Some people on the right have already made up their minds but Destiny believes everyone should wait because the evidence will come out because the shooting happened on a Hollywood set. Bonus memes and content ►th-cam.com/channels/LOPC6bOBuiSBAJ16JXLAHg.html
The exact rules on that set do not matter in the eyes of OSHA neither does industry standard, OSHA will judge the failing of safety protocols on "best practice" that a reasonable professional trained with experience in the industry would require to mitigate the risk. Baldwin will certainly have responsibility as a person with significant control you cannot delegate away this type of responsibility even if he has none as an actor. Barring weird circumstance no one could predict that we don't know about what evidence could actually come out and change the facts and the total abysmal treatment of health and safety shown by this company and their employees.
This is such a pointless conversation... there isn't enough information to make a determination on if alec baldwin was at fault. They are just arguing hypotheticals
What are the odds Alec got singled out for: 1) Being vocal in his disdain of firearms. 2)made fun of Q's Daddy Trump. 3) generally been a left leaning celebrity.
Hey, am very rarely on your perspective, but completely agree with Destiny on this. This pisses me off the same as CNN horse medicine story, shame on the right, Sargon of Akard was also balanced. X
Gotta hand it to Destiny. He's holding firm on his stance that breaking news are toxic as hell, while still getting to milk the fuck out of breaking news for content.
I can't tell if this is a joke, but I don't think arguing that we shouldn't cover breaking news like he is here, is the same thing as milking breaking news for content
yeah but he’s at least taking advantage of the breaking news situation to point out how dumb this is and how so many shit takes there are surrounding it.
@@protennis365 Is there ever any instance of a non combat situation in which the simulation of a hostage situation, with someone pointing a gun at another’s head, would ever occur on a military base? If no, then that is one way in which these two are completely different.
Okay I have to chime in. I work in the film industry and I have worked in production for many years at this point. I am not union but non union sets literally use unions as a guideline to how they should run their non union sets. The reality is is that tasks and duties are heavily delegated to each crew member based on their position to the point where that person is 100% liable for whatever they are in charge of. For example me as a camera assistant is in charge of one camera usually, I wouldn’t let anyone who isn’t me or one of the other camera assistants ever touch the camera EVER. If something happens to that camera because of someone else it still falls to me that I didn’t properly watch over my responsibilities. In fact I would literally yell at anyone no matter who that was acting improperly near my camera or trying to do anything with my camera. If a lens breaks or the camera falls on someone that would be MY fault. Same goes for the armorer and the ad to and even higher degree. Actors are pretty much universally and explicitly told to do nothing but worry about there job giving their performance, under no circumstances would I ever rely on an actor to do anything other than act on a set. Not even move a stand or plug in a cable that’s how strict these things are. The idea that Alec Baldwin is at all responsible for firing after being told the gun is cold is stupid and shows that you do not understand how strict set hierarchy is.
The main reason i would think baldwin could take blame is that he's a producer and ran a bad set. Not because he's an actor, though that's just icing on the cake for a bad producer to actually recieve direct punishment for poorly running a set.
@@REDDAWNproject This is the most likely scenario when it comes to his culpability. But you wanna know what else is true? Actors especially established ones often are given producer credits even though their day to day job doesn’t involve producing. It’s mostly based around the idea that they helped get the movie financed or maybe found the script or something a long those lines. My gut tells me Alec was not the onset producer or anything of the sort but mostly just had an extra title. It’s and incredibly common thing.
@@REDDAWNproject I’m curious because I’m starting to feel like I’m a little nuts and you seem like you have a rational and thought out opinion. If you could please give your take on what I say here, because it feels like most people are so dug into their positions by now that most discussion is fruitless. Feel free to ignore me too if you don’t want to get into it. 1. If there is a group of actors and armourer companies stating that procedure is to show the actor using the firearm and others on set that the gun is cleared/using blanks/squibs/whatever - is it that much of a leap to think that this could be industry SOP? I ask myself, what WOULD the safest procedure be for everyone involved? Having them personally witness the final clear before use makes sense. 2. This procedure, from a safety standpoint, seems to be the optimal one for firearm safety on set. This way everyone using the firearm or who could be impacted by the firearm in the scene could each feel secure that the weapon was safe. They don’t need to personally clear it, only witness the trained professional clear it to be personally satisfied the weapon was safe. 3. The overall discussion feels like it’s becoming a partisan debate rather than a debate on who is accountable or even set firearm safety. This situation seems so far from political OTHER than the fact that a gun was involved. It’s scary that it seems like everyone on the right seems to line up on one side and the left on the other when I really don’t see any political advantage one way or the other. Destiny is correct in that there’s nothing really to learn from this - other than specifically in the movie industry. 4. It seems like if the procedure from #1 (again, to me it seems like the most optimal safety procedure when using a firearm, so that tends to make me think it is more plausible it could be the “industry standard”, even if not written down) Baldwin would be responsible in more ways than one. Not sole responsibility, but certainly responsible if the standard procedure was ignored and he did not witness the final clear before using the weapon on set. 5. More information certainly needs to be discovered, but based on what information is available now, including other industry professionals, actors, and rust movie set employees, Alec at least sharing some responsibility, if not an equal amount to the professional who’s role it was to clear the weapon, seems to be the most plausible outcome. Even more than half of Baldwin was also responsible for overall set policy and procedure. Hopefully my comment isn’t convoluted as all hell and can be understood. I’m honestly perplexed as to how this perspective could be off. I’ve tried to search my own logic for biases that could be swaying me, but I’m just not seeing it. There definitely could be more info come out to completely exonerate Baldwin, but I’m specifically talking about info available now and assuming any set would want to assume the most logical firearm safety procedures.
@@REDDAWNproject What I've read is that he's an executive producer, and that's a title that can mean many different things. It's sometimes given as an honorific to folks who have little or nothing to do with how the production is run. It may be that his name and status as an actor give him more clout on the set than his executive producer title.
This is exactly why I think it's highly unlikely Alec is responsible. Yes, Alec might have had an uncommonly high amount of involvement in a producer role - but even being on just a few sets myself, the role of producer can be handed out for so many different reasons. I'd bet on Alec wanting some sort of creative input. Stranger than anything Lauren thought was strange, would be an actor that wants to be super responsible for gun safety. Or even safety in general. Even with no standards or rules at all, actors should not be expected to be experienced with guns. It doesn't matter that Alec is a big name actor. It matters that the people who were supposed to be experienced with guns seemed to have said the gun was cold. The reason Armorers and ADs are so anal about this is because it's their baby, and they are liable.
@UClb-5r6GrgqqsZ7t5V9e9Bw what do you mean? The catering guy literally works on the set, of course he knows if gun safety protocol was being followed. You idiot.
@@user-gc1wj8tt2p whoosh my dude. That’s the joke. LS was going on about what the Location Manager thought. If we’re gonna listen to people about on-set gun safety, it’s not gonna be to just anyone who has been in contact with production.
@@johnadams9193 destiny is arguing about the rules on the set while dismissing examples of standard or typical rules on sets but neither deal with the fact that whoever uses a firearm is the one responsible for operating it safely. No one else.
@@bobbybee2975 this comment is incredibly ignorant because in this situation, the idea of "safe" operation is entirely subjective to the procedure followed on set, which we don't know anything about yet.
@@charlesblasini2134 you obviously know nothing about guns or morals. You literally holding the gun makes you responsible for how that gun is used and the results of your actions with that gun. Someone else tinkering with it is not an excuse on any level because YOU are responsible for that firearm. Period. A Hollywood set doesn't change the morals of the situation nor should it, imo, change the rule of law.
Mental gymnastic? This is just a normal conversation. I was expecting a lot of cringe and blood, but mostly just friendly conversation between American and Canadian.
Gun nutjobs are jizzing in their pants since an anti-gun advocate killed someone with a gun. Plus mental gymnastics is the only sport these guys are good at so they'll jump and stretch all points to make him look like a hypocrite/guilty (see BxBullet for example).
@@ksilva2848 i mean if ur an anti-gun advocate and ur using guns in movies, essentially promoting the use of guns to an audience (unless Rust has an anti-gun message in the movie itself, but i believe this was a western kinda movie so i doubt that) then it's hypocritical anyway. That's leaving out the possible irony of being anti-gun and killing someone with a gun
@@DesecratedTTV a decent human being had to watch his coworker bleed out and die by his own doing.. like tf is wrong with people? Imagine being mocked for watching your friend get hit by a car.. completely messed up
@@askechadd2473 guess you can't be anti-gun and play a cop/soldier/criminal in a movie then? No that's a stupid point there are legitimate uses for guns in the real world, and for their depiction on movies. There's a difference between displaying the use of guns and glorifying them like in many movies where they display an arsenal and some character goes "oh hell yeah". Granted, don't know Alec's position on it, but I would hope it's reasonable.
On one hand, it sucks that this debate really seems really annoying for Steven. On the other hand, it's nice to have a pretty straightforward debate that doesn't dip into the nebulous areas of ethics.
How can you claim that shooting someone on a movie set is unethical if you don’t believe in objective moral truths? My morality comes from God, and that’s how I know with certainty that actors should personally check prop guns on set.
@@josephjosephson6594 Yeah but the problem is that your claim to hold objective God given morality is a subjective experience that has no objective morality without being circular. You can't prove God to an objective standard, you can only prove that *you* believe it's objective, which is subjective. For example, i objectively assert that god's morals are open to interpretation.
Because righties want to say “Hmmmm, you’re anti gun but you killed someone with a gun, curious” without actually caring about the facts of the situation.
@@Marqrk you're leaving out a huge part where Baldwin is a huge lefty who was massively against guns. It's ok though we know you guys are biased. It's just funny seeing an anti gun person who blames guns f up and it's because people are dumb not the gun.
Idk, I think destiny might be wrong but his debate opposition isn't very competent. I just don't know what the justification is to say that Alec isn't obligated to clear a firearm handed to him. I would think that everyone is obligated to clear a firearm handed to them, actor or not, regardless of if it is technically someone else's job to do so "for him". Is there a reason why he might not have that obligation?
@@joshuawinstead7621 because it wastes time? Many shots can only be taken irl during some hours of the day, so if you take too long double/triple checking what should be safe by the time it gets to you, you end up having to waste an entire day for a single shot of the scene.
Word. I'm not at all convinced she and anyone else on the right actually care about this. They just hate Alec Baldwin because he made fun of their daddy Trump.
She’s just so predictable, just PERFECTLY follows party-lines and ALWAYS presents her opponents with the most BATSH T crazy framing. It’s so unsatisfying. I think Destiny secretly feels bad for her & thinks she’s smart enough to move away from predictable grift-propaganda crap
@@Tavat right like if you were to bring up the safety procedures of shooting flares at people, then she will say you are the one being unfair. like an abuser almost
@@giantmess4335 How about ACTING like you are using one? They are actors doing make believe in a 100 year old industry surrounded by professionals. Everyone on set has a job, its not the ACTOR'S job to make sure the guns are safe, they literally have a person for that (or several people). To act like this is Alec Baldwin's fault when he's been using guns on set since at least the 90s is just stupid and it smacks of wanting to tear down an outspoken celebrity
@@notjohn100 One of the major rules when entering a mine or a construction site is to wear a hard-hat. Yet i don't see Harrison Ford wearing a hard-hat on set. CURIOUS!
I’m really bummed Lauren didn’t get that first wave of DESTINY rage when talking about this. She deserves it far more than that last girl. Lauren has far more reach and shouldn’t be handled with kid gloves.
That look on Lauern's face when she realizes guns have an actual purpose to kill other people and not just be a prop in the background of a Twitch stream or TH-cam video putting holes through everyday household objects.
Do you also consider most swords, lances, spears, as to ONLY kill people or do they have other uses as well. Guns are for how a person CHOOSES to use it. IF you are going to say well their intended purpose is.... A gun give a woman a chance to equal out a situation. It gives people the opportunity to gather meat. It gives people a way to defend themselves or in some cases remove a corrupt dictatorship running their country. TNT was made to help miners. Someone else found it was even better at destroying a lot of things including people.
@@kebab8660 no it has nothing to do with that...im speaking about how much a hypocrite Lauren is...she wants stricter gun laws on set for something that hardly ever happens.
@Alan Laletin i dont care if you were my statment had nothing to do with guns killing people...im pointing out Laurens hypocrisy...thats like me telling you "then the earth is round not flat" its basic fact but has nothing to do with the fucking topic i presented
When she said "things are pointing in one direction based on all the information we have" Destiny should have rebutted with "remember when things were pointing to one direction when you said the Australian government went after a guy for breaking lockdown rules with 1984 camera surveillance based on an article headline and it turned out he actually had COVID and was coughing on people? Curious how just because things point to a direction it doesn't mean that direction is correct and we should jump to conclusions. Curious."
