In the same post -
you are conflating ordinary civilian or military gun safety with gun safety on a film set.
............and that attitude towards firearms safety has directly lead to a death.
The only way for an actor to be sure the weapon was 100% safe, would be to run through all the checks that the armourer has (or should have) just done.
............and that attitude towards firearms safety has just saved a person from being killed, well done, thats a safe attitude.
Stating that Alec should have checked it was clear of rounds is stupid
............and that attitude towards firearms safety has directly lead to a death, again.
In the end it's simple firearms safety irrespective of where the firearm is being used - civilian, military or film set. Has the death of someone not made that point painfully obvious to you? Someone is now dead because lots of people, including the person who pulled the trigger whilst the firearm was pointing at people, failed to do basic checks. It's that simple - there's is NO "oh it's a film set" firearms safety, there is just one version, the one where people who follow it don't end up killing a member of staff because of a long chain of "it's a film set" attitudes towards firearms safety.
I would also suggest that, due to events like this being incredibly rare, the overwhelming vast majority of TV/Films which use firearms DO follow a basic firearms safety code irrespective of how difficult it may seem to you, and that it's only when productions DON'T rigorously do this (such as on Rust, The Crow) because of a poor attitude towards firearms (it's just a film set attitude) that fatalities happen.
I don't expect this to have much impact TBH, we both seem pretty set in our own ways, I just know my attitude towards firearms safety doesn't end up with people dead due to it, which is why I'll never change it and why I'd defend that attitude as loudly as I can.