why wouldn't he, his lawyer told him he had to sue everyone
> involved or they'd all blame it on the one who wasn't sued.
>
>
> And then after that, some woman, not the host, commented that he didn't
> really take responsibilty, and someone played a recording where he said,
> "Someone is responsible, but it's not me". So I don't know why she
> included the word "really". He flat out didn't take responsibility, but
> she seemed to think it was a failed apology and taking responsibility
> was missing from it. And that he should do that. But if he's not
> responsible, he shouldn't have to do that, except maybe to make injured
> parties feel better, and I don't think that applies here.

He's probably denying any responsibility to try to defend himself from
the lawsuits.

>
>
>
> Finally, let me assume more than one person could have failed to do his
> job. And of course I think, I would never have taken the gun without
> checking whether it was dangerous or not, because I'm a great guy, and I
> guess Baldwin is not as great as I am: So what should he have done that
> he didn't do.

George Clooney ripped him a new one. Clooney said every scene he's ever
done that involved a gun, he opened it, inspected it, showed it to all the other
people involved. I think Will Smith said similar.

>
> It was a revolver, right? From the side when closed you can't see a
> thing.
> If you open the gun you can see the back of each bullet, but blanks
> look the same as live shells, right?

That's a good question, how exactly they are marked and whether there
is a consistent practice across the industry. I heard a couple of people
in the industry saying that the dummy rounds have a hole in the casing.
And you can tell a blank from a live round, there is no bullet. From what
I know, that gun was not supposed to have any rounds of any kind in it
at that point, they were rehearsing and Baldwin was told the gun was
cold, which I believe means it has no rounds in it at all. But what that
term means exactly and whether it is consistent across the industry
has not been explained either. Another reflection on the state of the
media today.

> And from the side when open you can't see a thing either because no
> bullet is longer than than the cylinder, none of them stick their nose
> out.
> So what he was could have done, should have done, is open the gun and
> look at each bullet from the front to see if they have a lead slug in
> the hole, is that right? But in all my years of watching tv, and
> firing a handgun myself a couple times, I've never seen anyone do that?
> Do people do that? Do you do that when you look at your gun? Woudl
> you have thought to do that if you were an actor and the prop guy handed
> you a gun?

Like 99.999% of shooters, I'm not working in an environment with a mix
of live, dummy, and blank rounds. Nor am I pointing guns at anyone and
practicing cocking them, etc. So opening the revolver and seeing that there
are no rounds in it from the back is sufficient. If I was, I would follow a
process like Clooney and I would ensure that there was a consistent,
understood process that everyone involved understood with regard to
how the various types of rounds are marked and identified.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 12:42:27 AM UTC-5, Bob F wrote:
> On 12/3/2021 8:56 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
> > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 8:22:40 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
> >> I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
> >> That raises some questions, starting with what the script that
> >> he was rehearing called for.
> >> Did it call for just drawing the gun, not firing, or firing? If it's the latter,
> >> it would point more toward him deliberately pulling the trigger. Did
> >> it call for it to be cocked when pointed?
> >> Was the gun cocked when it was in his holster? I would think probably
> >> not. What is the normal process when drawing a single action pistol
> >> like that to be ready to fire? I would think it would be un-cocked in the
> >> holster, then as you remove it from the holster you pull the hammer back
> >> as you're moving it towards the intended firing position? If you have the
> >> hammer part of the way back and let it slip, does it have enough energy
> >> to fire? I would think the answer is probably yes, depending on how far
> >> back it is.
> >>
> >> Then we have the assistant director, who handed the gun to Alec,
> >> saying that Alec had his finger outside the trigger guard, along the
> >> side of the gun, the whole time. Does anyone believe this guy, who
> >> admits he only casually opened the revolver and did not really inspect
> >> what was in it, was so attentive that he watched where Alec's finger
> >> was as he was doing his quick draw rehearsal?
> >>
> >> There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?
> >>
> >> It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
> >>
> >> It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
> >>
> >> It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
> >> of a defect in the gun.
> >>
> >> The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
> >> I'm betting on number one or two.
> >
> > I've probably seen too many Law & Order type shows. Lawyers tell their
> > clients to shut up and stay that way. Duct tape has many uses.
> >
> Maybe they should look at the video?