Yeah but I don't think really that she's saying that she's right, she's just saying that all the current evidence, the currently non disputed evidence points to that. Even though she made a lot of bad arguments and failed to articulate he good ones in a meaningfull manner, I don't think she's completely malicious in her intent and is trying to make a definitive statement on the situation. Even when Destiny asked her if she thought the entirety of the blame lied on Alec Baldwin, she said that she believed there were several people who seem deserving of the blame and mulitple mistakes that were made throughout the production. And in my opinion I think the fact that Baldwin was a producer on a movie that had two previous accidental discharges with no changes in safety protocol is way more damning than him even being the one who inevitably shot and killed the woman.
Woah, that one single case does not mean that Australia and New Zealand aren't being totalitarians about covid. Whats even the point of bringing that up.
@@johnlonne7062 Defensive much? You realize people are allowed to comment about things other than primary topic right? I promise you man Lauren isn't going to see your comment and decide to take you on a date.
Lauren southern has the rope literally around her neck a million times and destiny reaches over and unties it for her so damn much. She gets away with more than almost anyone that I've seen destiny interact with :/
Exactly. It's actually really insane how much good faith he gives someone like this. Almost like he's ideologically motivated to treat right wing fascists with kid gloves while acting like a screeching banshee about basic calls for police reform.
@@chriscopley7265 Damn, your comments almost make you out to be ideologically motivated to treat Destiny as a fascist sympathiser. Could it possibly be because you are in no way honest about this and can't understand that Destiny is trying his best to help someone he really doesn't want to be completely irrational since she's a mother and he doesn't want her kid to be influenced by Lauren's current and past idiocy? Just a thought, though.
@@yanowic9107 observe from an unbiased manner for a second Destinys approach and demeanour here and compare it to pretty much any discussion of his with a lefty. It does seem strange to me.
So Conservatives are jumping on this, eagerly trying to pin blame on Baldwin because they don't like Baldwin's portrayal of Trump and the fact that Baldwin is a Liberal, right? Is that pretty much what all this comes down to?
No, it's because Baldwin is the type to want to ban guns because he thinks they're dangerous but then gets handed one and kills someone with it. Just because you don't like guns doesn't give you an excuse to handle one improperly.
@@theax40 Ah, yes I suppose that's what they'd say to cover up their actual feelings. Totally fair to expect every actor who handles any sort of weapon on set should be an expert in that particular field of weaponry, rather than, you know, focus on acting. Rather than trust the person hired to handle the guns who said the gun was "safe", they should instead inspect, disassemble, clean, and/or build from scratch the weapon in question. Oh but wait, nobody who says guns are dangerous would ever have the capacity to do that for some reason.
@@chillpenguin7679 first off: I don't give a shit what the actors are or aren't trained to do. A mishandled firearm is dangerous and whoever pulls the trigger is ultimately responsible for what comes out the muzzle. Doesn't matter if you're an enthusiast, an actor or you find a gun laying on the ground in the park. Ignorance of what not to do with that firearm is no excuse when you negligently kill someone with it. If you don't want to learn basic safe firearm handling, which will only take about one minute to read up on, that's fine. But then you also should keep your hands off of one. Ignorance is no excuse for killing someone. And secondly: not liking firearms, not wanting to own one or not wanting anyone else to own one again is not an excuse for not knowing how to safely handle one if using firearms is part of your job. Stop making excuses for a grown ass man that should know better. You don't ever take someone else's word when they hand you a gun and tell you it's safe. You check that shit to be sure every goddamn time because it could save a life. It's annoying and it's a chore, but it's still not as annoying as being charged with a wrongful death. I live alone and I know for a fact my guns right now are unloaded and safe. I still check to be absolutely positively sure every single time I pick one up.
@@theax40 Do we know for a fact Baldwin has no firearm training or discipline? Just because someone doesn't like guns doesn't mean they wouldn't do some research/training for movie roles. Sounds like a lot of speculation being thrown around. Do you think this particular shot in the film didn't require him to aim the gun at the camera lens and pull the trigger? When a director says to you "ok in this scene you're going to aim here and fire" then you're handed a gun you are told is safe, and you do what the director says, is that still considered negligence on the actor's part? I don't think that's reasonable at all. This all just sounds like a bunch of armchair movie prop safety experts trying to take an already tragic situation, and use it to wrap up an actor in a scandal because it they don't share their similar views on guns/politics.
@@chillpenguin7679 Bud it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about, because you're arguing with me over a very simple and easy to understand concept: no matter what the context or situation, you don't ever handle a firearm you yourself have not checked for safety. There is no excuse. That's it. That's the comment.
The military/actor comparison is so strange. I've literally witnessed soldiers get their face kicked in for flagging people on the range. Edit as I'm watching: live ammo actually gets mixed into blanks fairly frequently which is part of the reason the military uses BFAs
Bfas... no. The muzzle pressure of a 5.56 will destroy a bfa and cause damage to the operator as well as likely any one down range or lateral. The sole reason that a blank adapter is used is back preasure. Since there is no round there is nothing resisting the gas expansion. This means not enough pressure to push the breach back and operate the cyclic function. And that's the m4/m16 where not even at the pressures of the 249 or M2HB.
@Chris Smith it does hapen fairly frequently in the millitary. What's being neglected here is the fact that this is during range clean up. From their the ammo & brass is sent to a collection point where its sifted through. I've only been to a few ranges that had blank fire and live fire at the same time. In this case we usually separate the ammo between to distinct points.
People are being so weird about the Rust shooting and seem desperate to read potential malice into everything. No one wanted it to happen and it was a tragedy, and watching some people salivate for new details to bolster their Frankestein pitchfork mob is kinda gross.
The hypocrisy in this post is hilarious considering how often people on the left do this exact same thing all the time. Not suggesting it's right, but to ignore the toughtless mob justic of one side while critiquing the other side for the same behavior is laughable.
Or because he was producer on an incredibly unsafe film set that resulted in a death? He’s right that it isn’t simple gun safety, it’s simple labour safety.
I would give Destiny a pass on this because he's never been in the military but there are occasions where you do point weapons at friendly soldier's when your doing force on force training with blanks or simunitions. This honestly helps his point because you HAVE to break the rules of gun safety to perform this style of training.
That actually destroys his argument.. He based everything on the four cardinal rules of gun safety, and he said the military doesnt do that... If they do what you are saying, then the military is breaking basic gun safety like Hollywood does, which was Lauren's point..
@@20centsaday54 Her point there was actually pretty good, if what you say is true. Her point was simply that the military also violates safety rules, because, like hollywood, they have to in order to do their job. I think she was drawing a comparison to how people would treat that soldier vs how they are treating baldwin. Ps.. I mean, she is all over the place, and hard to understand because of how she jumps around, but i think that was her point..
"Ray Liotta, from, you know, uhm. Godfathet." - Lauren "anecdotes is the singular of data" Lauren Ah yes, marvelous performance of Ray in that movie he wasn't in.
I don't understand the point in debating gun safety in regards to an on set incident. There wasn't supposed to be live rounds to begin with and clearly someone was tampering with what was available to create risk of something like this happening. We won't know until the investigations are through, but it should be common sense that gun safety shouldn't play a factor when the bullets were supposed to be blanks.
@Rose Anne Boushard that’s also irrelevant because the gun in this situation was supposed to be completely empty and everyone on set assumed it was completely empty
the easiest guideline for all firearms would be to prepare the gun in front of everyone that will be in harm's way before the scene even starts. That way everyone knows the gun is cold from the start, and they know what is going in the gun. you can still have people check the gun before handing it off too, but it would be less required in this circumstance. However, i would still always opt to double or even triple check before handing off a gun.
So if you have a scene that involves a 1000 people crowd and a gun, everyone should be shown the gun is clear in your opinion? That would be insane. Dedicated people should check the gun and be liable for the gun.
the gun could be prepared in a format that would be viable for any number of people. How about instead of everyone on set, a group of dedicated people oversee the preparation. Including the director and actor/actors that will be handling the the firearm. Having them review the ammunition the literal moment before it is put into the gun. At least having them present during the beginning couple rounds loaded would be just as effective as staying and watching them load the whole magazine because everyone would be able to see if there are live rounds and blank or dummy rounds in the area. ofc also banning live rounds on set would also be a no brainer. Essentially we both see the same point, there needs to be a clear procedure with steps that give someone, which should always be the one operating the firearm, full responsibility for whatever happens with it.
@@k9overlord What format would that be? A videofeed? That is not showing the procedure at all and does nothing to secure a gun. Why would the actors have to check the gun? Actors have to just do their part. We have the people responsible for the guns for that. In this set the people responsible did not go through the procedures they needed. Your example fails as even in this case because the gun was a revolver. You would have to show all chambers to all people. I really don't understand why the idea of actors just acting is a problem here. The set in question was not following any good safety protocol. They had 2 negligent discharges before the accident. You bringing up more safety rules to an already strict protocol does not change anything. They did not follow even the basics here, why would they follow your additional rule?
@@RanEncounter i agree that showing everyone on set wouldnt be possible. the format would be one I described, similar to your suggestion where there are a dedicated group a people preparing the firearm But instead adding the director and actor who will be using the firearm to those group of people doing so. Before the gun is even loaded, everyone in that group checks the ammunition being used, and then the rounds that were seen by everyone in that group of people are then loaded. In the case of the revolver it is feasible for them to bear witness to all of the bullets being loaded, however when it comes to a magazine, because everyone in that group knows the bullets are what they need to be, watching only the first couple rounds be loaded would work the same. If a new box if ammunition is needed then everyone must inspect again. The idea isnt to add more rules for them to skip, but to add rules that leave the liability on the operator of the gun. If the actor/actors handling the firearm were present and aware before and during the preparation of the firearm arm then it accomplishes 2 goals. 1 it secures the gun because there is a group bearing witness to the preparation, and 2 it will leave liability on the operator in case of an accident Just because they are an actor doesnt mean they shouldnt be involved in whats going on, on set. Especially if they will be handling a deadly weapon. Regardless if my procedure is good or not, there needs to be a clear universal guideline on how firearms on set are handled that leaves the liability of accidents on the one operating the gun. Which what i think we both are saying in round about ways
@@k9overlord "The idea isnt to add more rules for them to skip, but to add rules that leave the liability on the operator of the gun." Why would you want to do that? It increases the things the actors have to do and we all know the more things you have going on the bigger chance is they skip some part of their responsibilities. We want them to just focus on acting. "If the actor/actors handling the firearm were present and aware before and during the preparation of the firearm arm then it accomplishes 2 goals. 1 it secures the gun because there is a group bearing witness to the preparation, and 2 it will leave liability on the operator in case of an accident " Why would we want to the 2nd goal? The 1st goal happens anyway. Why is it important for you that the operator is liable? We have people that are liable for that. The less things the actors have to think about, the more they can focus on the acting. "Just because they are an actor doesnt mean they shouldnt be involved in whats going on, on set. Especially if they will be handling a deadly weapon. " No. The actors should focus on acting and stick to what they have been told. You clearly do not understand how a set is operated. "Regardless if my procedure is good or not, there needs to be a clear universal guideline on how firearms on set are handled that leaves the liability of accidents on the one operating the gun." Why? "Which what i think we both are saying in round about ways " No we are not. In your mind the operator has to be always liable for the gun. This is not feasible in a lot of cases in acting or on sets.
Just to clarify about the difference between the military and movie sets: There are circumstances in a training environment in the Army where you may be pointing a weapon at each other and shooting blanks. The risk of this activity is mitigated by a mixture of both institutional and individual factors. 1. Specific safety briefs from an officer in charge will specify the type of ammunition being used for the activity. 2. Live ammunition and blank ammunition is not distributed or mixed together EVER. Soldiers will not carry a combination of live or mixed ammunition on their person (all magazines are either blank or live, not a combination of both.) 3. Soldiers will fill their own magazines with ammunition ensuring they know what is going into each one (blanks are very distinct, twisted at the tip and going so far as to be black instead of the bronze-ish tint of live rounds). 4. Soldiers are briefly looking down at the face of a magazine before loading it into the weapon. This is generally to confirm that the magazine is loaded and ready to go, but it will also be a clear indicator if they're about to load live rounds into their weapon. I admit that this generally doesn't happen as the weight is a dead giveaway that you have a full magazine. I don't have any strong opinions either which way yet. It's entirely dependent on the safety protocols they agreed to on set. If Alec Baldwin was meant to clear his weapon prior to using it then I reckon he's getting the book thrown at him. If he wasn't required to clear his weapon I imagine he'll either never want to hold a weapon again or ensure he checks his own weapons in the future. It's an entirely unfortunate circumstance.
Don't forget that if you're firing blanks in the direction of another human being while on exercise you're using a blank-firing adapter (bfa), which is not only highly visible (and obvious if you're not using it), will stop debris leaving the barrel and will even do a pretty decent job at catching a live round (at the expense of the firearm, its not a pretty process)
She fills her statements with so much fluff, why is Destiny allowing this? 70% of what she says is basically "the weather is nice" "water is wet". Edit: Nvm, he called her out on it later.
