Edit: I’ve been out of the loop. I wasn’t aware they dropped charges against Baldwin. That’s really fucked up in my opinion, as per the above.

Really? Last time I checked they were still investigating the case and involuntary manslaughter charges are still on the table?

How does that apply to a weapon that is supposed to be loaded? It's a movie set, it's not always intended to be unloaded, it's intended to be LOADED but with blanks. That's part of the reason why a movie set has personnel dedicated to ensuring the safety of every firearm. Additional reasons include: they're swapping out identical guns for different takes, they're doing multiple takes, actors have dramatically different levels of experience with handguns, they're EXPECTED to point the gun at people, etc etc etc

A Hollywood movie set isn't the same as your basement dry-fire LARPing sessions just because they both involve acting.

It absolutely does matter. Alec Baldwin also asserts that he never pulled the trigger, and the FBI's analysis found a flaw in the weapon that could cause it to fire without pulling the trigger.

In order to be convicted of a crime, the state needs to prove mens rea (i.e., the intent to commit the crime). You can't be convicted of a crime unless the state can prove you either intended, or should have known, your action would be a criminal act.

If I'm at a gun range, the instructor who is teaching me hands me a gun and says it's safe to fire downrange, and I shoot it, but it turns out someone is in fact downrange out of my visibility and is injured as a result of my shot, could I be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon? The clear answer is no, because I reasonably relied on the expertise of someone whose job it was to ensure the situation was safe before I performed the dangerous action.

Similarly, there was someone on the set whose job it was to ensure the gun was safe to use. That person handed Baldwin the gun and asserted it was safe to use. Baldwin reasonably relied on that person's expertise when he handled the gun and did not do anything unreasonable with it while handling it, so it doesn't make sense to charge him. If he had some role in the presence of live ammunition, then he might be liable in some way, but in his role as an actor, he bears no responsibility.

Last I saw, they had proven the gun could be discharged without touching the trigger. They also use dummy rounds in revolvers to make it look like the gun has real rounds instead of blanks (cheaper than CGI and less likely to miss one), the only way to tell they aren't real is to remove each round and shake them as they have rattles. I don't expect an actor to be an expert in firearms, just like I don't expect them to be experts on politics or climate change.