According to the Associated Press, since 1990:
43 people died on sets in the U.S. and more than 150 had been left with life-altering injuries.
But only two of those deaths in that time were from firearms.
I’ve done some digging, and I can only find 3 people who’ve died from firearms accidents in Hollywood’s history: Jon-Erik Hexum, Brandon Lee, and Halyna Hutchins. Does anybody know of another production worker killed by firearms?
Can any industry or profession that regularly deals with firearms compare with this kind of safety record? People in law enforcement, the military, and regular gun owners who lecture Hollywood on firearms safety probably need to STFU.
An actor that has to do stunts gets stunt lessons. An actor that has to drive gets driving lessons. An actor that has to box gets boxing lessons. Am actor that has to speak a different language gets language lessons. And on and on and on… And then we have: AN ACTOR THAT HAS TO HANDLE GUNS DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE GUN HANDLING AND SAFETY LESSONS!?!
So I get that the armored is chiefly responsible but I have to wonder… why was he pointing the gun in that direction at all? When I heard that someone was shot, my first thought was, why wasn’t it another actor? You know, like the person he was shooting at in the movie? The media never seems to answer the questions I have.
If I recall correctly, they were filming a shot “down the barrel of the gun” kinda thing. So he was pointing it in the direction of the camera
Thanks.
He accidentally hit the trigger while he was putting the weapon in it’s sheath.
Also the fault here is manifold. Under normal circumstances the armorer is the only one who ever hands off a weapon to an actor and there is a process of doing a last check. In this instance the 1st AD overstepped and did that while not following armorer protocol meaning that a high amount of the culpability was in his court.
In this instance MULTIPLE layers of safety protocols had to be abraided through for this to happen. If anyone on a set I have worked on saw an assistant director or any other department member handle a weapon other than an armorer if they didn’t immediately get their ass fired they would at least be bleeding from the ears from the scolding they would earn. That this weapon was handled this way in full veiw of the cast and crew means the safety issues were endemic. That the 1st AD - whose job is to enforce safety checks and veto unsafe directorial decisions handed this weapon means something was VERY wrong with the chain of command above him.
So that would imply perhaps he should be on trial since he was a producer?
Yes he should. It might be more nebulous if another newer actor was handed the gun that killed but he’s a seasoned actor who had outsized clout and hiring/firing power on the show. There is no way he wouldn’t have been introduced to these concepts from other shows… so receiving a weapon from the first AD is damning.
Those firearm training session- s are an every production kind of deal for anyone who handles a live weapon. That means if you are seasoned you’ ve had this drilled into your skull. It establishes a chain of liability. The armourer is liable to follow and enforce the rules, the actor is liable in following the rules and reporting infringement of the rules as a condition of their participation, the 1st AD is liable for enforcing the safety rules on the set and addressing the concerns of the crew, the director is liable if they disregard the 1st AD’s veto of an action as unsafe and the production is liable if a producer or production manager is made aware of these safety checks being disregarded because they have firing power and an unsafe crew member in any of these positions is a danger to everyone on the set.
So frankly, they were treating live weapons as toys in an industry where the standard should be that even bouncy fake rubber replica guns get treated with the full respect afforded a dangerous weapon because you don’t fuck with guns on a set. -
Thanks.
“The media” isn’t responsible for spoonfeeding you everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_shooting_incident
“While the trio behind the monitor were repositioning the camera to remove a shadow, Baldwin began explaining to the crew how he planned to draw the firearm.[7] He said, “So, I guess I’m gonna take this out, pull it, and go, ‘Bang!’”[9] When he removed it from the holster, the gun was fired a single time.”
The person was standing there because they needed to be for one reason or another. They were not in the middle of shooting, they were rehearsing and blocking out the shot.
With a competent armorer Baldwin would not have even had a real firearm in his hand until the armorer handed it to him moments before actually firing the shot.
I never said they were responsible for spoonfeeding me everything. Thanks for patronizing me by blowing the statement out of proportion.
You’re welcome.
The issue is, as I understand it, that Baldwin was handed the revolver from a producer or someone of similar standing and he should have handed it to the armorer for checking, regardless of what he was told.
