Liste des Groupes | Revenir à a tv |
On 2024-03-07 17:50:50 +0000, Blueshirt said:It was not a prop gun. It was a real gun that was being used to shoot blanks.
EGK wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 09:59:02 -0700, anim8rfskhttps://deadline.com/2024/03/rust-movie-armorer-guilty-shooting-death-123584
<anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
7983/Classic example of shit rolling downhill and our two-tieredIt's not about who hired the armourer or who held the gun, the
justice system. Baldwin is "loose" with weapons on the set
and he fires the fatal shot but because he hired a young and
very inexperienced armorer, she ends up being the perfect
scapegoat.
interesting thing about this case for me is who put the live
round in to a "prop" gun ... and was it deliberate?!
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a gun -- especially one that had been tampered with to neutralize it -- could go off without pulling the trigger and just putting it in motion alone, I don't give a shit what "the FBI says."Yes, some internet rando who's never even seen the gun, let alone examined it, is a better judge than FBI firearms experts, because Alec is a reliable leftist so he must be excused at any cost.
Sure would put a cramp in the NRA's and gun industry's style if that was shown to have happened in a high profile case like this though.Huh? Accepting your claim as true for the sake of argument, neither the NRA nor the gun industry has ever claimed that if you fuck around with a gun and take it out of manufacturer specs that it won't malfunction.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.