There is no video of the shooting, it was a rehearsal. There may be other
video though that shows what Baldwin was doing with the gun in other
scenes.

In article <432d4f4f-99f5-4e8b-8d5c-affbf8737e2fn@googlegroups.com>,
trader4@optonline.net says...
>
> That's interesting. So either Baldwin is lying, doesn't remember what
> he really did, or the gun is broken. The assistant director that admits he
> didn't correctly check the gun, only opened it and gave it a quick look,
> says that Baldwin had his finger at the side of the gun the whole time.
> i have a hard time believing he was paying that close attention to what
> Baldwin was doing. And Baldwin was rehearsing for this movie,,
> the focus was on the gun in his hand, cocking it. I don't
> recall ever seeing 1800s gun slingers in western movies holding their
> finger at the side when drawing down on someone. There could be other
> footage shot that shows what he was doing for other scenes too. Sounds
> like BS to me.
>
>
>

The finger on the side is a relative new shooting technick. That came
about after the simiauto handguns. I was taught to shoot the double
action revolvers over 40 years ago by a policeman that usually scored in
the top 10 of the shooters in the state. He never told me to put my
finger parallel to the gun. When you pull a gun you should be readey to
fire. Back then the double action revolvers usually took about 10 to 12
pounds of pressure and a long pull to fire. Now they are around 5
unless the New York trigger of about 12 to 15 pounds pounds and a short
pull to fire. So new ways were developed for added safety. Before the
Glocks came out most of the autos had a safety that had to be taken off
to fire, but many do not have the manual safety now. Another reason for
the side finger.

On 12/4/2021 10:47 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <432d4f4f-99f5-4e8b-8d5c-affbf8737e2fn@googlegroups.com>,
> trader4@optonline.net says...
>>
>> That's interesting. So either Baldwin is lying, doesn't remember what
>> he really did, or the gun is broken. The assistant director that admits he
>> didn't correctly check the gun, only opened it and gave it a quick look,
>> says that Baldwin had his finger at the side of the gun the whole time.
>> i have a hard time believing he was paying that close attention to what
>> Baldwin was doing. And Baldwin was rehearsing for this movie,,
>> the focus was on the gun in his hand, cocking it. I don't
>> recall ever seeing 1800s gun slingers in western movies holding their
>> finger at the side when drawing down on someone. There could be other
>> footage shot that shows what he was doing for other scenes too. Sounds
>> like BS to me.
>>
>>
>>
>
> The finger on the side is a relative new shooting technick. That came
> about after the simiauto handguns. I was taught to shoot the double
> action revolvers over 40 years ago by a policeman that usually scored in
> the top 10 of the shooters in the state. He never told me to put my
> finger parallel to the gun. When you pull a gun you should be readey to
> fire. Back then the double action revolvers usually took about 10 to 12
> pounds of pressure and a long pull to fire. Now they are around 5
> unless the New York trigger of about 12 to 15 pounds pounds and a short
> pull to fire. So new ways were developed for added safety. Before the
> Glocks came out most of the autos had a safety that had to be taken off
> to fire, but many do not have the manual safety now. Another reason for
> the side finger.
>

Finger on the trigger is something us old timers have to unlearn.

The lighter pressure of the Glock trigger plus safety in the trigger are
a problem.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/trigger-too-light-might-be-glock-guns-fatal-flaw-76116

I hear many a cop has shot himself in the leg on pulling his Glock.

