My take is that Alec Baldwin the Actor isn’t to blame. Alec Baldwin the Producer caused all of the Armourer problems by running a low budget production.
As an actor he wasn’t supposed to check the gun, however as a producer he failed by not hiring the correct licensed armourer due to cutting corners.
Probably the most sane take I’ve read so far.
And this is Alec Baldwin’s passion project, so yeah.
Never really thought about it that way. But yeah, whoever hired that lady should share some of the blame.
however as a producer he failed
That really depends on what kind of producer he was. Many times getting a producer credit just means you’re a major stakeholder or own some rights involved in the project. A producer isn’t a blame magnet, and negligence can be proven at a level lower than a producer.
He pulled a Boeing max basically. Where in they refused to pay for pilot training which led to many deaths until someone was convicted and they were forced to pay for pilot training. Cutting corners shouldn’t come at a cost of complete negligence for human life.
Actors go through training for learning martial art moves for a film. No reason they can do gun safety training for a film.
deleted by creator
I partially agree, but as a literal armorer myself I disagree with “Alec Baldwin the Actor isn’t to blame” here.
I don’t give a shit what his job title is, if he is a person who touches a real gun he should know how to do it safely or he no get real gun! Gun safety is for everyone who touches a gun, regardless of job description or other lame excuses. It’s as simple as learning Col. Cooper’s Four Rules, it isn’t like they have to take a college level course on the impact of guns throuought history, it’s basic safety information akin to “don’t touch the stove when it’s hot,” it isn’t as hard as “Mr. Big Dick” from the 82nd airborne over here with his blown out knees would have you believe.
Actors SHOULD be expected to check the gun, just as I’d expect my bartender friend, or my 82nd airborne vet friend, or literally anyone, to do if I showed them something I picked up.
I don’t get the blame deflection. 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 SAFETY LESSONS!?!
Seriously, it’s baffling! I think the disconnect comes from none of these people knowing how to use guns and thinking it somehow involves a masters degree to know how to check for rounds, when all people are really saying is to learn four whole rules of safety and how to do this, this, and this, (and depending on the gun you use you only have to even learn 1 of these 3)!
If you watched all four of those videos and retained the information, congrats, you’re ready, and you wouldn’t have killed that lady. It is that easy, do y’all see why we think he’s partially culpable now?
As a human, if you are handed a gun, you check to see if it’s loaded and what it’s loader with. That is the first thing you do when handed a gun. Anything else is irresponsible.
But… What if I’m an actor who’s never seen a gun… Do i quit or is it too much of an expectation for an expert to be present and why the hell would that gun be real to begin with?
deleted by creator
Just my two cents, and I absolutely am not pretending to have any experience with this. I’d assume so long as the actor isn’t negligent or grossly irresponsible they’re in the clear. Actors are not firearms experts, and training every actor to be Keanu Reeves/John Wick is super expensive. So whomever is the firearms expert, and whomever was involved with the contracting of that expert face liability.
That’s why Baldwin the actor isn’t responsible, but Baldwin as producer might be. Since as a producer he’d bear responsibility for hiring and contracting.
deleted by creator
No idea why you’re getting down voted. This is exactly how I feel.
Then you don’t get to touch the gun until you’ve proven to me with airsoft you can follow these four rules. Simple as. Gun safety is to be expected from any single human who touches a real gun regardless of their job description, anything less could lead to, oh, idk, an innocent woman being killed on the set of Rust.
It’s interesting to me that in the gun world personal responsibility is paramount, everyone is responsible for safety.
In Hollywood there is no personal responsibility. No one is liable. It’s one big oopsie moment.
In the gun world (the real world), I’m my own armorer. I don’t have someone on payroll who is supposed to be an ever-present expert to safety check, store, and catalog everything for me. I’m willing to bet that most of these actors may have never even handled a gun off-set… but I’m absolutely not against giving them basic safety training. It would certainly stand to reason.
This seems to be the case. Personally I’m clearly on the side of the gun world, I think it’s high time we stop letting actors treat guns as toys, it is so irresponsible and clearly leads to deaths, and it is litterally just this video. Sure, accidents can still happen like Brandon Lee’s, but Cooper’s Four Rules is an absolute bare minimum standard that they should have to meet before holding a gun capable of firing live rounds (even if there are no live rounds on set, it is an 8 minute video, it really isn’t that much.
Every time you go to a new indoor range, they require you to watch a breif safety video like the one above, this is literally the one they make you watch at one of my local ranges. I’m not asking for a dissertation on the mechanical workings of the Krag, I’m asking for the most basic safety precautions.