Doesn’t matter. “Prop” guns don’t exist and every gun is unfit unless physically checked by yourself personally.
OK Rambo.
Actually, prop guns do exist and I’m not talking about the ones that shoot blanks.
Or have you never seen a cosplayer with a gun?
There are realistic looking prop guns that are built without a firing mechanism. Without, meaning it never existed in the design.
deleted by creator
Why don’t they remove the firing mechanism from prop guns? The hammer that strikes the bullet?
Prop guns often fire blanks for the sound and flash, so they still need a firing pin.
It doesn’t have to be like that. We could design a different firing mechanism.
Million dollar idea right here
Yep. It would cost a million dollars to develop and still no one would use it.
We don’t need to. Only 3 people have died by guns on film sets in over 30 years, and every time it’s cause some idiot used real ammo in it at some point. Just never use real ammo in your prop guns, and they are always fine.
That’s not what happened. The guns were used with real ammo at a range to go shooting, then used as prop guns later without properly checking that there were no live rounds or lodged bullets in the guns.
And I’m not minimizing them, I’m telling you the actual solution isn’t modifying the firing pin, or changing the rules, since the rules work. These deaths were due to idiots breaking the rules, but the rules have worked to prevent thousands of deaths, and if followed no one will ever dies.
deleted by creator
No idea why you are getting so much hate. Anyone who has been taught how to handle a firearm knows to treat every weapon as if it was loaded. It doesn’t matter if it’s a training firearm which can be a very bright color and has parts visibly drilled out so you can see it will not function, guns firing blanks, an airsoft gun, even something like a pneumatic nail gun, etc. Verify the source of ammunition is empty and there is not a round in the chamber visibly and physically.
I’m not saying everyone in the world should know this, but anyone handling any form of firearm should. Alec Baldwin has been in enough movies and shows where guns were handled that he must have been taught this and seen it as the protocol multiple times.
This is gun safety and it’s not a bad thing,.I’m not a huge gun fan myself but promoting firearm safety isn’t anything to look down on.
ITT: “Basic gun safety isn’t necessary if you have a SAG card.”
So no?
Disingenuous post. Actor not being responsible ≠ blindly trust the guy in charge to not make any mistake ever and not even checking your own weapon. This is common fucking sense and you would think they learned that after Brandon Lee.
“Common sense” does not exist. You have been taught literally everything you know.
Your comment is a fine example of every internet asshole with a gun thinking they know everything about all situations in which a gun could conceivably be used.
Understand something. On a movie set, you are not on a firing range. First of all, there shouldn’t even be a single round of live ammunition on the set. In the rare circumstances where it is required, the armorer should be the only one handling the loaded weapon until moments before the actor is firing it. This is the case even with blank firing weapons. You are not surrounded by people that ostensibly have an interest in firearms, or even want to handle firearms.
The armorer is responsible for loading the firearm and readying it to fire. The actor’s SOLE responsibility is to point it and shoot. No, they should not in any way be responsible for ensuring the safe or not-safe status of the firearm. THEY SHOULD ASSUME IT IS SAFE TO USE IN THE WAY THEY ARE BEING DIRECTED TO USE IT BECAUSE IT IS THE ARMORER’S JOB TO ENSURE IT IS SAFE.
Is everyone on set responsible for making sure that craft services is cooking the chicken to the proper internal temperature, or storing the lettuce in a refrigerator? No. Fuck no.
Welcome to the world of professionals, where it’s assumed you know what the fuck you’re doing.
And seriously, drop this fucking “nepo baby” horseshit unless you’re going to start applying it to LITERALLY EVERYONE THAT GETS A JOB IN THE SAME INDUSTRY AS THEIR PARENTS.
But you don’t give a shit when Cleetus McFuckbag Jr takes over dad’s lawn care business and fucks it up, do you?
Agreed. I am all for accountability of the assigned individual but you hold an item that can literally hurt or kill someone you treat it with respect.
Check clearing a weapon should be taught to everyone. The man can be an instructor but his word isn’t law. Every instructor knows the moment you hold a weapon you observe decorum that you treatg it as loaded.