8:24 *Lauren* : “I don’t really care about the political stuff with Baldwin” 🤣 Destiny rightfully roasted her there. She’s so predictable along party-lines yet still thinks Destiny doesn’t realize she’s a full-blown ideologue
uh huh. that's why you're bawling your eyes out in the comment section snorting that hopium thinking someone's gonna walk away scott free after blowing another person's guts out. LMAO. Take the L.
@@notrando9233 literally not related to a single thing I said. Oh I see from your dumb comment history that you’ve never been here until now and are just waltzing in here unaware that she’s been here many times and we’ve seen her do this crap before. She’s a hack ideologue. No hopium needed. She’s been exposed here as a guest many times. Don’t think you’re pulling anything, kid. We’ve seen her many times here. Your dumb rhetoric isn’t ever working. Either go back to your echo chamber or actually provide a single thing countering the fact that she’s a complete party-line ideological hack. Not just a claim, a timestamp and actually responding. That’s how adults actually disprove things. Good luck attempting. If you even do.
Lauren went from "Alec Baldwin fucked up and is responsible (in her videos)) > The evidence points towards Alec Baldwin being responsible > Okay I agree we should wait for more information > We actually don't disagree that much". Huge L for conservatives.
I'm still confused as to why a Nazi is being rehabilitated in these debates without her ever having seriously walked back any of her insane positions regarding the Great Replacement conspiracy peddling, the whole Streets of Paris debacle, etc. Is it really just because it's good for content?
She is only appearing to be less of a fascist. She hasn’t walked anything back because she still holds to those beliefs, and is trying ( poorly) to couch her ultra right views in nice speak and is learning to tap dance around those beliefs in a more graceful way.
@Trade Bum Simmons An actor cannot follow gun safety rules. If he needs to treat a gun at all times as if it's loaded, they would not be able to shoot the gun on set unless they intend to kill someone. Different kind of rules must be tailored for them or simply they should stop using real guns in sets.
@Trade Bum Simmons Of course, but I see no reason why those rules should necessarily involve the actor at all. A pilot is not responsible of checking the functioning of a plane before he flights it. You could argue that that is the case and that a state standard should be established to such end, but since no one was saying so before this happened, you cannot blame anyone involved in the movie for not following those non existent standards. I think this is the whole point Destiny is trying to make in this conversation.
@Trade Bum Simmons You are begging the question. We are precisely discussing whether an actor should be responsible for what he does with a firearm in the very specific case of being on a movie set using a gun for what is basically a CGI prop. It is perfectly arguable that in that context you can leave the actor completely out of the security procedure and just let the hired experts manage the whole thing. Just as if I fly you in my private plane I am personally responsible of making sure that it has passed all the relevant security standards, but an airline pilot is not, because that job has been assigned to other people. Again, you can argue that for the case of guns in movies the actor handling the gun should be part of the security procedure, but you cannot take it as a given.
@Trade Bum Simmons It would be inevitable if the DP or AC has to get behind the camera to set the framing, pull focus, physically move the camera because they're using primes and need to rehearse a movement, etc. Actors on a set are usually held to a different standard because the multiple roles required to make a real movie are delighted very heavily. Everyone has more or less a single job to do and don't worry about someone else's. The props master/armorer is more fucked than he is generally.
@Trade Bum Simmons Again, every actor in a movie will have to disregard basic safety measures because he's going to have to point it at cameras and innocent people. So there is very good reason why an actor might not be responsible about what he does with a gun, because he's not using it like a gun but as a CGI prop. It is a perfectly valid strategy to have actors treat guns on set as if they will never have live rounds on them and then to have experts making sure that that is the case. It's a simple distribution of work that is done in thousands of other applications, as it's the case of a plane. There are many other dangerous things an actor can use on a set that are tremendously dangerous: explosives, high power lines, lifelines, should actors make sure that they are properly working before using them? No, they can use experts to guarantee they're secure. And there is a perfectly good reason why an actor should not be meddling with a gun prepared by the armourer and the second director, Destiny already pointed that out. If they are the people personally liable for gun accidents, they obviously would never let anyone else meddling with the gun, because they will be responsible for any mistake they make. They will give the gun to the actor and tell them to only use it as they're told. And that "you're arguing for the side that has made people die" part is ridiculous. By that logic, let's make guns illegal in the US. That would also have prevented this accident, would it not? Or let's make making movies illegal. Or are you going to argue for the side that made people die? This accident has occurred because of an absolute disregard of the proper security procedure of guns on a film set, and it is perfectly possible that Alec Baldwin was part of those involved in that negligence. But to try to make this as a problem in the procedure, given how rare these accidents are is hysterical. The current mechanism crearly works, it is just that they were not followed.
I think Destiny missed Lauren's position. Destiny isn't "Fighting" as much as he's simply asking questions out of ignorance. Lauren did an excellent job trying to explain things. It's that or I honestly don't know what Destiny's point was. Law Enforcement and Military do often point their loaded firearms at people in the line of duty. What she also was saying that often Hollywood (or the entertainment industry) often have a firearm pointing (or sweeping the barrel) at people but it is intended that the scene is absolutely safe (unloaded, loaded with blanks/dummies), and that industry safety protocols and procedures are made to ensure firearm safety. Somewhere along the line or everywhere along the line, protocol was broken or ignored. If any one of the persons handling the gun (including Alec Baldwin as the actor using the gun) would have taken the responsibility to check the firearm, the live round would have been detected and Halyna's death could have been avoided. Regardless of how, you still have to distinguish the difference between a live round and a blank or dummy round in order to check the round in the firearm. So not to assign blame at anyone, as the actor, Baldwin failed to check the firearm before firing it OR as Producer, he failed to enforce or establish the necessary safety protocols to ensure a safe working environment.
My mind was made up instantly. You have to check the weapon to see if it is loaded. Idc if someone handed it to you and said it's safe, check it. On a revolver, you don't even have to open the cylinder to see if it's loaded. Then we find out he wasn't even supposed to be using the gun for that scene...
It's like Lauren doesn't understand throwing out a million examples of random things that are superficially relevant doesn't actually make them relevant. And she agrees there is no industry standard but every 5 seconds "The industry standard" machine guns out of her mouth. And pulling the BxBullet meme of "I agree" and then saying "But" and totally disagreeing is getting super fucking annoying. It's become a debate tactic the way people think Destiny uses specifics as a "tactic".
except it wasnt random at all, she literally linked an article stating what an industry standard is. it might not be the law, but it does appear to be an industry standard.
Its cause thats what she does. She doesnt read news to find out what happened. She reads news that only supports her narrative while ignoring everything else.
I don't think it's a coincious thing, they are just reaching for the next argument when they are being pushed back, it's a debate more then a good faith discussion.
Yea and even if it ends up being his fault but why do all this investigation shit especially if you could look stupid af at the end.. like even having a debate on this is weird…
You can *never* just take Lauren's word for anything, you have to watch her like a hawk. She is a pathological liar, her videos, and documentaries are full of her shameless dishonesty. If Destiny didn't check her source, she would have continued to imply that it was a 'requirement'.
I've come to really despise these conversations between Lauren and Destiny, because its just Lauren saying something, Destiny completely refuting her and her then weasling out of it by acting like he partially agreed with her or that she never shared that opinion anyway.
@@ReubenRosczyk She might be smart, but she is neither honest nor prepared. She will never state her own opinion - or atleast pretend not to - and when called out on lies and halftruths she is spreading she will claim not to have looked into the topic to deeply. When Destiny debates a dipshit tankie or a Nick Fuentes type atleast they own their opinions somewhat, instead of hiding behind this "some people think/say" spiel.
Destiny: (gives hypothetical where Alec Baldwin is to blame) Lauren: “haha well that was just put the nail in the coffin” One minute later Lauren: “where have i made it seem like I was putting the blame on any specific person?”
This whole incident was a great example of the extremely emotional lens conservatives view the news with. The so wanted a person they hated to be guilty of this, that they made logic twists that they wouldn't except anywhere else.
Let’s play guess who? - I think we should wait for more information before we throw accusations at this cop. We don’t know the full story - I mean I think we can reasonably say Alec Baldwin is at fault even though we don’t have all the information yet…
I’ve been having this exact same argument in threads and it’s driving me mad. People are just so thirsty to say “SEE THE LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD ELITE ARE BAD AND THEY HATE GUNS BUT THEY KILL WITH GUNS, CURIOUS!” I’m getting close to want to Alec Baldwin the comments section
Not everybody on a movie set knows the protocols used when dealing with guns. The people making coffee, putting make up, or fetching wardrobe know nothing about gun protocols on set.
Basic gun safety, all guns are treated as loaded. Never point a gun at a person unless you intend to take a life. The failure is the on set armourer in assuring the weapon was loaded with snapcaps
just finished reading the new article with more details apparently cheif armorer hannah gutierrez-reed was supposed to clear the gun and show the lead director Dave hall which happened but both dave hall and gutierrez didnt clear the gun properly they both admitted they had a lapse in judgement. Also apparently actors in movies like this are allowed to do shoot arounds and aiming at targets with live rounds but at the end they are to give them back and get them cleared again by the armorer and lead director. So everyone whose saying gun laws apply on movie sets yeah they dont please stop trying to equate movies,real life and military life these are 3 completely different things with different rules and as we can read the armorer and lead director broke all. Also the statement that came out said he was practicing a cross body draw when the fire arm went off.
K but if gun safety is ok to ignore if its on a movie set, the bigger question is why use real guns? I'm half curious if movies that used rocket launchers during filming were fully functioning and loaded with live rockets, oh sure, its ok though because its on a movie set.
@@LeonBelmont1000 are you mental? A rocket launcher is different to a handgun thats like saying because im a trained army vet i can own and shoot one whenever i feel like. When you do movie scenes you at times will have to point the gun at the camera how hard is that to understand for you people. The guns they usually use have blanks in them and they are protective screens. In this case he was handed a cold gun that was double checked they also wanted to see the draw for the next scene behind the camera thats why the gun was pointed there whats so hard to understand this is clearly a mistake. The reason for real guns is for the bullet firing aspects and you are acting like movies dont use rocket launchers.
@@envy8397 I was partially being sarcastic, but its funny how you can justify ignoring safety standards and responsibility for what goes on just because you're on a filming set. The guy was a PRODUCER, yet the fall back in this case is "he's an actor". This was an instance of a complete lack of common sense, not just from Alec, but the people in charge of the live ammunition being present on set. The crew probably all signed a waiver in case of accidental death on set, but the mental gymnastics here is astounding.
@@LeonBelmont1000 he probably financed the movie or gave a script that doesn’t mean he is the on set producer how hard is it to grasp that the people on set don’t want actors doing or touching anything they don’t need to cause they wont understand and just want them to act im the one doing mental gymnastics when you’re the one who compared a hand gun to a rocket launcher. Also thats what i said clearly there was a lapse in judgment somewhere that led to the incident so why are you still tryna prove something else?
So... you go the car mechanic and they do a bad job with your breaks. You end up losing breaks on the highway and you kill someone cause your car could not stop. You were following the speed limit. Is that your fault? Do you go to jail? Destiny should have asked this question.
The primary purpose of a car is not to kill. Broken breaks are a fault with the machinery, the gun was not at fault the bullet discharged when the trigger was pulled.
@@botheredbiskit yes, just like the car was not at fault, the mechanic was. The mechanic in this situation would be the armorer and AD who were supposed to clear the gun, just like the mechanic was supposed to reconnect your brakes You really didn't think this through, did you?
@@Mrraerae Uh no. A gun is a weapon, it's only purpose is to harm, when someone hands you a gun, the purpose is to fire it, you should be instantly aware that its potential to harm is immediate. A cars function is to transport you. You cant compare the negligence of someone pointing a weapon and pulling the trigger to somebody driving to work. Get it?
@@Mrraerae the argument is not about a third party screwing up, we already know this. It's a case of personal accountability and assessing the level of negligence. Derrick chauvin is in jail for being negligent by overdoing a restraining technique that he was officially taught. The responsibility was his ultimately and he deserves to be in jail regardless of intent.
@@botheredbiskit I think you need to read my comment again cause you did a Lauren here and replied to an imaginary point I didn't made. 1 - In this exemple, you are relinquish to the trust of the 'expert' who is supposed and paid to make sure the situation is safe. Question is, are you liable if the expert fails to do their job? 2 - In this situation, the primary purpose of the gun is not to kill, but to be a prop. In handled correctly, this gun would not kill. If handled correctly, the car would also not kill. In both cases, someone was in charge to ensure safety about something you don't know anything about, and the end user ended up being ''screwed'' by the ''expert'' not doing their job. So, I presume when you send your car to the garage, you triple check everything, undo the work the garage people made and reinstall your brakes yourself to make sure they did it properly? What is the point of liability then AND what is the point to going through 'experts' if you are going to blame the end user anyway?
Her “nail in the coffin” comment completely exposed all her other contradictions about “I’m not trying to blame big bad Liberal, Alec Baldwin.” We all knew that already, but to hear her slip up like that was nice.