“Wait, so what do I need to do to uncock it so that I can check it over?”
“Actually, it’s weird. You need to pull the trigger halfway, and it releases. But do it carefully.”
“…uh…”“Okay, after nearly shooting my foot off, I’ve opened the gun, and there appear to be rounds inside!! Stop the shoot!”
“Oh. Those are blanks.”
“Wait, how do I know they’re blanks?”
“Same way you know how to uncock it.”Not to mention they’re literally SUPPOSED to point the gun at people, which is also a big “gun safety” no-no.
Actually, it’s weird. You need to pull the trigger halfway, and it releases. But do it carefully."
Let people who know how guns operate have this debate, ok champ? You clearly don’t understand how guns function at a basic level. What you’ve described is how a total of 0% of guns work. It sounds like you are talking about actually breaking down the gun to clean it, but just to check if it is loaded all you need to be able to do is follow this idiot. If he can do it Baldwin can too, the Armorer should teach them how to do it if they don’t know before filming starts, and if they can’t grasp it they only get nonfiring replicas because they have not met this minimal standard that I expect from everyone that touches a gun.
The consequences of ignoring safety in the name of job titles is dead people on set, it’s worth it to just fucking learn Col. Jeff Cooper’s Four Rules instead of kill someone accidentally, whether you can abate your guilty conscience by blaming others and deferring responsibility due to job titles or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LMbEGhll3E
In short: Revolvers, like you, are dumb. They are designed to not allow the hammer to release unless the trigger is pulled. The full release techniques are more intricate than what I jokingly described, but it still involves the trigger.
Calling out a comment you see as being potentially inaccurate can still be done politely without insulting and degrading people. Others have done it for information I’ve actually gotten wrong elsewhere in this post, and I appreciate their tone.
Ah, so you can call me dumb, but if I insult you back I get reported and my comment gets removed, eh? Logical. Well, while I await response from the mods here regarding sending me that text so I can edit it more palpably for the children in the audience, I’ll reconstruct why you’re actually the one who posseses the attributes ascribed to both me and revolvers by you above.
Not only did that man not touch the trigger while he did what one would describe as “unload and show clear,” this is a video on “decocking,” which is an entirely different principle. In the video you sent he actually does it without touching the trigger at around the 32sec mark (there was a link with a time code included in my OG comment, but this time you’ll have to put in the work because I have youtube running), when he presses the lever, opens the cylinder, and visually inspects the cylinder to verify the lack of ammunition, in order to make the gun safe for demonstration purposes. Not one time in that process did he touch the trigger (besides waiting 30sec in to do it, note to youtuber: Bad guntuber, that is the first thing you do and you know that, bad guntuber! Feel shame!)
That also wasn’t the kind of revolver used in Rust, they were using a Colt SAA, like this one. This is how to unload and check the gun that was in Baldwin’s hand when he shot that lady. Notice how the nice man in the video doesn’t pull the trigger? Actually, did you hear him specifically say not to touch the trigger? Instead to keep your finger high on the frame? Yeah, who posesses the properties you ascribe to revolvers now, you revolver? (Shucks, I hope I can get away with that one, golly gee.)
Baldwin absolutely should have been expected to know how to do this, not because “everyone should” or some such nonsense as most of this thread purports my side’s argument to be, but because he was holding one. Had he not been holding one I wouldn’t be saying he needs to learn about it. For instance, you aren’t holding one, so you don’t have to learn (besides the fact that I’m correcting your misinformation and teaching it to you, so in a sense you do), but if you were going to go buy a Cimmaron or Uberti Colt SAA clone, yes, I would expect that you learn how to use one safely. Hell, if I got one and was showing it to you at my house, I would teach it to you before I even let you touch it.
Baldwin is not absolved of responsibility due to his job title not being related to firearms, I expect every human who touches a gun to know how to do so safely and if they don’t, don’t touch them. This is the absolute bare minimum expectation, and it is so that innocent people don’t needlessly die, it is a good thing not an imposition. He may be legally cleared due to his money and connections, but on a “karmic” level for lack of a better word he is at least as responsible as that armorer, if not more when you throw in all the behind the scenes stuff like “he was also the producer, and much of their gun safety team had walked off citing safety complaints, after they’d already had two noninjurious negligent discharges, and in fact were off set that day, and they chose not only to film, but to pick up that gun and point it at the camera for not a scene but just the lolz.”