Now is Alec Baldwin innocent, maybe. But we have to use this experience to learn and change things in the industry aka, have actors who are handing weapons learn to check clear them.
Isn’t the job of an armorer is to ensure the gun is safe because most actors aren’t firearm experts?
Any novice gets taught at the range the first thing you do when holding a gun is to treat it like it’s loaded and check clear yourself. You don’t have to be an expert for that. It’s firearm 101. ANYONE that holds a firearm should be taught that.
I am not blaming Baldwin if you read properly. I am saying there has to be more procedures for these things.
deleted by creator
Shouldn’t the procedure start and end with a firearms expert clearing the gun?
deleted by creator
You don’t need to be an expert, just the basics in safe use of dangerous items that you are currently using.
If you kill someone by accident because the armorer missed something obvious, you certainly aren’t responsible in any way but you still killed someone in a way that is easily preventable. Always check stuff yourself.
Wait, so you’re saying a novice should double check after the armorer clears it?
Should the armorer clear it again after the novice checks it just to make sure they haven’t changed anything?
Then I guess the novice should check it again to make sure it’s safe after the expert double checks it, right?
You are being obtuse on purpose.
You check clear when you get handed a weapon. That’s it.
Once you are done and hand it back, they do the same. You personally have to be sure the weapon in your hand is cleared. Personally.
If there are dummies in it, the typical check is that you take the bullet and shake it because ball bearings are put in them that rattle.
Once the actor re-loads it, they (and their insurance company) becomes liable. They probably aren’t an expert.
Maybe things aren’t as black and white as you think they are, and maybe actors double checking the experts would lead to more incidents instead of less.
You know nothing about how firearms safety is handled on movie sets. You’re acting like your actions at the range are the same.
They are absolutely not.
First and foremost, no actor is EVER responsible for the safety of a firearm. End of story. That is the armorer’s job, and nobody else’s. No actor should ever be handed a firearm in any condition other than safe for the situation. If they’re standing around with a gun on their hip in a far-off shot, the firearm is a resin or foam replica. Always. If they’re handling a firearm up close and not firing it, it will be a non-firing replica. Always. If they are firing it the armorer will load the firearm, rack/cock it, and place it directly into the actor’s hands. The scene will be shot. The armorer then immediately takes the firearms away from all actors involved.
At no point should the actor EVER be responsible for firearms safety. That is not their job. It is the armorer’s job to ensure that the actor cannot, either willfully or through ignorance, harm anyone else. These industry standards have been developed and utilized over a period of decades.
In all of the movies that use firearms, how many deaths or injuries have you heard of?
The comments and votes here baffle me.
One step. That’s it.
One step by actors being paid presumably millions. That’s all they need to do. All the steps you mentioned above can and should stay. But an actor can’t take 5 mins out of their oh so busy lives to learn to check clear a weapon? How is more safety a problem? What is wrong with people who disagree on that?
Industry standards change throughout. Just because something worked before doesn’t mean it always will. Exhibit A is the man who died. Or is his life a statistical anamoly and within acceptable error? Do we wait for more people to die then?
Does an actor blindly get behind a car and drive not caring if he runs anyone over because it’s the set director’s job to clear the path? Is he absolve of all blame here?
What happened to Brandon Lee was wildly different. Talk about disingenuous using it as a comparison.
How are they “wildly different”? Both incidents are due to cut corners, the armorers not doing their jobs and the actors being complacent and blindly trusting the person in charge. Both guns could have been found as dangerous by a basic safety check. The squib in “Brandon’s gun” would have been immediately apparent on a basic show clear when there is no daylight coming out of the barrel, this would be the very first thing you are taught on gun handling before you are even allowed to even pull the trigger. In the end both incidents had people die in preventable ways due to negligence and complacency, which is the only thing that matters.
Result is that the actor would have done nothing “wrong” and still have killed someone, which is definitely not something anyone would want to do, and would have been completely preventable if they had exercised just a bit of common sense and checked their own gun even once.
The armorer was a nepobaby who’s father was a far more experienced armorer. I don’t doubt it was almost entirely her fault.
There’s a few reasons why he was charged, both as an actor and producer. Gun safety just can’t be fucked around with.