Yup, the problem is the right hates Baldwin cause he makes fun of daddy trump. They don't care at all about this situation or about gun safety, they are doing everything they can to make him look bad just cause they don't like him, it is very obvious
As an idf soldier, the safety gun protocol, not only that they are apply on us, they are far far more extrem on safety. If someone is suspected as a threat to you, the first thing is to shout to him to stop, then to fire but not to him, but to point to the sky, for a warning, and only if he continue after that, you can shoot to control the threat usually to his legs, because it should be a shoot to control the target and not to kill it. And you usually almost never using your gun. And every gun protocol that you violet you get extremely punished. So no, we as soldier don't get pass on civilians guns safety protocols. So weird she brought that up
40:45 is where she comes mask off. You can tell she was dancing beautifully around explicitly blaming him while implicating him this whole time just for this specific moment, despite Baldwins culpability being the main disagreement. Idk if mask off is the right way to describe this but I knew it was coming
No, that's not why people are saying that judge is biased, it's because he said that the people who died if the defense can make a case for it they are allowed to call them "rioters or looters" or something like this. Why lie about that?
This is the Destiny we all know and love. Can we just agree that this dude is probably the smartest streamer in the game right now???? i had to watch this twice! LOL!!!! Southern 0, Destiny 4 now??? :D #dgg
41:30 Sorry, NO. It is not possible for Balwdin to get out of any culpability in this case. He was a producer and a star actor. No matter any emails sent, he could have...and most definetly.... SHOULD have walked out due to them cutting corners. Period.
@@RedmayneDeadmayne what in the hell are you talking about? They EXPLICTLY want to blame Alec because he criticized trump and is anti gun moron. Don't reply to me unless you have something intelligent to say
@@mariomario1462 are you actually stupid it something it was always about his stance on guns thats clearly what he was talking about thats why he said it was stupid for you to mention trump at all.
I don't know how you folks do things in the States, but here in Canada, it is INCREDIBLY rare that criminal charges are brought to anyone regarding workplace incidents. That being said, most of the time we (the government) will enforce violations from the top down - meaning we will find out who is ultimately liable, and critically, if they exercised their DUE DILIGENCE regarding the prevention of an incident or unsafe condition. A movie set IS a workplace. There will be multiple investigations by multiple parties and we will eventually get an outcome. If anything, the mounting pile of information we are receiving regarding this situation (live ammo on set, unqualified personnel, no PPE, not following protocol, etc.) is indication that there were larger systematic issues at play here.
This is not a gun issue, or an Alec Baldwin issue, or whatever - this is a workplace health and safety issue. I realize that's way more boring or whatever, but fuck. I'm so triggered rn...
The only reasonable criticism of Baldwin is that he’s listed as the head of the top production crew, and given the acute lack of gun safety on set one would think EVERYONE would be double and triple checking the guns according to the scene. Still, I feel bad for Baldwin and of course the family, he must be seriously in the pits, I can’t imagine being in that situation.
What's the ACUTE lack of gun safety? As far as I know there's no information on whether the gun and ammo were unattended or the Assistant Director/Armorer didn't actually check the gun that time. If I remember correctly gnomey read an article in the bx bullet video where it said that for this movie the Armorer and AD checked the gun and ammo before handing it to anyone, which means it is double checked - I don't recall any statement that this protocol wasn't followed by the Armorer/AD that time. The only statement I did see, regarding what protocol was or wasn't followed, is that the AD handed Baldwin the gun YELLING that it was a "cold gun". So again, the theoretical gun safety of the things that were known exists and only starting from the time Baldwin was handed the gun, it was followed. Was there any information yet on why there was live ammo around at all? And if there was live ammo for some scene: Where was it stored? Who was responsible for it? (could be another team that would never hand the regular cast any of their guns+ammo) How could an Armorer and AD even mistake live ammo for blanks?
This is the question for her. "If you were in a movie and going to be shot in the role and Alec Baldwin is the shooter. Do you trust Baldwin to clear the gun or would you trust the armorer/ad to do it?"
The whole point of having professionals there is because actors make mistakes with guns, they have some training but they aren't experts and shouldn't be held to that standard.
Lauren's military analogy is ludicrous. If you EVER point a weapon at someone on base, you are getting in severe trouble. There may be exceptions, but that would not be accepted. In the marine corps, we had someone accidentally flag someone with an unloaded rifle, and the dude got totally swarmed and punished.
Quick tip for anyone; the moment anyone responds to a point you're trying to make by saying the words, "Well yeah, anything could happen...", know that they are no longer engaging in good faith with you. They literally won't engage with hypotheticals at that point, and you should just end the conversation.
Honest question. How is Lauren Southern somebody? What exactly did she do to gain an audience and convince anybody that her opinions are worth hearing?
I think a lot of back and forth on whether the gun should have been shown to have been empty could have been avoided if somebody pointed out _that it wasn’t supposed to be empty._ It was a revolver in a frontal shot, it was obviously gonna be loaded with dummy rounds _because you can see the bullets in a revolver._ The security procedure failure was that the Assistant Director grabbed the gun directly and checked without consulting with the propmaster and armorer. And since we now know the gun was loaded with a live round, I am guessing AD Hall, who is known in the industry for being impatient with safety checks, likely just did a quick visual check by opening the gun and rotating the chamber, as opposed to the time consuming professional check of dummy rounds which involves unloading each individually, inspecting the firing cap and then rattling each bullet by the ear to listen for the BBs usually replacing gunpowder in them. There aren’t supposed to be live rounds on a set anyway, so why would an impatient man do more than the basic visual comparison to see if the rounds were blanks or dummies?
The reason why this debate settled much quicker than before is because she didn't stubbornly repeat her stupid take that alec baldwins anti gun stance somehow contributed to the tragedy. Inherently she lost her argument out the gate and adopted a slightly skewed version of Destiny's take that we should wait for details to determine liability, though as Destiny demonstrated shes still inclined to blame Baldwin regardless of circumstances. Destiny did a good job of pointing out that bias and forcing Lauren to bite the bullet and acknowledge there are contexts that exist in which Baldwin would be exonerated of all blame, it just comes down to waiting for the facts at this point.
Lol 3 minutes in and she brings up negligent discharges in the military, which happen all the fucking time. I’ve watched it happen multiple times on ranges.
This will never be as good as the last debate about this topic. But I take it. I think all these internet political figures are not able to have a genuine debate about this. Destiny is just 100% on point on this topic.
So some quick notes, when you clear a gun you are just making sure that it is clear, like no rounds in it, barrel is clear, and that it is clean and working. The production I've been around the armorer clears the gun and then takes the ammo to be used, be it duds, caps, blanks, dummies, or live. The assistant director, producer, or director is then given the rounds and checks them and loads the gun in front of the actor and the other parties, normally those were the people the gun will be pointed to. The gun is either declared hot or cold, hot rounds have a primer and/or powder in it, cold is otherwise where hot should never pointed at another person without a hell of an exclusion. The actor is probably the least culpable for this if he was handed the gun. Live ammo should almost never be stored near any other rounds and normally need additional clearing. These guns should have never left the set, the guns should have been cleared prior to the set and again during the scene.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
Some people on the right have already made up their minds but Destiny believes everyone should wait because the evidence will come out because the shooting happened on a Hollywood set.
Bonus memes and content ►th-cam.com/channels/LOPC6bOBuiSBAJ16JXLAHg.html
The exact rules on that set do not matter in the eyes of OSHA neither does industry standard, OSHA will judge the failing of safety protocols on "best practice" that a reasonable professional trained with experience in the industry would require to mitigate the risk.
Baldwin will certainly have responsibility as a person with significant control you cannot delegate away this type of responsibility even if he has none as an actor.
Barring weird circumstance no one could predict that we don't know about what evidence could actually come out and change the facts and the total abysmal treatment of health and safety shown by this company and their employees.
This is such a pointless conversation... there isn't enough information to make a determination on if alec baldwin was at fault. They are just arguing hypotheticals
What are the odds Alec got singled out for:
1) Being vocal in his disdain of firearms.
2)made fun of Q's Daddy Trump.
3) generally been a left leaning celebrity.
This is some stupid shit why is anyone even debating this lmao
Hey, am very rarely on your perspective, but completely agree with Destiny on this.
This pisses me off the same as CNN horse medicine story, shame on the right, Sargon of Akard was also balanced. X
Gotta hand it to Destiny.
He's holding firm on his stance that breaking news are toxic as hell, while still getting to milk the fuck out of breaking news for content.
best of both worlds
I can't tell if this is a joke, but I don't think arguing that we shouldn't cover breaking news like he is here, is the same thing as milking breaking news for content
yeah but he’s at least taking advantage of the breaking news situation to point out how dumb this is and how so many shit takes there are surrounding it.
Glad somebody said this. I've only started seeing these debates in the last couple of weeks and destiny comes across as pretentious.
he's treating breaking news in a "we dont have all the info" way, which is great
Wow, only 4 minutes in and Lauren trying to compare the gun safety protocols on a military base to the set of a movie just killed a piece of me.
They desperately wanna attack this dude for Daddy Trump
Will it is the same
@@protennis365 no it isnt you brainlet
@@protennis365 Is there ever any instance of a non combat situation in which the simulation of a hostage situation, with someone pointing a gun at another’s head, would ever occur on a military base? If no, then that is one way in which these two are completely different.
there is a right and wrong way to handle a gun, the military is no more safe with theirs than any knowledgeable gun owner.
Okay I have to chime in. I work in the film industry and I have worked in production for many years at this point. I am not union but non union sets literally use unions as a guideline to how they should run their non union sets. The reality is is that tasks and duties are heavily delegated to each crew member based on their position to the point where that person is 100% liable for whatever they are in charge of. For example me as a camera assistant is in charge of one camera usually, I wouldn’t let anyone who isn’t me or one of the other camera assistants ever touch the camera EVER. If something happens to that camera because of someone else it still falls to me that I didn’t properly watch over my responsibilities. In fact I would literally yell at anyone no matter who that was acting improperly near my camera or trying to do anything with my camera. If a lens breaks or the camera falls on someone that would be MY fault. Same goes for the armorer and the ad to and even higher degree. Actors are pretty much universally and explicitly told to do nothing but worry about there job giving their performance, under no circumstances would I ever rely on an actor to do anything other than act on a set. Not even move a stand or plug in a cable that’s how strict these things are. The idea that Alec Baldwin is at all responsible for firing after being told the gun is cold is stupid and shows that you do not understand how strict set hierarchy is.
The main reason i would think baldwin could take blame is that he's a producer and ran a bad set.
Not because he's an actor, though that's just icing on the cake for a bad producer to actually recieve direct punishment for poorly running a set.
@@REDDAWNproject This is the most likely scenario when it comes to his culpability. But you wanna know what else is true? Actors especially established ones often are given producer credits even though their day to day job doesn’t involve producing. It’s mostly based around the idea that they helped get the movie financed or maybe found the script or something a long those lines. My gut tells me Alec was not the onset producer or anything of the sort but mostly just had an extra title. It’s and incredibly common thing.
@@REDDAWNproject I’m curious because I’m starting to feel like I’m a little nuts and you seem like you have a rational and thought out opinion. If you could please give your take on what I say here, because it feels like most people are so dug into their positions by now that most discussion is fruitless. Feel free to ignore me too if you don’t want to get into it.
1. If there is a group of actors and armourer companies stating that procedure is to show the actor using the firearm and others on set that the gun is cleared/using blanks/squibs/whatever - is it that much of a leap to think that this could be industry SOP? I ask myself, what WOULD the safest procedure be for everyone involved? Having them personally witness the final clear before use makes sense.
2. This procedure, from a safety standpoint, seems to be the optimal one for firearm safety on set. This way everyone using the firearm or who could be impacted by the firearm in the scene could each feel secure that the weapon was safe. They don’t need to personally clear it, only witness the trained professional clear it to be personally satisfied the weapon was safe.
3. The overall discussion feels like it’s becoming a partisan debate rather than a debate on who is accountable or even set firearm safety. This situation seems so far from political OTHER than the fact that a gun was involved. It’s scary that it seems like everyone on the right seems to line up on one side and the left on the other when I really don’t see any political advantage one way or the other. Destiny is correct in that there’s nothing really to learn from this - other than specifically in the movie industry.
4. It seems like if the procedure from #1 (again, to me it seems like the most optimal safety procedure when using a firearm, so that tends to make me think it is more plausible it could be the “industry standard”, even if not written down) Baldwin would be responsible in more ways than one. Not sole responsibility, but certainly responsible if the standard procedure was ignored and he did not witness the final clear before using the weapon on set.
5. More information certainly needs to be discovered, but based on what information is available now, including other industry professionals, actors, and rust movie set employees, Alec at least sharing some responsibility, if not an equal amount to the professional who’s role it was to clear the weapon, seems to be the most plausible outcome. Even more than half of Baldwin was also responsible for overall set policy and procedure.