How’s that? I insulted you but only by referrencing your insult, does that squeak past the censors?
Removed by mod
As a “gun guy”, I think Alec Baldwin the actor is also to blame for not learning/practicing firearm safety. Always check your weapon.
Checking a revolver to confirm they type of prop ammo is very different than a regular weapon check.
Different shots require different ammo. You may have a shot where the revolver is seen from the business end, so there needs to be a bullet of some kind in the cartridge - so maybe it’s a real bullet with no powder or primer. Or maybe the shot shows an open cylinder, so you need primers but no bullets. Or maybe you need to show the actor loading, so it’s a plastic primer or entirely fake round. Or maybe it’s being fired, so you need a blank…
The mixture of different kinds of prop ammo is how Brandon Lee was killed on set. A bullet came dislodged from a round being used for a previous scene and was still in the barrel when a blank was fired. That effectively made a live round that killed Lee.
So the barrel also needs to be checked for squibs if it’s goong to be loaded with blanks.
It’s not as simple as a regular press-check or opening the cylinder. I carry a gun every day and am a firm believer in gun safety at all times, but props are treated differently because they are different.
As a part of their job, actors will point guns at each other and pull the triggers. The normal firearm safety procedures just don’t work with them.
Checking a revolver to confirm they type of prop ammo is very different than a regular weapon check.
And YOU should learn how to check the gun in YOUR hand, regardless of if it is a Colt SAA or a Jimenez.
Some of that should be handled by the armorer, as in Brandon Lee’s case the armorer pulled the bullet and powder, but reseated the bullet onto the fresh primer. He should have popped the primer and punched it back to normal with a pin punch, then reseat and engrave on the casing “inert” with a dremel. That was 100% his fault.
This one could have been solved simply by basic gun safety that I’d expect from friends who aren’t in the industry as well, that is why I blame both Baldwin and the armorer.
Frankly, all actors who use real guns in movies should be required by SAG to take a basic safety course. They don’t have to go full Keanu, just go to the nearest range and ask any RSO if they’d like a SAG job, teaching people with the brain of a fifth grader some gun safety (had to get in a dig on them lol), should be good enough. Then the armorer should spend an hour familiarizing you with your gun on set before live rounds are even brought on set. Guns are dangerous and we shouldn’t just throw gun safety out the window because some rich guy with a bullshit job thinks it is below him to learn it, they actually need to learn it better than most with the nature of their job sometimes requiring them to break a rule (like sometimes they have to point them at people, which, while that is a no-no it can be done more safely than it currently is, and that frankly shouldn’t be controversial.)
Removed by mod
Actors’ job isn’t to be as knowledgeable as a firearm consultant, hence why they hire one. The same way they trust any scene has been safely planned out before hand and the giant boulder is assumed to be fake and not a real rock, and the harnesses that suspend them weren’t set up wrong so they fall and break their neck.
deleted by creator
I’m not a gun guy and think this is a weird take that leans into the weird fantasy the NRA pushes of every person (who touches a real gun) becoming
a gun aficionadoknowledgable about basic safety procedure regarding the tool in their hand that has the ability to take another’s life whether you meant to or not.Ftfy.
You don’t want to learn how to use guns safely? Don’t use a gun. You don’t want to learn how to use a chainsaw safely? Don’t use a chainsaw. It really isn’t as hard as you guys make it seem, either memorize this 8min video or you don’t get no guns. It is the absolute most basic prerequisite for handling a firearm.
Range safety is a class that takes less than an hour to teach, and Alec Baldwin had to go through one of these classes for the movie. You don’t need to be a gun nut to understand how to check a firearm and be safe.
Also, don’t lump me in with the NRA. They’re a racist, psychotic organization
deleted by creator
I don’t think any knowledge can be permanently retained from a one-hour class. There are things I’ve learned for my job weeks ago that directly correlate to my field of expertise, that I still constantly need to look up from time to time.
Not to mention, I doubt a one hour course could cover the mechanisms of every uniquely-operated firearm in existence.
That first paragraph sounds like software engineering lol
I don’t think any knowledge can be permanently retained from a one-hour class.
I learned how to build AR-15s in an hour and retained it, they can learn how to do this and this in an hour and if they can’t they can’t handle real guns until they can.
Not to mention, I doubt a one hour course could cover the mechanisms of every uniquely-operated firearm in existence.