In the document, prosecutors accused Baldwin of “many instances of extremely reckless acts” during the film’s production.
They wrote that Baldwin “was not present” for mandatory firearms training before filming began. He was instead provided on-set guidance but prosecutors allege he was “distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family.” The training session was scheduled for an hour but was only 30 minutes long due to Baldwin’s “distraction” on the phone.
… The prosecutor’s statement described several “acts or omissions of recklessness” on the set of Rust. This included foregoing the use of a prop gun during unscheduled rehearsals, willful ignorance toward on-set safety complaints and a lack of armourer-performed safety checks.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9451182/alec-baldwin-rust-manslaughter-charge-phone/amp/
I think the take away on this is:
As is, currently, actors are not responsible for checking their prop weapons on set. No actor is ever expected to do it, because there are people responsible for it. In the event of an incident, in the current standard practices, no one can reasonably blame the actor.
But, systematically, it shouldn’t be that way.
We can’t look at one incident and say “clearly the actor was in the wrong” because culturally, it’s X Y and Z tech’s job to check the firearm. But cultures within an industry can shift. Currently, firearm safety on set isn’t everyone’s job. But it should be everyone’s job. The system should be better, because firearm safety is a demonstrably life-or-death process.
How do you change the system? By holding productions liable when stuff like this happens. You sue the absolute shit out of the producers, so the producers have a crippling fear of NOT improving the system.
You don’t hold the actor Alec Baldwin responsible. You hold the producer Alec Baldwin responsible.
I haven’t worked on film sets, but I’ve worked on theatrical productions which utilized blank-firing guns. The ones we specifically used had been modified to prevent the possibility of live ammunition being loaded into them, but that’s not always possible (like in the specific scene being shot for Rust, where the gun was to be pointed straight at the camera).
Generally, as others have said, the actor checking the gun is not part of the process because it adds additional risk, and may mess up the setup the armorer did. When we used blanks, the process was that the armorer would check and verify the gun was in safe and working order and was loaded correctly (i.e, for the productions we did, loaded with exactly two blanks, since the gun would be fired twice, and the revolver set to fire those two blanks in the correct timing). He would then place the gun in the specific spot on-stage where it would be retrieved from by the actor during the show (or directly hand it to the actor as they went on-stage for one of the shows). At that point, crew was not allowed near that spot on stage, and the only people allowed to touch the gun was either the armorer or the actor. Additionally, the armorer stood watch off-stage for the entire time the gun was out of his possession, and ensured nobody came near the gun except for the actor who was supposed to be using it as part of the show. After the gun was used in the show, he would immediately retrieve it, ensure it was rendered safe, and it would immediately be returned to the secure storage location we had for the gun. If we had ever run into an issue where crew would need to access the area that the gun was placed on-stage, the armorer would have removed and made safe the weapon before any of the rest of the crew could access the area.
Crew was made aware through explicit call-outs when each step occurred-- so when the gun was loaded, that was called out to crew via comms. When it was placed, that was called out. A call-out was made when the gun was retrieved by the actor, and again several seconds before it was to be used. And finally, a call-out was made when the armorer retrieved the gun and made it safe.This is the same process that every stage or screen production is supposed to have. The gun is never, ever, ever to be used with live ammunition for any reason. Live ammunition should never even be on the set, for any reason. The gun should never be passed off to anyone else other than between the armorer and the actor (or on large enough productions, the armoring team under the direct supervision of an armorer). Nobody should be stopping to inspect the guns, because that means people who are not qualified will be handling the guns outside the control of the armorer.
Currently, firearm safety on set isn’t everyone’s job. But it should be everyone’s job. The system should be better, because firearm safety is a demonstrably life-or-death process.
Yes, firearms safety is a life-or-death process, but that’s precisely why the rest of the crew and actors don’t need to have firearms be their job. All they need to know is that they do not touch any of the weapons, for any reason. If it’s out of place, they should ensure nobody comes near it, and call the armorer to retrieve it. The chain of custody for the weapons must be incredibly short, and you don’t want anyone who is not specifically authorized to be touching or interacting with the weapons in any way, because that’s how mistakes start to happen.