Hopefully my comment isn’t convoluted as all hell and can be understood. I’m honestly perplexed as to how this perspective could be off. I’ve tried to search my own logic for biases that could be swaying me, but I’m just not seeing it. There definitely could be more info come out to completely exonerate Baldwin, but I’m specifically talking about info available now and assuming any set would want to assume the most logical firearm safety procedures.
@@REDDAWNproject What I've read is that he's an executive producer, and that's a title that can mean many different things. It's sometimes given as an honorific to folks who have little or nothing to do with how the production is run. It may be that his name and status as an actor give him more clout on the set than his executive producer title.
This is exactly why I think it's highly unlikely Alec is responsible. Yes, Alec might have had an uncommonly high amount of involvement in a producer role - but even being on just a few sets myself, the role of producer can be handed out for so many different reasons. I'd bet on Alec wanting some sort of creative input. Stranger than anything Lauren thought was strange, would be an actor that wants to be super responsible for gun safety. Or even safety in general. Even with no standards or rules at all, actors should not be expected to be experienced with guns. It doesn't matter that Alec is a big name actor. It matters that the people who were supposed to be experienced with guns seemed to have said the gun was cold. The reason Armorers and ADs are so anal about this is because it's their baby, and they are liable.
Guys, the person in charge of catering said the gun safety protocols weren’t followed.
@UClb-5r6GrgqqsZ7t5V9e9Bw what do you mean? The catering guy literally works on the set, of course he knows if gun safety protocol was being followed. You idiot.
@@user-gc1wj8tt2p whoosh my dude. That’s the joke. LS was going on about what the Location Manager thought. If we’re gonna listen to people about on-set gun safety, it’s not gonna be to just anyone who has been in contact with production.
@@user-gc1wj8tt2p i think he was mocking her.
@@Mrraerae this is ironic right? We’re both laughing at this other person?
@@NotimetoVero yes, it was a joke
🍿🍿 let’s sit tight and watch the mental gymnastics
@@iaqh too bad she had no facts maybe it would have went better for her
@@johnadams9193 destiny is arguing about the rules on the set while dismissing examples of standard or typical rules on sets but neither deal with the fact that whoever uses a firearm is the one responsible for operating it safely. No one else.
@@bobbybee2975 this comment is incredibly ignorant because in this situation, the idea of "safe" operation is entirely subjective to the procedure followed on set, which we don't know anything about yet.
@@charlesblasini2134 you obviously know nothing about guns or morals. You literally holding the gun makes you responsible for how that gun is used and the results of your actions with that gun. Someone else tinkering with it is not an excuse on any level because YOU are responsible for that firearm. Period. A Hollywood set doesn't change the morals of the situation nor should it, imo, change the rule of law.
Mental gymnastic? This is just a normal conversation. I was expecting a lot of cringe and blood, but mostly just friendly conversation between American and Canadian.
Idk how this story managed to become political is beyond me but it might just be the last ounce of Destiny's (a girls name) sanity.
Alec Baldwin has been a vocal critic of a lot of conservatives so they are looking for any reason to tear him down.
Gun nutjobs are jizzing in their pants since an anti-gun advocate killed someone with a gun. Plus mental gymnastics is the only sport these guys are good at so they'll jump and stretch all points to make him look like a hypocrite/guilty (see BxBullet for example).
@@ksilva2848 i mean if ur an anti-gun advocate and ur using guns in movies, essentially promoting the use of guns to an audience (unless Rust has an anti-gun message in the movie itself, but i believe this was a western kinda movie so i doubt that) then it's hypocritical anyway. That's leaving out the possible irony of being anti-gun and killing someone with a gun
@@DesecratedTTV a decent human being had to watch his coworker bleed out and die by his own doing.. like tf is wrong with people? Imagine being mocked for watching your friend get hit by a car.. completely messed up
@@askechadd2473 guess you can't be anti-gun and play a cop/soldier/criminal in a movie then? No that's a stupid point there are legitimate uses for guns in the real world, and for their depiction on movies.
There's a difference between displaying the use of guns and glorifying them like in many movies where they display an arsenal and some character goes "oh hell yeah".
Granted, don't know Alec's position on it, but I would hope it's reasonable.
On one hand, it sucks that this debate really seems really annoying for Steven. On the other hand, it's nice to have a pretty straightforward debate that doesn't dip into the nebulous areas of ethics.
How can you claim that shooting someone on a movie set is unethical if you don’t believe in objective moral truths? My morality comes from God, and that’s how I know with certainty that actors should personally check prop guns on set.
@@josephjosephson6594 Yeah but the problem is that your claim to hold objective God given morality is a subjective experience that has no objective morality without being circular. You can't prove God to an objective standard, you can only prove that *you* believe it's objective, which is subjective. For example, i objectively assert that god's morals are open to interpretation.
@@neildepressedtyson540 Are you actually arguing with a joke? 😂
@@josephjosephson6594 I think he thought you were serious, can’t tell now LMAO
@@josephjosephson6594 YES DON'T @ ME
I really enjoyed Lauren Southern’s facial glitches anytime Steven tried to engage with her on a specific point.
She went to the DemonMama school of facial reaction
why this is a conversation that is happening is insane
Because righties want to say “Hmmmm, you’re anti gun but you killed someone with a gun, curious” without actually caring about the facts of the situation.
@@Marqrk it's even funnier when you consider all the accidents that happens with people who own and support guns.
@@cartoonsandcereal3413 thats not Even clear
@@Marqrk you're leaving out a huge part where Baldwin is a huge lefty who was massively against guns. It's ok though we know you guys are biased. It's just funny seeing an anti gun person who blames guns f up and it's because people are dumb not the gun.
@@edwardrichard8093 true when righties who owns guns and have their children shoot themselves it’s cuz the kid is dumb not the gun.
4:14 That might be one of the funniest Destiny expressions that I have seen, he is literally shaking and trying to prevent his brain from rotting.
My biggest problem with this debate was Lauren saying Ray Liotta was in The Godfather…and Destiny didn’t correct her. You both lost the argument…
This is literally the bx bullet debate with a more competent debater. It's a little less frustrating though.
The difference is that Lauren knows she's bad faith
@@SteveDawgNZ ayeo
@@SteveDawgNZ hol up... u right
Idk, I think destiny might be wrong but his debate opposition isn't very competent. I just don't know what the justification is to say that Alec isn't obligated to clear a firearm handed to him. I would think that everyone is obligated to clear a firearm handed to them, actor or not, regardless of if it is technically someone else's job to do so "for him". Is there a reason why he might not have that obligation?
@@joshuawinstead7621 because it wastes time? Many shots can only be taken irl during some hours of the day, so if you take too long double/triple checking what should be safe by the time it gets to you, you end up having to waste an entire day for a single shot of the scene.
I'm just annoyed that she keeps saying Ray Liotta was in The Godfather lmao
The Godfellas 😂
Came to the comments to find this
Thank you 😂
THANK YOU
A new low in misinformation from Lauren.
the amount of bad faith horseshit and moving of the goalposts she does just kills me
Word. I'm not at all convinced she and anyone else on the right actually care about this. They just hate Alec Baldwin because he made fun of their daddy Trump.
Adventure time Pog
She’s just so predictable, just PERFECTLY follows party-lines and ALWAYS presents her opponents with the most BATSH T crazy framing. It’s so unsatisfying. I think Destiny secretly feels bad for her & thinks she’s smart enough to move away from predictable grift-propaganda crap
@@edmaldonado8207 Pretty much we have cases of cops acting extremely reckless with guns and getting people killed but republicans don't say anything
Lol clearly you don't like facts and logic then
Lauren's desire for clout is like a fire suppression system for this bridge.
TRU ( also Yee neva eva lose 🦖)
Clout? You know Destiny and Lauren are doing this as entertainment and you are sucker into watching this.
@@SoMuchMass she got 74k on her last video, and 111k on the video before that. she's doing fine.
@@karis2591 yet gets 20k a video lol.
@@yourtrappedinmygenjutsu destiny gets som low viewer videos also.. so
I legitimately enjoy listening to Destiny and Lauren argue about things. They have a weirdly amusing dynamic. Quality entertainment.
I’m from the Uk I land slightly more on the right, don’t know much about Lauren Southern, apart from what Reddit has shouted at me, is she any good?
not sure if she changed recently but last I heard she’s a neo con or something
@@myway59 She’s an unrepentant liar. It’s part of her MO, just like almost all other right-wing media “firebrands.”
Brother and sister
@@Tavat right like if you were to bring up the safety procedures of shooting flares at people, then she will say you are the one being unfair. like an abuser almost
A general IS MANDATED to clear his own weapon. WE DO NOT KNOW if Alec Baldwin was supposed to or not
One of the major rules of gun safety is checking the chamber. Especially before you wantonly pull the trigger aiming at someone
If you use a gun you should at least know what is going on with it. If you dont then you shouldnt own or use one.
@@giantmess4335 How about ACTING like you are using one? They are actors doing make believe in a 100 year old industry surrounded by professionals. Everyone on set has a job, its not the ACTOR'S job to make sure the guns are safe, they literally have a person for that (or several people). To act like this is Alec Baldwin's fault when he's been using guns on set since at least the 90s is just stupid and it smacks of wanting to tear down an outspoken celebrity
@@giantmess4335 do you think most actors meet that standard?
@@notjohn100 One of the major rules when entering a mine or a construction site is to wear a hard-hat. Yet i don't see Harrison Ford wearing a hard-hat on set. CURIOUS!
I’m really bummed Lauren didn’t get that first wave of DESTINY rage when talking about this.
She deserves it far more than that last girl. Lauren has far more reach and shouldn’t be handled with kid gloves.
His rage has nothing to do with their outreach, but to do with the ability to have a conversation/discussion.
@@muizzsiddique His rage has to do with him losing league games.
Well Lauren's take isn't as brain-dead as the first girls.
That look on Lauern's face when she realizes guns have an actual purpose to kill other people and not just be a prop in the background of a Twitch stream or TH-cam video putting holes through everyday household objects.
Do you also consider most swords, lances, spears, as to ONLY kill people or do they have other uses as well. Guns are for how a person CHOOSES to use it. IF you are going to say well their intended purpose is.... A gun give a woman a chance to equal out a situation. It gives people the opportunity to gather meat. It gives people a way to defend themselves or in some cases remove a corrupt dictatorship running their country.
TNT was made to help miners. Someone else found it was even better at destroying a lot of things including people.
@@Chualland What an irrelevant reply. She literally thought one of the rules of gun safety was "do not kill people" lmao
@@Chualland Read again (or for the first time!). Where did I say "ONLY?"
@@TheNaqoyqatZ So you admit guns have other purposes and what you think their initial purpose does not matter
@@hawkxlr I never said I agree with her. I said Alec is guilty too
i think its funny she is arguing for stricter gun laws on set while filming a movie but when it comes to everyday life?
@Alan Laletin im sorry did i imply that somehow guns kill people and not people kill people?
@@johnadams9193 he was finishing your sentence
@@kebab8660 no it has nothing to do with that...im speaking about how much a hypocrite Lauren is...she wants stricter gun laws on set for something that hardly ever happens.
@Alan Laletin i dont care if you were my statment had nothing to do with guns killing people...im pointing out Laurens hypocrisy...thats like me telling you "then the earth is round not flat" its basic fact but has nothing to do with the fucking topic i presented
@@johnadams9193 Chill, you're getting angry at your own reading comprehension failing you.
When she said "things are pointing in one direction based on all the information we have" Destiny should have rebutted with "remember when things were pointing to one direction when you said the Australian government went after a guy for breaking lockdown rules with 1984 camera surveillance based on an article headline and it turned out he actually had COVID and was coughing on people? Curious how just because things point to a direction it doesn't mean that direction is correct and we should jump to conclusions. Curious."
This has real shower argument energy. Ending it with "Curious" has to be the gayest part.
Yeah but I don't think really that she's saying that she's right, she's just saying that all the current evidence, the currently non disputed evidence points to that. Even though she made a lot of bad arguments and failed to articulate he good ones in a meaningfull manner, I don't think she's completely malicious in her intent and is trying to make a definitive statement on the situation. Even when Destiny asked her if she thought the entirety of the blame lied on Alec Baldwin, she said that she believed there were several people who seem deserving of the blame and mulitple mistakes that were made throughout the production. And in my opinion I think the fact that Baldwin was a producer on a movie that had two previous accidental discharges with no changes in safety protocol is way more damning than him even being the one who inevitably shot and killed the woman.
Woah, that one single case does not mean that Australia and New Zealand aren't being totalitarians about covid. Whats even the point of bringing that up.
@@cryptocaesar8972 sorry I was more replying to the Alex Baldwin situation
@@fellaist1 no worries I was replying to the OP
Ray Liotta was not in the Godfather. Turns out Lauren Southern doesn't know movies.
@@johnlonne7062 it does
@@johnlonne7062 Defensive much? You realize people are allowed to comment about things other than primary topic right? I promise you man Lauren isn't going to see your comment and decide to take you on a date.