On 12/4/21 9:22 AM, Frank wrote:
> On 12/4/2021 10:47 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>> In article <432d4f4f-99f5-4e8b-8d5c-affbf8737e2fn@googlegroups.com>,
>> trader4@optonline.net says...
>>>
>>> That's interesting.  So either Baldwin is lying, doesn't remember what
>>> he really did, or the gun is broken.   The assistant director that
>>> admits he
>>> didn't correctly check the gun, only opened it and gave it a quick look,
>>> says that Baldwin had his finger at the side of the gun the whole time.
>>> i have a hard time believing he was paying that close attention to what
>>> Baldwin was doing.   And Baldwin was rehearsing for this movie,,
>>> the focus was on the gun in his hand, cocking it.   I don't
>>> recall ever seeing 1800s gun slingers in western movies holding their
>>> finger at the side when drawing down on someone.   There could be other
>>> footage shot that shows what he was doing for other scenes too.  Sounds
>>> like BS to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The finger on the side is a relative new shooting technick.  That came
>> about after the simiauto handguns.  I was taught to shoot the double
>> action revolvers over 40 years ago by a policeman that usually scored in
>> the top 10 of the shooters in the state.  He never told me to put my
>> finger parallel to the gun. When you pull a gun you should be readey to
>> fire. Back then the double action revolvers usually took about 10 to 12
>> pounds of pressure and a long pull to fire.  Now they are around 5
>> unless the New York trigger of about 12 to 15 pounds pounds and a short
>> pull to fire. So new ways were developed for added safety. Before the
>> Glocks came out most of the autos had a safety that had to be taken off
>> to fire, but many do not have the manual safety now. Another reason for
>> the side finger.
>>
>
> Finger on the trigger is something us old timers have to unlearn.
>
> The lighter pressure of the Glock trigger plus safety in the trigger are
> a problem.
>
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/trigger-too-light-might-be-glock-guns-fatal-flaw-76116
>
>
> I hear many a cop has shot himself in the leg on pulling his Glock.

"I am the only one professional enough in the room to carry [a gun]."

DEA Agent Shoots Himself in the Foot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ufT_6Kgy0

On 12/04/2021 10:22 AM, Frank wrote:
> Finger on the trigger is something us old timers have to unlearn.
>
> The lighter pressure of the Glock trigger plus safety in the trigger are
> a problem.
>
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/trigger-too-light-might-be-glock-guns-fatal-flaw-76116
>
>
> I hear many a cop has shot himself in the leg on pulling his Glock.

I prefer the Springfield Armory XD series derived from the Croatian
HS2000. In addition to the safety in the trigger blade there is a grip
safety like on a 1911. It's not impossible but you'd really have to work
to have an AD from snagging the trigger on a jacket drawstring.

Besides that it's a single action rather than the Glock 'safe action'
system.

Glock has one hell of a marketing department, that's for sure. Some
departments are flexible in the officer's choice of a duty weapon but
the menu usually starts with Glock.

On 12/04/2021 10:47 AM, Beeper wrote:
> On 12/4/21 9:22 AM, Frank wrote:
>> On 12/4/2021 10:47 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>> In article <432d4f4f-99f5-4e8b-8d5c-affbf8737e2fn@googlegroups.com>,
>>> trader4@optonline.net says...
>>>>
>>>> That's interesting. So either Baldwin is lying, doesn't remember what
>>>> he really did, or the gun is broken. The assistant director that
>>>> admits he
>>>> didn't correctly check the gun, only opened it and gave it a quick
>>>> look,
>>>> says that Baldwin had his finger at the side of the gun the whole time.
>>>> i have a hard time believing he was paying that close attention to what
>>>> Baldwin was doing. And Baldwin was rehearsing for this movie,,
>>>> the focus was on the gun in his hand, cocking it. I don't
>>>> recall ever seeing 1800s gun slingers in western movies holding their
>>>> finger at the side when drawing down on someone. There could be other
>>>> footage shot that shows what he was doing for other scenes too. Sounds
>>>> like BS to me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The finger on the side is a relative new shooting technick. That came
>>> about after the simiauto handguns. I was taught to shoot the double
>>> action revolvers over 40 years ago by a policeman that usually scored in
>>> the top 10 of the shooters in the state. He never told me to put my
>>> finger parallel to the gun. When you pull a gun you should be readey to
>>> fire. Back then the double action revolvers usually took about 10 to 12
>>> pounds of pressure and a long pull to fire. Now they are around 5
>>> unless the New York trigger of about 12 to 15 pounds pounds and a short
>>> pull to fire. So new ways were developed for added safety. Before the
>>> Glocks came out most of the autos had a safety that had to be taken off
>>> to fire, but many do not have the manual safety now. Another reason for
>>> the side finger.
>>>
>>
>> Finger on the trigger is something us old timers have to unlearn.
>>
>> The lighter pressure of the Glock trigger plus safety in the trigger
>> are a problem.
>>
>> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/trigger-too-light-might-be-glock-guns-fatal-flaw-76116
>>
>>
>> I hear many a cop has shot himself in the leg on pulling his Glock.
>
> "I am the only one professional enough in the room to carry [a gun]."
>
> DEA Agent Shoots Himself in the Foot
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ufT_6Kgy0

I've been skeptical of that video but IRL the local PD's training
officer did shoot himself on range day. I suppose that's an effective
'this is how you don't do it' technique.