The weapons should only be outside the direct control of the armorer for the minimum time possible, and the armorer should be observing the entire time. As soon as the scene finishes, and between shots, the armorer should take control of the weapon again and do all the steps required to ensure it is safe.
You don’t hold the actor Alec Baldwin responsible. You hold the producer Alec Baldwin responsible.
Agreed, along with the rest of the producers. Concerns had been expressed about the armorer previously, and the production team should have responded to those and found another armorer who could safely manage the weapons (or, since some of the articles I’ve read suggest the armorer didn’t feel she could push back on other crewmembers when they wanted to do things incorrectly for the sake of timing, they should have made it clear that when it comes to how weapons are used on set, the armorer is the voice of god and has the final say at all times).
Additionally, the production team should have found other ways to film the scene where the gun was looking down the barrel of the gun, by either using mirrors to ensure the camera and crew were not in the line of fire, or by filming it remotely. Since the cinematographer was shot during a rehearsal, a rubber replica should have been used to set the focus and framing for the shot, and the live weapon should have been swapped in at the latest possible moment before filming commenced.
But, systematically, it shouldn’t be that way.
Entirely wrong. The actor is not a firearms professional. The armorer on the set is. Actors should never touch real firearms unless handed to them directly by an armorer. The moment the scene is finished, the armorer removes the real firearm from the equation entirely.
You have ONE person that is responsible. Their entire job is SOLELY to ensure that every firearm is accounted for at all times. Actors should not EVERY be put in a position where they have to think about anything but their job, just as you wouldn’t expect the cinematographer to be over making burgers in craft services.
You have a job, you do your job. As an actor the job is to take the firearm, hold it in a specified way, fire it, then give it back to the armorer that handed it to you. End of story.
These practices are in place because they have proven to work for literal decades. It’s only through extreme negligence (which the Rust situation was) or through horrendous circumstance (see: Brandon Lee) that accidents happen, and that’s the case only because nobody except one specific professional is allowed to handle firearms outside of filming.
You have ONE person that is responsible. Their entire job is SOLELY to ensure that every firearm is accounted for at all times. Actors should not EVERY be put in a position where they have to think about anything but their job, just as you wouldn’t expect the cinematographer to be over making burgers in craft services.
This is a false equivalence and you know it. Yes, it makes sense to put one person IN CHARGE of safety, but in a properly working system, safety is everyone’s responsibility. Making only one person responsible for it creates a single point of failure, which is how accidents happen.
Yeah, being a firearms professional is not the actor’s job. But it’s absurd to say that the only thing an actor needs to know how to do is act. If a scene requires a character ride a bike, the actor needs to know how to do that. If a scene requires a character take a golf swing, the actor needs to be able to do that. They don’t need to do so at a professional level, but they need to be able to do so enough to make it work for the camera, and more importantly, not hurt anyone.
The correct process is not difficult. When the firearm is handed off from the armorer to the actor, the armorer proves it’s clear. Every time. The actor doesn’t need to know how to clear a weapon, they just need to know that the armorer needs to clear it for them. If two people (the armor and the actor) are responsible for making sure its cleared every time it gets handed off, then it’s harder for that step to get forgotten.
deleted by creator
you don’t change the system. letting the actor check the mag/clear the chamber adds an additional point of failure in the process and reduces safety for everyone on set.
if you want to change things you stop filming with hot weapons entirely.
You don’t have the actor check the weapon instead of the armorer. You have them check it in addition to the armorer. You pick up a gun, you check it.
This is basic gun safety. If a gun ever leaves your direct control or observation, no matter how short, you check it.
So now all kinds of people who aren’t experts are unloading and loading the gun? That’s insane
I don’t get why they aren’t using altered guns that can’t accommodate real ammo? Seems crazy to use a fully functioning gun
Came here looking for this comment. There should be no reason to have a functional firearm anywhere on set. It must work that way for films made in countries where firearms are illegal (i.e. outside the U.S.).
in countries where firearms are illegal (i.e. outside the U.S.).
Fyi, there’s plenty of countries in Europe where firearms are legal. And some of them make it even easier to legally buy automatic weapons than the US does
Yes, I know. Lazy choice of words.