While most will be the same as their class of weaponry (i.e semi autos mostly all function the same, revolvers mostly all function the same, and single action revolvers mostly all function the same), you really just need to sit them down for a few minutes before the shoot and get them familiarized with the gun they’ll be using. For instance, an actor in a cowboy movie should be sat down before filming and learn how to safely handle the Winchester and Colt he’ll be using for the duration of filming, but we don’t need to teach him how to change barrels on an MG-42 because that won’t be “invented” for another 80yrs. Similarly, a WWII german soldier actor in saving private ryan needs to learn about his “issued” Luger or Walther p38, and his Kar98k, not the cowboy’s SAA and Model 1891. And Tom Hanks needs to learn about his Colt 1911, but not “the enemy” actor’s Luger, so long as he isn’t touching the Luger. They don’t need to be weapons experts, just have absolutely basic knowledge of the thing in their hand that is capable of killing someone whether they “meant to” or not. It is the same thing I expect from pizza drivers, butchers, baristas, etc, I don’t care what you do for a living if you touch guns you should know basic safety procedures involving them, why should he get a pass because he’s an actor, when I wouldn’t give a pass to the equally unrelated-to-firearms job of accounting?
But it’s not a weapon, it’s a prop.
Are you saying all children should learn firearm safety to handle their water pistols?
It’s both which seems unreasonable
Can that water pistol fire a live .45lc round?
Especially aiming directly at her and pulling the trigger. I don’t believe it was malicious but damn; I would never consider that without triple clearing the weapon. I still would feel comfortable.
Can a layman even check that? The gun was supposed to be loaded. Just loaded with a blank
Yes. Any layman with 15min of instruction (with THAT firearm, not even another of the same kind, THAT ONE) should be able to unload and show clear, OR they don’t get greenlit to hold a real gun, nonfiring replicas only.
We’re only giving him a pass because he’s an “actor,” I used to be a pizza driver and showed my boss my carry one night, before I passed it to him I gave him a basic run down on how to make sure it was safe, handed it to him and he reproduced it instantly. You’re telling me, that I can expect a Jordanian man who has never held a gun, who is just an owner-operator of a local pizza spot, to check if the gun is safe, but not Alec Baldwin who was Jack Ryan in The Hunt for Red October (had gun), a cop in The Departed (had gun), 30 Rock (one episode he had gun), was in Miami Blues (with a gun), The Getaway (with a gun), The Juror (had a gun), The Edge (gun), Pixie (guns), and he can’t be bothered to learn how to use them safely? Fuck that.
Yes. Blanks don’t have a bullet in the cartridge. It’s just crimped on the end
So he needs to take the bullet out, inspect and reload? Is there additional risk making an actor do that? Honestly asking
Not sure how there would be any additional risk as long as the actor keeps their finger off the trigger until they’re ready to shoot
Even if he took the bullet out he would have seen it was indeed a blank. He would have had to take the bullet out and hold the barrel up to the light with the chamber open to see a previous bullet was stuck in the barrel.
I do agree, but the reason Baldwin is even being looked at is because he was also the producer, if I’m not mistaken. So it could be related to some negligence on that end. But yeah, as far as what he was doing as an actor, it doesn’t seem like he should have any responsibility.
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’m no lawyer or anything, but Baldwin has been an actor in professional movies with prop guns for a long time, I think it’s going to be hard for them to pin it on him (as an actor) for supposedly blowing off a single firearms course, and even that’s unconfirmed right? I think it’s unlikely that they’ll charge him as a producer as well, because it sounds like they hired all the right people for the job and had firearms training and everything.
This whole thing just sounds like lawyers passing the buck back and forth, so who even knows what actually happened at this point. Will be interesting to see what comes up over time.
I kind of agree but if an incident happens on a site where the shooter wasn’t paying attention to training and never attended the initial safety briefing then that’s their own problem.
Working in construction, if I never turned up to a health and safety briefing ( and let me tell you they’re repetitive as fuck) and something went wrong but my excuse was “I didn’t need to go cos I’ve been to these before” it wouldn’t go in my favour whatsoever. I don’t think it’s a reasonable excuse either. If there’s potential for lives to be at stake, you should be paying attention. At the very least, even if not for other people’s lives, just go so you can say you listened and followed every instruction but the mistake still happened. That way youve covered your own back.
Weren’t they using the guns for target practice for fun at some point?
I’ve heard that too, but I think at this point even that’s unconfirmed and we still aren’t sure who was actually shooting live rounds from them.
Also is that not allowed? I honestly have no idea how that works. You’d think a movie set gun shouldn’t have live rounds in it ever, but I guess the production could be renting the gun from someone and they’d take it home every night…
As a construction worker or an engineer, you need to take a safety training for each new construction site you go on, even if it’s your 40th worksite. So I feel like it’s not so hard to pin Baldwin for not taking the hour course properly.