It's a popular range that hosts everything from cowboy action to 1000
yard benchrest. Other than one suicide afaik the cop was the only
casualty in recent history.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 21:42:21 -0800, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/3/2021 8:56 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
>> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 8:22:40 AM UTC-6, trader_4 wrote:
>>> I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
>>> That raises some questions, starting with what the script that
>>> he was rehearing called for.
>>> Did it call for just drawing the gun, not firing, or firing? If it's the latter,
>>> it would point more toward him deliberately pulling the trigger. Did
>>> it call for it to be cocked when pointed?
>>> Was the gun cocked when it was in his holster? I would think probably
>>> not. What is the normal process when drawing a single action pistol
>>> like that to be ready to fire? I would think it would be un-cocked in the
>>> holster, then as you remove it from the holster you pull the hammer back
>>> as you're moving it towards the intended firing position? If you have the
>>> hammer part of the way back and let it slip, does it have enough energy
>>> to fire? I would think the answer is probably yes, depending on how far
>>> back it is.
>>>
>>> Then we have the assistant director, who handed the gun to Alec,
>>> saying that Alec had his finger outside the trigger guard, along the
>>> side of the gun, the whole time. Does anyone believe this guy, who
>>> admits he only casually opened the revolver and did not really inspect
>>> what was in it, was so attentive that he watched where Alec's finger
>>> was as he was doing his quick draw rehearsal?
>>>
>>> There are only three ways the gun could fire, right?
>>>
>>> It was fully cocked and the trigger was pulled
>>>
>>> It was in the process of being cocked and Alec let the hammer go.
>>>
>>> It was cocked and there was some rare malfunction because
>>> of a defect in the gun.
>>>
>>> The forensic experts can likely determine which of those it was.
>>> I'm betting on number one or two.
>>
>> I've probably seen too many Law & Order type shows. Lawyers tell their
>> clients to shut up and stay that way. Duct tape has many uses.
>>
>
>Maybe they should look at the video?

I heard someone say they were not filming this but that defies logic.
I suspect there may have been a fire.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 04:28:24 -0800 (PST), trader_4
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:11:19 PM UTC-5, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2021 06:22:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I see Alec Baldwin now says he didn't pull the trigger.
>> Was he lying then or is he lying now?
>>
>> I own a SAA and it will not fire if you pull the hammer back almost
>> all the way (before it catches) and let it go, unless you pull the
>> trigger. Sam Colt thought of that and put the half cock notch there.
>> When Clint is "fanning" his Colt, he is holding the trigger down. It
>> doesn't pop out until the hammer catches so you don't have to "Pull"
>> it if you are holding it down.
>> Side note, most "gun dumb" people put their finger in the trigger
>> guard as part of holding a gun. Putting it along the side is a trained
>> behavior.
>
>That's interesting. So either Baldwin is lying, doesn't remember what
>he really did, or the gun is broken. The assistant director that admits he
>didn't correctly check the gun, only opened it and gave it a quick look,
>says that Baldwin had his finger at the side of the gun the whole time.
>i have a hard time believing he was paying that close attention to what
>Baldwin was doing. And Baldwin was rehearsing for this movie,,
>the focus was on the gun in his hand, cocking it. I don't
>recall ever seeing 1800s gun slingers in western movies holding their
>finger at the side when drawing down on someone. There could be other
>footage shot that shows what he was doing for other scenes too. Sounds
>like BS to me.

The finger on the side of the slide/frame thing is really a latter
20th century thing. It wasn't universally trained before the late 60s.
that I ever saw.