My point stands. No reason to have a real gun on set.
removed by mod
“Realism”
They were testing the shot by pointing it directly at the DP and Director so they could see what it looked like if he drew the gun. There was no reason Baldwin wasn’t using either of the two non-firing guns during the rehearsal other than wanting it to seem more real. Yes, the armorer was inexperienced, but who hired the armorer. Yes, the 1st AD called cold gun and supposedly handed it to Baldwin without checking it. But who chose to then point the gun at people while simulating a quick draw motion?
It was completely reckless and there was a pattern of dangerous behavior on Baldwin’s part, which coupled with his role as producer, and the fact that the production had numerous complaints about safety and corner cutting, doesn’t look good at all.
The situation was so bad, that the DPs entire camera department WALKED that day, and had previously complained about gun safety being an issue. They were replaced by non-union scabs. When leaving, a producer threatened to call security if they didn’t hurry up. Others on set previously complained because prop guns had already accidentally discharged TWICE before the shooting.
Additionally, rather than finding suitable nearby accommodations in Santa Fe, as they were initially promised, crew were forced to travel 50 miles away to Albuquerque every day. For anyone unaware, film set days are usually around 10-15 hours per day of physically and mentally demanding work.
Everything that transpired was because of a perfect storm created by the production department. It shows all the hallmarks of the systemic abuses that occur between above the line and below the line players, and in my opinion the production department is responsible and should be found criminally negligent at the very least.
Currently: Alec Baldwin has gotten to walk away from this mess, all charges dropped. Gutierrez is now the sole person still being charged and being blamed for drinking and smoking weed after her shift, as well as new testimony from an anonymous witness who claims a bag of cocaine was handed off after she was interviewed by police. I guess production has found their lamb.
Baldwin wasn’t using either of the two non-firing guns during the rehearsal other than wanting it to seem more real. Yes, the armorer was inexperienced, but who hired the armorer.
Baldwin wasn’t using a prop gun because the armorer was incompetent and allowed him to handle an actual firearm that had been loaded with real ammunition. “Inexperience” means nothing here. No armorer should be “inexperienced.” By the time you’re an armorer you should have been working as an assistant for years.
Does Baldwin’s assholishness as a producer and refusal to answer the concerns of his crew regarding firearms make him in some way culpable? Yes, but not criminally. Did he intentionally murder someone? No. Does this even reach the level of manslaughter? No, it does not. There has to be some level of intent or effort on the part of the shooter. See the idiot that handed a small child an Uzi then got shot in the fucking face when the SMALL CHILD couldn’t handle the recoil of an automatic weapon. Did she pull the trigger? Yes. Was she responsible for the man’s death? No. His stupidity got him killed, nothing more.
As an actor, Baldwin is not in any way criminally liable for someone handing him a loaded gun.
As a producer, he is absolutely liable for creating an environment where incompetence could thrive.
There is absolutely no way any criminal charges apply to his actions.
He will absolutely get skullfucked in the civil case.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Notice he didn’t answer the question with a yes or no…
The answer is an automatic yes in itself because weapons safety is taught nonstop in the army, from the moment you join and every single time you are up for weapons requalification.
With all due respect to our servicepeople, just having served in the armed services in no way guarantees you’re an expert with firearms, competent at firearm safety, or qualified to be a professional armorer.
Anyone who’s been around them knows, the military takes all types.
deleted by creator
The users above you are making some damn tenuous arguments.
Wow the 82nd, this is like getting D, there are 81 airborns before yours.
I don’t know how the US army structured, it’s a joke right? Like there no corelation between how good the Brigade(?) and it’s number right? Lmao
The numbers are random and non-sequential, i.e. the existence of SEAL Team 6 doesn’t imply the existence of 5 other SEAL teams. Equipment serial numbers are the same.
If you did assign numbers sequentially, enemy forces can get a guess as to your numbers based on the serial/unit numbers of captured equipment and soldiers
Hey, this is where my ability to remember stupid shit I don’t want to comes into play!
SEAL Team 6 DOES imply that there are 5 other SEAL teams… if you don’t know any better. It’s literally the reason it was called team 6 and not 3.