Guys maybe he wasn't being sarcastic and he really meant it, her argument has been invalidated!!
Jeff Voight isn't a person
Lauren southern has the rope literally around her neck a million times and destiny reaches over and unties it for her so damn much. She gets away with more than almost anyone that I've seen destiny interact with :/
Imagine how he would attack her if she was a leftist
Exactly. It's actually really insane how much good faith he gives someone like this. Almost like he's ideologically motivated to treat right wing fascists with kid gloves while acting like a screeching banshee about basic calls for police reform.
@@chriscopley7265 Damn, your comments almost make you out to be ideologically motivated to treat Destiny as a fascist sympathiser. Could it possibly be because you are in no way honest about this and can't understand that Destiny is trying his best to help someone he really doesn't want to be completely irrational since she's a mother and he doesn't want her kid to be influenced by Lauren's current and past idiocy? Just a thought, though.
@@yanowic9107 I'm just going off of observed behavior 🤷♂️. Sorry that triggers you dude.
@@yanowic9107 observe from an unbiased manner for a second Destinys approach and demeanour here and compare it to pretty much any discussion of his with a lefty. It does seem strange to me.
So Conservatives are jumping on this, eagerly trying to pin blame on Baldwin because they don't like Baldwin's portrayal of Trump and the fact that Baldwin is a Liberal, right? Is that pretty much what all this comes down to?
No, it's because Baldwin is the type to want to ban guns because he thinks they're dangerous but then gets handed one and kills someone with it. Just because you don't like guns doesn't give you an excuse to handle one improperly.
@@theax40 Ah, yes I suppose that's what they'd say to cover up their actual feelings.
Totally fair to expect every actor who handles any sort of weapon on set should be an expert in that particular field of weaponry, rather than, you know, focus on acting. Rather than trust the person hired to handle the guns who said the gun was "safe", they should instead inspect, disassemble, clean, and/or build from scratch the weapon in question. Oh but wait, nobody who says guns are dangerous would ever have the capacity to do that for some reason.
@@chillpenguin7679 first off: I don't give a shit what the actors are or aren't trained to do. A mishandled firearm is dangerous and whoever pulls the trigger is ultimately responsible for what comes out the muzzle. Doesn't matter if you're an enthusiast, an actor or you find a gun laying on the ground in the park. Ignorance of what not to do with that firearm is no excuse when you negligently kill someone with it. If you don't want to learn basic safe firearm handling, which will only take about one minute to read up on, that's fine. But then you also should keep your hands off of one. Ignorance is no excuse for killing someone.
And secondly: not liking firearms, not wanting to own one or not wanting anyone else to own one again is not an excuse for not knowing how to safely handle one if using firearms is part of your job.
Stop making excuses for a grown ass man that should know better. You don't ever take someone else's word when they hand you a gun and tell you it's safe. You check that shit to be sure every goddamn time because it could save a life. It's annoying and it's a chore, but it's still not as annoying as being charged with a wrongful death.
I live alone and I know for a fact my guns right now are unloaded and safe. I still check to be absolutely positively sure every single time I pick one up.
@@theax40 Do we know for a fact Baldwin has no firearm training or discipline? Just because someone doesn't like guns doesn't mean they wouldn't do some research/training for movie roles. Sounds like a lot of speculation being thrown around. Do you think this particular shot in the film didn't require him to aim the gun at the camera lens and pull the trigger? When a director says to you "ok in this scene you're going to aim here and fire" then you're handed a gun you are told is safe, and you do what the director says, is that still considered negligence on the actor's part? I don't think that's reasonable at all.
This all just sounds like a bunch of armchair movie prop safety experts trying to take an already tragic situation, and use it to wrap up an actor in a scandal because it they don't share their similar views on guns/politics.
@@chillpenguin7679 Bud it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about, because you're arguing with me over a very simple and easy to understand concept: no matter what the context or situation, you don't ever handle a firearm you yourself have not checked for safety. There is no excuse.
That's it. That's the comment.
This has been a fun mini arc
The gap in respect that Destiny has toward Lauren vs the Gun lady is astounding
BxBullet was looping, Lauren moved the goalpost everytime Destiny pressured her
@@ksilva2848 I think I actually prefer the goalposts conversations rather than the looping ones.
I have no idea why. Lauren is just as dumb.
@@kevinjohnanand smarter than a majority of you though to be fair.
@@edwardrichard8093 Most of DGG is probably smarter than Lauren, and that's saying a lot.
The military/actor comparison is so strange. I've literally witnessed soldiers get their face kicked in for flagging people on the range.
Edit as I'm watching: live ammo actually gets mixed into blanks fairly frequently which is part of the reason the military uses BFAs
same
Yep.
Bfas... no.
The muzzle pressure of a 5.56 will destroy a bfa and cause damage to the operator as well as likely any one down range or lateral.
The sole reason that a blank adapter is used is back preasure.
Since there is no round there is nothing resisting the gas expansion. This means not enough pressure to push the breach back and operate the cyclic function.
And that's the m4/m16 where not even at the pressures of the 249 or M2HB.
@Chris Smith it does hapen fairly frequently in the millitary. What's being neglected here is the fact that this is during range clean up.
From their the ammo & brass is sent to a collection point where its sifted through.
I've only been to a few ranges that had blank fire and live fire at the same time. In this case we usually separate the ammo between to distinct points.
@Chris Smith it wasnt my initial. As it hapens after I dont see a relivence for it. Was just trying to provide more info is all
Before watch: big feeling I’m gunna hear “he broke the 4 rules of firearms” at least once and guarantee its after destiny explains why that’s dumb...
People are being so weird about the Rust shooting and seem desperate to read potential malice into everything. No one wanted it to happen and it was a tragedy, and watching some people salivate for new details to bolster their Frankestein pitchfork mob is kinda gross.
Yeah this is how I feel. No one wanted anyone to die and Alec feels terrible. But the guy made a lot of enemies and they want blood
@@zenithpath8707
All because he makes fun of a president in a skit. Such a joke
@@d-extra5814 Yeah it's sad
The hypocrisy in this post is hilarious considering how often people on the left do this exact same thing all the time. Not suggesting it's right, but to ignore the toughtless mob justic of one side while critiquing the other side for the same behavior is laughable.
Or because he was producer on an incredibly unsafe film set that resulted in a death? He’s right that it isn’t simple gun safety, it’s simple labour safety.
I would give Destiny a pass on this because he's never been in the military but there are occasions where you do point weapons at friendly soldier's when your doing force on force training with blanks or simunitions. This honestly helps his point because you HAVE to break the rules of gun safety to perform this style of training.
That actually destroys his argument..
He based everything on the four cardinal rules of gun safety, and he said the military doesnt do that...
If they do what you are saying, then the military is breaking basic gun safety like Hollywood does, which was Lauren's point..
@@falseprophet1024 it really doesn't help Lauren's overall point tho
@@20centsaday54
Her point there was actually pretty good, if what you say is true.
Her point was simply that the military also violates safety rules, because, like hollywood, they have to in order to do their job. I think she was drawing a comparison to how people would treat that soldier vs how they are treating baldwin.
Ps.. I mean, she is all over the place, and hard to understand because of how she jumps around, but i think that was her point..
@@20centsaday54
You are right that her overall point isnt very good. Im just talking about that one specific example..
@@falseprophet1024 truu
"Ray Liotta, from, you know, uhm. Godfathet."
- Lauren "anecdotes is the singular of data" Lauren
Ah yes, marvelous performance of Ray in that movie he wasn't in.
Ohh yeah he was great as Joe Pesci in that movie
Lauren Lauren
@@Daffyrinooh well, I put the deserved amount of give a fuck into that part.
@@urbantwilight honestly, was a better comment for it, even though she wasn't quite the looper like bxbullet.
@@vafanapoli5396 PING, POW !
13:00 "Ray Liotta, from the Godfather"
Me, a huge Goodfellas fan: Ehhh
"ever since I was a child, I've always wanted to be a gangster"
"Ray Liotta from Godfather" LMFAO
Destiny and Lauren are like a debate couple. They hang out a lot to argue. It's like my parents.
How many parents you guys have?
I don't understand the point in debating gun safety in regards to an on set incident. There wasn't supposed to be live rounds to begin with and clearly someone was tampering with what was available to create risk of something like this happening. We won't know until the investigations are through, but it should be common sense that gun safety shouldn't play a factor when the bullets were supposed to be blanks.
@Rose Anne Boushard that’s also irrelevant because the gun in this situation was supposed to be completely empty and everyone on set assumed it was completely empty
There weren't even supposed to be blanks, the gun was declared *cold* to Baldwin, meaning no rounds at all.
the easiest guideline for all firearms would be to prepare the gun in front of everyone that will be in harm's way before the scene even starts. That way everyone knows the gun is cold from the start, and they know what is going in the gun. you can still have people check the gun before handing it off too, but it would be less required in this circumstance. However, i would still always opt to double or even triple check before handing off a gun.
So if you have a scene that involves a 1000 people crowd and a gun, everyone should be shown the gun is clear in your opinion? That would be insane. Dedicated people should check the gun and be liable for the gun.
the gun could be prepared in a format that would be viable for any number of people. How about instead of everyone on set, a group of dedicated people oversee the preparation. Including the director and actor/actors that will be handling the the firearm. Having them review the ammunition the literal moment before it is put into the gun. At least having them present during the beginning couple rounds loaded would be just as effective as staying and watching them load the whole magazine because everyone would be able to see if there are live rounds and blank or dummy rounds in the area. ofc also banning live rounds on set would also be a no brainer.
Essentially we both see the same point, there needs to be a clear procedure with steps that give someone, which should always be the one operating the firearm, full responsibility for whatever happens with it.
@@k9overlord What format would that be? A videofeed? That is not showing the procedure at all and does nothing to secure a gun.
Why would the actors have to check the gun? Actors have to just do their part. We have the people responsible for the guns for that. In this set the people responsible did not go through the procedures they needed.
Your example fails as even in this case because the gun was a revolver. You would have to show all chambers to all people.
I really don't understand why the idea of actors just acting is a problem here. The set in question was not following any good safety protocol. They had 2 negligent discharges before the accident. You bringing up more safety rules to an already strict protocol does not change anything. They did not follow even the basics here, why would they follow your additional rule?
@@RanEncounter i agree that showing everyone on set wouldnt be possible. the format would be one I described, similar to your suggestion where there are a dedicated group a people preparing the firearm But instead adding the director and actor who will be using the firearm to those group of people doing so. Before the gun is even loaded, everyone in that group checks the ammunition being used, and then the rounds that were seen by everyone in that group of people are then loaded. In the case of the revolver it is feasible for them to bear witness to all of the bullets being loaded, however when it comes to a magazine, because everyone in that group knows the bullets are what they need to be, watching only the first couple rounds be loaded would work the same. If a new box if ammunition is needed then everyone must inspect again.
The idea isnt to add more rules for them to skip, but to add rules that leave the liability on the operator of the gun. If the actor/actors handling the firearm were present and aware before and during the preparation of the firearm arm then it accomplishes 2 goals. 1 it secures the gun because there is a group bearing witness to the preparation, and 2 it will leave liability on the operator in case of an accident
Just because they are an actor doesnt mean they shouldnt be involved in whats going on, on set. Especially if they will be handling a deadly weapon.
Regardless if my procedure is good or not, there needs to be a clear universal guideline on how firearms on set are handled that leaves the liability of accidents on the one operating the gun. Which what i think we both are saying in round about ways
@@k9overlord "The idea isnt to add more rules for them to skip, but to add rules that leave the liability on the operator of the gun."
Why would you want to do that? It increases the things the actors have to do and we all know the more things you have going on the bigger chance is they skip some part of their responsibilities. We want them to just focus on acting.
"If the actor/actors handling the firearm were present and aware before and during the preparation of the firearm arm then it accomplishes 2 goals. 1 it secures the gun because there is a group bearing witness to the preparation, and 2 it will leave liability on the operator in case of an accident "
Why would we want to the 2nd goal? The 1st goal happens anyway. Why is it important for you that the operator is liable? We have people that are liable for that. The less things the actors have to think about, the more they can focus on the acting.
"Just because they are an actor doesnt mean they shouldnt be involved in whats going on, on set. Especially if they will be handling a deadly weapon. "
No. The actors should focus on acting and stick to what they have been told. You clearly do not understand how a set is operated.
"Regardless if my procedure is good or not, there needs to be a clear universal guideline on how firearms on set are handled that leaves the liability of accidents on the one operating the gun."
Why?
"Which what i think we both are saying in round about ways
"
No we are not. In your mind the operator has to be always liable for the gun. This is not feasible in a lot of cases in acting or on sets.
Just to clarify about the difference between the military and movie sets:
There are circumstances in a training environment in the Army where you may be pointing a weapon at each other and shooting blanks. The risk of this activity is mitigated by a mixture of both institutional and individual factors.