At the time, there were two SEAL Teams, SEAL Team ONE and SEAL Team TWO. Marcinko named the unit SEAL Team Six in order to confuse Soviet intelligence as to the number of actual SEAL teams in existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAL_Team_Six
Yes, you knew that. Not everyone that read your post did, but now they do.
I get what he’s saying, but in something as high stakes as this safety needs to be the responsibility of everyone involved.
There should be as many redundant safety checks as possible.
I agree, especially if real guns are being used. But what I don’t get is why in this case it would be Baldwin’s fault. If this is industry-wide practice, why was he charged?
I think the industry needs to change so that for action scenes with real weapons, everyone who touches the weapon gets basic safety and firearms training. Knowing how to hold and operate the weapon, the safety rules, how to check to make sure the weapon is clear, etc.
“Industry-wide practice” that goes against every firearms safety standard anywhere else. From what I remember it wasn’t even during a scene, he was just playing with it.
I personally think, with the budgets of Hollywood Movies, there’s no reason they couldn’t have a gunsmith make/modify one to shoot only blanks.
From what I remember it wasn’t even during a scene, he was just playing with it.
No, they were going over the scene right before filming. The shot in question was filming down the barrel of the gun, which is why it was pointed in the direction it was.
Wow, almost like being on a movie set isn’t like being in a fucking shooting range.
No, he was not “playing with it.” He was blocking out a scene and rehearsing. He removed the gun he was given from the holster and it fired.
He should never have been handed a live firing gun. The armorer’s responsibility is to track all firearms at all times.
I personally think, with the budgets of Hollywood Movies, there’s no reason they couldn’t have a gunsmith make/modify one to shoot only blanks.
The firearm Baldwin was handed was unmodified. There was also one that had been modified to not fire anything, and another that was a resin cast replica. In other words, the entire industry is literally decades ahead of you in terms of safety and knowledge.
You do not need to ensure a firearm shoots only blanks if you just… and I can’t stress this enough… DON’T INTENTIONALLY BRING REAL AMMUNITION ONTO A FILM SET.
Which the armorer did.
I thought it was because he was a producer.
Because he paid the bills? IDK what a producer does other than that, but it sure as hell isn’t being in charge of the firearms.
I’m not sure what his involvement as a producer was, but I know a producer doesn’t “pay the bills”. It’s a vague enough term that it could mean he was showrunning, writing, financing. Prett much anything. It could be that he wanted the title for awards or it could be that he had many responsibilities including ensuring that the professionals involved were qualified and experienced enough for their roles - from what I remember, the armourer and some camera crew were probably not.
Sorry, I didn’t follow this case so I don’t know all the details.
It was because the gun safety practices on this particular movie set were sloppy as hell. The prosecutors argued that Baldwin ignored basic precautions on numerous occasions and that, as producer on set, he was legally liable for the shooting.
I thought so at first too, but the authorities didn’t go after the other five producers. They basically went after him because he fired the gun, not because of the production angle.
Halyna Hutchinson’s widower sued the producers. The settlement was reached and he’s both being compensated for her death and he’s now an executive producer of Rust. They moved filming to Montana and a lot of the original cast and crew agreed to complete the movie, but I don’t know how much more they were able to film before the actors strike.
Baldwin’s culpability as an actor lies in how he accepted the gun from the assistant director instead of the armorer and accepted the gun without being present to observe a safety check, something which he should know not to do since he supposedly had the mandatory safety training. The assistant director is not the armorer and is unqualified to declare a gun ”safe/cold". When guns are handed out prior to filming a scene at least 3 parties are supposed to be present to observe a safety check conducted by the armorer. These are the actor, armorer, and the director/an assistant director. The armorer is the qualified expert. The actor should want to know that they’re not about to shoot someone with a real gun and real bullets. And the director/assistant director acts as a representative of the downrange cast and crew. This is supposed to be done every time a gun changes hands on set.
Didn’t those dumbfucks on set take the prop guns out to do target practice? I don’t even own a gun, but I know enough to know that pointing a gun that has any chance of being loaded at someone is a terrible idea and that the prop master’s responsibility is to make sure that never happens. The prop master’s negligence led to that person’s death and Baldwin should have done his homework on who he was hiring. He’s probably not criminally responsible, but he should settle and avoid a civil trial.
deleted by creator
Actors are not expected to be knowledgeable about weapons. If they are required to check their own weapons, they would not do so competently, and may come to incorrect conclusions. This could add incompetent confusion about the weapon safety to the situation, and that’s bad for safety.
It takes like two minutes to learn how to safely check a gun. Surely they spend more than that learning walking to the set from the parking lot.
Safely check WHICH gun?
The live firing weapon? The blank firing gun? The resin replica? Are they expected to remove any rounds in a firearm, be it live or replica, and verify that it is indeed a blank?
No. That is ONE person’s job for a reason. That is the firearms expert’s job. Nobody else’s.
You accept that responsibility with the job.
The one in their hand.
The one in their hand.
So they need to be trained how to spot the difference between a live and blank round and how to check every firearm on the set.
OR
You could just have one person that’s an expert on firearms do that for everyone, thereby eliminating any possibility that an untrained know-nothing actor accidentally lights off a round while fumblefucking with a firearm they know nothing about, trying to check it.
Hey genius, what good does “checking” a firearm do if they’re literally there to fire off blank rounds?
The nature of how firearms are used in film generally requires breaking the normal fundamental rules of firearm safety. You can’t just give somebody a quick rundown of the “four rules” and call it good.
Further, they’re also often modified in ways that change what safety factors need to be considered.
It’s the job of the on-set armorer to make sure firearms are safe and used in a safe manner because it’s not reasonable to expect actors who are firearms laymen to understand everything that plays a factor in what is or isn’t safe.
I do think this case is a little different, but that primarily has to do with Baldwin being a producer.
They don’t even need to know how to check a gun. They just need to follow the safety protocols and not point it at someone. Pointing a real gun, which this was, at something you are not ok destroying is a violation of basic firearms safety, 82nd airborne or not.
Being an actor requires pointing guns at people, it’s just part of the job. You can’t apply gun safety to things that are supposed to be harmless props. That’s why it really isn’t his fault for pointing a prop at someone and pulling the trigger, it’s the fault of the armouror for handing him something that wasn’t a prop.
Granted, he hired an under qualified armouror, didn’t take safety seriously, and allowed the stage gyns to be used with real ammo, and that’s all on Alex the producer from a civil liability standpoint. But it’s not a slight against Alex the actor
Dude. Read up on this. Guns pointed at others are rubber replicas. (Great vids about this on Adam Savage’s YT channel). This was a real gun. Those are not pointed at people. Down vote away.
The first five gun safety rules
Pretty sure the law doesn’t give a shit what conventions Hollywood has developed and followed over the years. You have a gun in your hand, you pull the trigger, you are responsible for the outcome. Don’t like it? Learn gun safety, ignore what the person handing you the gun claims, check that it’s unloaded yourself. Hollywood conventions need to change to align with reality.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sqaud leader in the 82nd is such a limp dick flex. Look out for this E4 promotable to E6! Motherfuer could have been a squad leader in finance. Doesn’t mean shit. And I am more willing to bet that he wasn’t wasn’t in combat arms by this shitty take. Anyone that has spent time around guns knows full well that you always check the load of a weapon first thing.
OP should really just delete all this. It’s bad and you should feel bad.
The 82nd airborne division is the primary fighting arm of the airborne corps. As squad leader I imagine it’s highly likely that he’s seen combat at one time or another. And as he said, he’s worked on film sets in an advisory capacity before.
I’m the op and mod here. As stated in the sidebar, the views expressed in the screenshots are not necessarily my own. Also in the sidebar are the rules of this community. You are breaking rule 1: don’t be a dick. You are being needlessly aggressive, argumentative and insulting. That behaviour is not welcome here.
This is your warning; if you break the rules again you will be banned.
Moded. Thank you for sticking your neck out for us, I’m disabled and I would be dead immediately if it was not for the armed forces. In all of the countries protecting their citizens, I have respect for every kid putting their life on the line daily.