1. Specific safety briefs from an officer in charge will specify the type of ammunition being used for the activity.
2. Live ammunition and blank ammunition is not distributed or mixed together EVER. Soldiers will not carry a combination of live or mixed ammunition on their person (all magazines are either blank or live, not a combination of both.)
3. Soldiers will fill their own magazines with ammunition ensuring they know what is going into each one (blanks are very distinct, twisted at the tip and going so far as to be black instead of the bronze-ish tint of live rounds).
4. Soldiers are briefly looking down at the face of a magazine before loading it into the weapon. This is generally to confirm that the magazine is loaded and ready to go, but it will also be a clear indicator if they're about to load live rounds into their weapon. I admit that this generally doesn't happen as the weight is a dead giveaway that you have a full magazine.
I don't have any strong opinions either which way yet. It's entirely dependent on the safety protocols they agreed to on set. If Alec Baldwin was meant to clear his weapon prior to using it then I reckon he's getting the book thrown at him. If he wasn't required to clear his weapon I imagine he'll either never want to hold a weapon again or ensure he checks his own weapons in the future.
It's an entirely unfortunate circumstance.
Don't forget that if you're firing blanks in the direction of another human being while on exercise you're using a blank-firing adapter (bfa), which is not only highly visible (and obvious if you're not using it), will stop debris leaving the barrel and will even do a pretty decent job at catching a live round (at the expense of the firearm, its not a pretty process)
@@hamsterboy56 Oh yeah, good point, my dude. It's been a while for me.
That first point is really the one she's coming out swinging with? How rotted is her brain that she thinks the soldier example is analogous?
tbh i think she intentionally does this stupid shit. years of infowars have taught her that people will lap up whatever stupid bs analogy you give.
@@Beeeep24 sure, bud.
@@Beeeep24 I just commented as I listened. She started with that, I went after it. That's all.
Nono, you don't understand, shes not making a 1:1 comparison, so it's all good.
I'm waiting for the destiny/lauren southern arc instead of destiny/ana arc
She's already obsessed and has definitely been abused by Destiny.
at 6:44 I HATE this kind of thing, what does interrupting someone and trying to cover up what they're saying contribute to a healthy debate.
She fills her statements with so much fluff, why is Destiny allowing this? 70% of what she says is basically "the weather is nice" "water is wet".
Edit: Nvm, he called her out on it later.
Theresa is wet when the weather is nice
8:24 *Lauren* : “I don’t really care about the political stuff with Baldwin” 🤣
Destiny rightfully roasted her there. She’s so predictable along party-lines yet still thinks Destiny doesn’t realize she’s a full-blown ideologue
uh huh. that's why you're bawling your eyes out in the comment section snorting that hopium thinking someone's gonna walk away scott free after blowing another person's guts out. LMAO. Take the L.
@@notrando9233 literally not related to a single thing I said. Oh I see from your dumb comment history that you’ve never been here until now and are just waltzing in here unaware that she’s been here many times and we’ve seen her do this crap before. She’s a hack ideologue. No hopium needed. She’s been exposed here as a guest many times. Don’t think you’re pulling anything, kid. We’ve seen her many times here. Your dumb rhetoric isn’t ever working. Either go back to your echo chamber or actually provide a single thing countering the fact that she’s a complete party-line ideological hack. Not just a claim, a timestamp and actually responding. That’s how adults actually disprove things. Good luck attempting. If you even do.
Everytime I watch something Lauren Southern related I have to have my Tylenol ready.
I lock all sharp objects in a drawer.
Lauren went from "Alec Baldwin fucked up and is responsible (in her videos)) > The evidence points towards Alec Baldwin being responsible > Okay I agree we should wait for more information > We actually don't disagree that much". Huge L for conservatives.
I'm a retired infantryman. I wish I could've chimed in on this. Military do use guns in "acting", so to speak, in force on force training.
I'm still confused as to why a Nazi is being rehabilitated in these debates without her ever having seriously walked back any of her insane positions regarding the Great Replacement conspiracy peddling, the whole Streets of Paris debacle, etc. Is it really just because it's good for content?
Destiny is doing a weird experiment where he’s trying to rehab her by just being a firm voice of reason in her life, or something like that.
She is only appearing to be less of a fascist. She hasn’t walked anything back because she still holds to those beliefs, and is trying ( poorly) to couch her ultra right views in nice speak and is learning to tap dance around those beliefs in a more graceful way.
Why would an ACTOR be concerned with gun safety? THEY AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE USING ACTUAL BULLETS!
It seems like the natural conclusion to Lauren’s argument is guns capable of shooting real bullets should never be used on movie sets
@Trade Bum Simmons An actor cannot follow gun safety rules. If he needs to treat a gun at all times as if it's loaded, they would not be able to shoot the gun on set unless they intend to kill someone. Different kind of rules must be tailored for them or simply they should stop using real guns in sets.
@Trade Bum Simmons Of course, but I see no reason why those rules should necessarily involve the actor at all. A pilot is not responsible of checking the functioning of a plane before he flights it. You could argue that that is the case and that a state standard should be established to such end, but since no one was saying so before this happened, you cannot blame anyone involved in the movie for not following those non existent standards. I think this is the whole point Destiny is trying to make in this conversation.
@Trade Bum Simmons You are begging the question. We are precisely discussing whether an actor should be responsible for what he does with a firearm in the very specific case of being on a movie set using a gun for what is basically a CGI prop. It is perfectly arguable that in that context you can leave the actor completely out of the security procedure and just let the hired experts manage the whole thing. Just as if I fly you in my private plane I am personally responsible of making sure that it has passed all the relevant security standards, but an airline pilot is not, because that job has been assigned to other people. Again, you can argue that for the case of guns in movies the actor handling the gun should be part of the security procedure, but you cannot take it as a given.
@Trade Bum Simmons It would be inevitable if the DP or AC has to get behind the camera to set the framing, pull focus, physically move the camera because they're using primes and need to rehearse a movement, etc. Actors on a set are usually held to a different standard because the multiple roles required to make a real movie are delighted very heavily. Everyone has more or less a single job to do and don't worry about someone else's. The props master/armorer is more fucked than he is generally.
@Trade Bum Simmons Again, every actor in a movie will have to disregard basic safety measures because he's going to have to point it at cameras and innocent people. So there is very good reason why an actor might not be responsible about what he does with a gun, because he's not using it like a gun but as a CGI prop. It is a perfectly valid strategy to have actors treat guns on set as if they will never have live rounds on them and then to have experts making sure that that is the case. It's a simple distribution of work that is done in thousands of other applications, as it's the case of a plane. There are many other dangerous things an actor can use on a set that are tremendously dangerous: explosives, high power lines, lifelines, should actors make sure that they are properly working before using them? No, they can use experts to guarantee they're secure.
And there is a perfectly good reason why an actor should not be meddling with a gun prepared by the armourer and the second director, Destiny already pointed that out. If they are the people personally liable for gun accidents, they obviously would never let anyone else meddling with the gun, because they will be responsible for any mistake they make. They will give the gun to the actor and tell them to only use it as they're told.
And that "you're arguing for the side that has made people die" part is ridiculous. By that logic, let's make guns illegal in the US. That would also have prevented this accident, would it not? Or let's make making movies illegal. Or are you going to argue for the side that made people die?
This accident has occurred because of an absolute disregard of the proper security procedure of guns on a film set, and it is perfectly possible that Alec Baldwin was part of those involved in that negligence. But to try to make this as a problem in the procedure, given how rare these accidents are is hysterical. The current mechanism crearly works, it is just that they were not followed.
I think Destiny missed Lauren's position. Destiny isn't "Fighting" as much as he's simply asking questions out of ignorance. Lauren did an excellent job trying to explain things. It's that or I honestly don't know what Destiny's point was. Law Enforcement and Military do often point their loaded firearms at people in the line of duty. What she also was saying that often Hollywood (or the entertainment industry) often have a firearm pointing (or sweeping the barrel) at people but it is intended that the scene is absolutely safe (unloaded, loaded with blanks/dummies), and that industry safety protocols and procedures are made to ensure firearm safety. Somewhere along the line or everywhere along the line, protocol was broken or ignored. If any one of the persons handling the gun (including Alec Baldwin as the actor using the gun) would have taken the responsibility to check the firearm, the live round would have been detected and Halyna's death could have been avoided. Regardless of how, you still have to distinguish the difference between a live round and a blank or dummy round in order to check the round in the firearm. So not to assign blame at anyone, as the actor, Baldwin failed to check the firearm before firing it OR as Producer, he failed to enforce or establish the necessary safety protocols to ensure a safe working environment.
A masterclass in conspiratorial thinking, "pointing in directions" and jumping to conclusions from Lauren.
I like this new style to shut down talking points, "Why do you keep repeating this? ".
27:48 You can tell how irate Steven is by how he stirs his hot coco... haha how cute
maybe he's just shy >///
My mind was made up instantly. You have to check the weapon to see if it is loaded. Idc if someone handed it to you and said it's safe, check it. On a revolver, you don't even have to open the cylinder to see if it's loaded. Then we find out he wasn't even supposed to be using the gun for that scene...
It's like Lauren doesn't understand throwing out a million examples of random things that are superficially relevant doesn't actually make them relevant. And she agrees there is no industry standard but every 5 seconds "The industry standard" machine guns out of her mouth. And pulling the BxBullet meme of "I agree" and then saying "But" and totally disagreeing is getting super fucking annoying. It's become a debate tactic the way people think Destiny uses specifics as a "tactic".
except it wasnt random at all, she literally linked an article stating what an industry standard is. it might not be the law, but it does appear to be an industry standard.
Its cause thats what she does. She doesnt read news to find out what happened. She reads news that only supports her narrative while ignoring everything else.
I don't think it's a coincious thing, they are just reaching for the next argument when they are being pushed back, it's a debate more then a good faith discussion.
There are industry standards.
Yea and even if it ends up being his fault but why do all this investigation shit especially if you could look stupid af at the end.. like even having a debate on this is weird…
You can *never* just take Lauren's word for anything, you have to watch her like a hawk. She is a pathological liar, her videos, and documentaries are full of her shameless dishonesty.
If Destiny didn't check her source, she would have continued to imply that it was a 'requirement'.
Ray Liotta was in The Godfather? Must have missed that while I was watching Goodfellas, with Ray Liotta lol.
The longer the buildup the sweeter the bridge-burning, when it comes.
HA HA HA!
I laughed from a healthy place on this comment.
This still isn’t the kind of “gun expert” I was wanting him to talk to
I've come to really despise these conversations between Lauren and Destiny, because its just Lauren saying something, Destiny completely refuting her and her then weasling out of it by acting like he partially agreed with her or that she never shared that opinion anyway.
You despise these conversations because Lauren is smart, honest, and prepared. The people Destiny usually talks to are none of those things.
@@ReubenRosczyk She might be smart, but she is neither honest nor prepared.
She will never state her own opinion - or atleast pretend not to - and when called out on lies and halftruths she is spreading she will claim not to have looked into the topic to deeply.
When Destiny debates a dipshit tankie or a Nick Fuentes type atleast they own their opinions somewhat, instead of hiding behind this "some people think/say" spiel.
Destiny was also weasling his way out. Honest both were pretty weak in this discussion.
Destiny: (gives hypothetical where Alec Baldwin is to blame)
Lauren: “haha well that was just put the nail in the coffin”
One minute later
Lauren: “where have i made it seem like I was putting the blame on any specific person?”
This whole incident was a great example of the extremely emotional lens conservatives view the news with. The so wanted a person they hated to be guilty of this, that they made logic twists that they wouldn't except anywhere else.
Let’s play guess who?
- I think we should wait for more information before we throw accusations at this cop. We don’t know the full story
- I mean I think we can reasonably say Alec Baldwin is at fault even though we don’t have all the information yet…
I’ve been having this exact same argument in threads and it’s driving me mad. People are just so thirsty to say “SEE THE LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD ELITE ARE BAD AND THEY HATE GUNS BUT THEY KILL WITH GUNS, CURIOUS!”
I’m getting close to want to Alec Baldwin the comments section
People who are making this all about politics are just showing their true colors.
Just tell them they're just ass mad cause he made fun of their daddy Trump. There's no way those people are arguing in good faith.
"Ray Liotta from Godfather" 😂
Watching Destiny debate Lauren Southern, is like watching your best man put your wife in her place on your wedding day. 😬😬
Not everybody on a movie set knows the protocols used when dealing with guns. The people making coffee, putting make up, or fetching wardrobe know nothing about gun protocols on set.
But actors definitely should.
13 minutes in…..this conversation is pointless, skip it…
Basic gun safety, all guns are treated as loaded. Never point a gun at a person unless you intend to take a life. The failure is the on set armourer in assuring the weapon was loaded with snapcaps
my boomer dad's take was like "who makes a western in 2021?"
Based take
God that’s good
😂😂
just finished reading the new article with more details apparently cheif armorer hannah gutierrez-reed was supposed to clear the gun and show the lead director Dave hall which happened but both dave hall and gutierrez didnt clear the gun properly they both admitted they had a lapse in judgement. Also apparently actors in movies like this are allowed to do shoot arounds and aiming at targets with live rounds but at the end they are to give them back and get them cleared again by the armorer and lead director. So everyone whose saying gun laws apply on movie sets yeah they dont please stop trying to equate movies,real life and military life these are 3 completely different things with different rules and as we can read the armorer and lead director broke all. Also the statement that came out said he was practicing a cross body draw when the fire arm went off.
K but if gun safety is ok to ignore if its on a movie set, the bigger question is why use real guns? I'm half curious if movies that used rocket launchers during filming were fully functioning and loaded with live rockets, oh sure, its ok though because its on a movie set.
@@LeonBelmont1000 are you mental? A rocket launcher is different to a handgun thats like saying because im a trained army vet i can own and shoot one whenever i feel like. When you do movie scenes you at times will have to point the gun at the camera how hard is that to understand for you people. The guns they usually use have blanks in them and they are protective screens. In this case he was handed a cold gun that was double checked they also wanted to see the draw for the next scene behind the camera thats why the gun was pointed there whats so hard to understand this is clearly a mistake. The reason for real guns is for the bullet firing aspects and you are acting like movies dont use rocket launchers.
@@envy8397 I was partially being sarcastic, but its funny how you can justify ignoring safety standards and responsibility for what goes on just because you're on a filming set. The guy was a PRODUCER, yet the fall back in this case is "he's an actor". This was an instance of a complete lack of common sense, not just from Alec, but the people in charge of the live ammunition being present on set.
The crew probably all signed a waiver in case of accidental death on set, but the mental gymnastics here is astounding.
@@LeonBelmont1000 he probably financed the movie or gave a script that doesn’t mean he is the on set producer how hard is it to grasp that the people on set don’t want actors doing or touching anything they don’t need to cause they wont understand and just want them to act im the one doing mental gymnastics when you’re the one who compared a hand gun to a rocket launcher. Also thats what i said clearly there was a lapse in judgment somewhere that led to the incident so why are you still tryna prove something else?
So... you go the car mechanic and they do a bad job with your breaks. You end up losing breaks on the highway and you kill someone cause your car could not stop. You were following the speed limit.
Is that your fault? Do you go to jail?
Destiny should have asked this question.
The primary purpose of a car is not to kill. Broken breaks are a fault with the machinery, the gun was not at fault the bullet discharged when the trigger was pulled.
@@botheredbiskit yes, just like the car was not at fault, the mechanic was. The mechanic in this situation would be the armorer and AD who were supposed to clear the gun, just like the mechanic was supposed to reconnect your brakes
You really didn't think this through, did you?
@@Mrraerae Uh no. A gun is a weapon, it's only purpose is to harm, when someone hands you a gun, the purpose is to fire it, you should be instantly aware that its potential to harm is immediate. A cars function is to transport you. You cant compare the negligence of someone pointing a weapon and pulling the trigger to somebody driving to work. Get it?
@@Mrraerae the argument is not about a third party screwing up, we already know this. It's a case of personal accountability and assessing the level of negligence. Derrick chauvin is in jail for being negligent by overdoing a restraining technique that he was officially taught. The responsibility was his ultimately and he deserves to be in jail regardless of intent.
@@botheredbiskit I think you need to read my comment again cause you did a Lauren here and replied to an imaginary point I didn't made.
1 - In this exemple, you are relinquish to the trust of the 'expert' who is supposed and paid to make sure the situation is safe. Question is, are you liable if the expert fails to do their job?
2 - In this situation, the primary purpose of the gun is not to kill, but to be a prop. In handled correctly, this gun would not kill. If handled correctly, the car would also not kill.
In both cases, someone was in charge to ensure safety about something you don't know anything about, and the end user ended up being ''screwed'' by the ''expert'' not doing their job.
So, I presume when you send your car to the garage, you triple check everything, undo the work the garage people made and reinstall your brakes yourself to make sure they did it properly? What is the point of liability then AND what is the point to going through 'experts' if you are going to blame the end user anyway?
If it wasn’t for Alec Baldwin’s Trump impressions on SNL no one would give two shits about this.
Her “nail in the coffin” comment completely exposed all her other contradictions about “I’m not trying to blame big bad Liberal, Alec Baldwin.” We all knew that already, but to hear her slip up like that was nice.
Yup, the problem is the right hates Baldwin cause he makes fun of daddy trump. They don't care at all about this situation or about gun safety, they are doing everything they can to make him look bad just cause they don't like him, it is very obvious
As an idf soldier, the safety gun protocol, not only that they are apply on us, they are far far more extrem on safety. If someone is suspected as a threat to you, the first thing is to shout to him to stop, then to fire but not to him, but to point to the sky, for a warning, and only if he continue after that, you can shoot to control the threat usually to his legs, because it should be a shoot to control the target and not to kill it. And you usually almost never using your gun. And every gun protocol that you violet you get extremely punished. So no, we as soldier don't get pass on civilians guns safety protocols. So weird she brought that up
“Sky News”… 😂😂😂😂
Sky News is so bad it makes Fox look moderate
@@feelingevaporated2912
No doubt… 👌🏻
It’s so rough to hear Lauren try to grasp simple lines of thought
40:45 is where she comes mask off. You can tell she was dancing beautifully around explicitly blaming him while implicating him this whole time just for this specific moment, despite Baldwins culpability being the main disagreement. Idk if mask off is the right way to describe this but I knew it was coming
No, that's not why people are saying that judge is biased, it's because he said that the people who died if the defense can make a case for it they are allowed to call them "rioters or looters" or something like this. Why lie about that?
This is the Destiny we all know and love. Can we just agree that this dude is probably the smartest streamer in the game right now???? i had to watch this twice! LOL!!!! Southern 0, Destiny 4 now??? :D #dgg
Calm down big guy.
Chill, he’s cool but chill
41:30 Sorry, NO. It is not possible for Balwdin to get out of any culpability in this case. He was a producer and a star actor. No matter any emails sent, he could have...and most definetly.... SHOULD have walked out due to them cutting corners. Period.
Lol all these people pretending like they care about some incident when in reality they want to grift because someone said a mean thing about trump
C'mon man, enough about Trump. Stop relying everything back to him, it's extremely pathetic.
@@RedmayneDeadmayne what in the hell are you talking about? They EXPLICTLY want to blame Alec because he criticized trump and is anti gun moron. Don't reply to me unless you have something intelligent to say
@@mariomario1462 are you actually stupid it something it was always about his stance on guns thats clearly what he was talking about thats why he said it was stupid for you to mention trump at all.
@@mariomario1462 Typical liberal always assuming what other people think and takes that assumption as a 100% fact.
I don't know how you folks do things in the States, but here in Canada, it is INCREDIBLY rare that criminal charges are brought to anyone regarding workplace incidents. That being said, most of the time we (the government) will enforce violations from the top down - meaning we will find out who is ultimately liable, and critically, if they exercised their DUE DILIGENCE regarding the prevention of an incident or unsafe condition. A movie set IS a workplace. There will be multiple investigations by multiple parties and we will eventually get an outcome. If anything, the mounting pile of information we are receiving regarding this situation (live ammo on set, unqualified personnel, no PPE, not following protocol, etc.) is indication that there were larger systematic issues at play here.
This is not a gun issue, or an Alec Baldwin issue, or whatever - this is a workplace health and safety issue. I realize that's way more boring or whatever, but fuck. I'm so triggered rn...
The only reasonable criticism of Baldwin is that he’s listed as the head of the top production crew, and given the acute lack of gun safety on set one would think EVERYONE would be double and triple checking the guns according to the scene.
Still, I feel bad for Baldwin and of course the family, he must be seriously in the pits, I can’t imagine being in that situation.
What's the ACUTE lack of gun safety?
As far as I know there's no information on whether the gun and ammo were unattended or the Assistant Director/Armorer didn't actually check the gun that time.
If I remember correctly gnomey read an article in the bx bullet video where it said that for this movie the Armorer and AD checked the gun and ammo before handing it to anyone, which means it is double checked - I don't recall any statement that this protocol wasn't followed by the Armorer/AD that time.
The only statement I did see, regarding what protocol was or wasn't followed, is that the AD handed Baldwin the gun YELLING that it was a "cold gun". So again, the theoretical gun safety of the things that were known exists and only starting from the time Baldwin was handed the gun, it was followed.
Was there any information yet on why there was live ammo around at all?
And if there was live ammo for some scene: Where was it stored? Who was responsible for it? (could be another team that would never hand the regular cast any of their guns+ammo)
How could an Armorer and AD even mistake live ammo for blanks?
This is the question for her. "If you were in a movie and going to be shot in the role and Alec Baldwin is the shooter. Do you trust Baldwin to clear the gun or would you trust the armorer/ad to do it?"
The only thing im going to say out of this whole thing is that Lauren does NOT know the difference between the rounds. Easy as that.
The whole point of having professionals there is because actors make mistakes with guns, they have some training but they aren't experts and shouldn't be held to that standard.
Lauren's military analogy is ludicrous. If you EVER point a weapon at someone on base, you are getting in severe trouble. There may be exceptions, but that would not be accepted.
In the marine corps, we had someone accidentally flag someone with an unloaded rifle, and the dude got totally swarmed and punished.
12:43 Ray Liotta is from Goodfellas, not the Godfather.
Edit: she said it again
lauren is really letting her Canadian come out "I'm saw-ry!"
Sorie
Soarie
Sore e
@Shawn Brink this is the only comment i wrote and its unedited, what?
@Shawn Brink there is no standard pronunciation of english. Sawry/sorey are both correct as they have native pronunciations.
Ray Liotta, you know, from The Godfather.
Goodfathers
Quick tip for anyone; the moment anyone responds to a point you're trying to make by saying the words, "Well yeah, anything could happen...", know that they are no longer engaging in good faith with you. They literally won't engage with hypotheticals at that point, and you should just end the conversation.
destiny was being waaayyy too lenient with lauren here, how could he let her get away with saying ray liotta is in “the godfather” MULTIPLE TIMES
Guess he dont know much about Godfather either
Honest question. How is Lauren Southern somebody? What exactly did she do to gain an audience and convince anybody that her opinions are worth hearing?
I mean, she is pretty attractive. But idk.
I think a lot of back and forth on whether the gun should have been shown to have been empty could have been avoided if somebody pointed out _that it wasn’t supposed to be empty._ It was a revolver in a frontal shot, it was obviously gonna be loaded with dummy rounds _because you can see the bullets in a revolver._ The security procedure failure was that the Assistant Director grabbed the gun directly and checked without consulting with the propmaster and armorer. And since we now know the gun was loaded with a live round, I am guessing AD Hall, who is known in the industry for being impatient with safety checks, likely just did a quick visual check by opening the gun and rotating the chamber, as opposed to the time consuming professional check of dummy rounds which involves unloading each individually, inspecting the firing cap and then rattling each bullet by the ear to listen for the BBs usually replacing gunpowder in them. There aren’t supposed to be live rounds on a set anyway, so why would an impatient man do more than the basic visual comparison to see if the rounds were blanks or dummies?
The reason why this debate settled much quicker than before is because she didn't stubbornly repeat her stupid take that alec baldwins anti gun stance somehow contributed to the tragedy. Inherently she lost her argument out the gate and adopted a slightly skewed version of Destiny's take that we should wait for details to determine liability, though as Destiny demonstrated shes still inclined to blame Baldwin regardless of circumstances. Destiny did a good job of pointing out that bias and forcing Lauren to bite the bullet and acknowledge there are contexts that exist in which Baldwin would be exonerated of all blame, it just comes down to waiting for the facts at this point.
still no one has brought up flare shooting procedures.
True
Lol 3 minutes in and she brings up negligent discharges in the military, which happen all the fucking time. I’ve watched it happen multiple times on ranges.
Destiny is an absolute stud. He navigated her bs expertly and got her to back track on literally all her shit takes by the end. Bravo sir bravo 👏 👏
This will never be as good as the last debate about this topic. But I take it. I think all these internet political figures are not able to have a genuine debate about this. Destiny is just 100% on point on this topic.
So some quick notes, when you clear a gun you are just making sure that it is clear, like no rounds in it, barrel is clear, and that it is clean and working. The production I've been around the armorer clears the gun and then takes the ammo to be used, be it duds, caps, blanks, dummies, or live.
The assistant director, producer, or director is then given the rounds and checks them and loads the gun in front of the actor and the other parties, normally those were the people the gun will be pointed to. The gun is either declared hot or cold, hot rounds have a primer and/or powder in it, cold is otherwise where hot should never pointed at another person without a hell of an exclusion.
The actor is probably the least culpable for this if he was handed the gun. Live ammo should almost never be stored near any other rounds and normally need additional clearing. These guns should have never left the set, the guns should have been cleared prior to the set and again during the scene.