In a civil suit maybe, but for criminal charges you’d have to prove that he did blow off the course and the shooting was a direct result of him blowing off the course. Both are just very hard to prove.
“Yeah he blew off this years mandatory training, but he showed up to last years training, it can’t be his fault!”.
Idk that doesn’t really seem like a valid excuse
We’re talking manslaughter charges here, Baldwin’s lawyer doesn’t have to prove he’s not at fault, the prosecution has to prove without a reasonable doubt that he is at fault. Very different things.
He has both criminal and civil charges being brought against him though, and the civil charges have a much lower standard. He might not be charged with manslaughter, but still be liable as the one at fault
Yeah for sure, but I mean the context of this conversation is him being actually charged.
But if he has so much experience with guns on movie sets, then he knows how to property handle firearms safely, and if he followed proper gun safety he wouldn’t have shot anyone
I agree that the only reason he SHOULD have been looked at is his role as a producer but I don’t think that was the case at all. The ad got a plea deal iirc. It seemed more like the police wanted to get a famous feather in their cap and focused on him as the shooter which was obviously bullshit. Alec Baldwin is a dickhead at least and his wife is weird but blaming him for that was dumb from the get go
deleted by creator
I would say it’s getting attention because he’s an arrogant prick whose arrogance led directly to a murder and we’re all curious if that even means anything anymore.
Wtf does riffing on Trump have to do with it?
deleted by creator
Calling it some right-wing conspiracy is probably where the downvotes are coming from.
- Some serious shit was actually occurring
- Alec Baldwin was a huge arrogant asshole about it at first, trying to cover his ass as a producer regarding #1
- Trump, as Trump does, makes a pretty singular inflammatory comment about it, which points all his brainwashed minions at Baldwin.
So mostly I think the point is that there is room for both on this.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What?
No, the reason Baldwin is being looked at is because he’s a Democrat and does an impression of dear leader that makes the orange shitstain look like the buffoon he is.
There is an interesting conversation to be had here about gun safety on a movie set, and there should absolutely be accountability taken for what has happened. However, I can’t help but notice that the vast majority of those calling for Alec’s head specifically are MAGA Republicans, which makes me a bit less inclined to take their side. They have some good points, but arrived at them by starting with “he’s guilty” and working backwards, which I just can’t get behind.
I think he’s got some culpability but isn’t deserving of the public execution his politically-motivated detractors want.
Careful having a reason to Viewpoint like that will get you downvoted.
How exactly do comments like this encourage the reasonable discourse you seem to want to have?
I was agreeing with you. So I figured you’d know.
Yep, whoever brought live ammo to the set and loaded it into the gun on a day they probably knew it was going to be used while pointed at another person - that’s the real culprit in all this. 50/50 this was a deliberate hit on baldwin and the poor sod at the other end of the barrel and not just negligence.
Haha. Rando internet schmuck thought they won the argument. But no one expects the 82nd Airborne Division
no one expects the 82nd Airborne Division.
Their chief weapon is surprise… Surprise and fear… Fear and surprise. Their two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…
And snazzy red outfits
I’ll come in again.
Is that a win here? I’d hope someone with a military background would take some responsibility for ensuring the weapon is safe…as should anyone handling a firearm. You can have 10 people check a weapon and confirm its safe before handing it to me and I’m still gonna check it.
Ok? Just because you know to do that doesn’t mean anyone else does or will.
Uh…then they shouldn’t be touching a firearm.
Are people arguing the armorer, who left live ammunition in a gun, ISN’T responsible for the accident?? I don’t understand who or what he’s arguing against
People are arguing that both are at fault. The armorer is most clearly responsible. However, more than one person can be responsible for something.
A common rule of thumb is to never point a gun at something you don’t want to kill. This is pretty clear outside the realm of a movie studio. On a movie set, it also seems pretty clearly 100% on the side of the armorer since pointing a gun at someone is required for acting. But Baldwin pointed the gun for fun, so it’s a major gray area for a lot of people.
I certainly understand the rules of firearm safety. I guess I was giving a pass to Baldwin given that the movie industry relies pretty heavily on the armourers and also they’re just actors.
But that’s a fair point, not caring about firearm safety isn’t an option if you’re using them as a part of your job. Especially if they’re functional and not just props.
deleted by creator
He pointed the gun at the camera. He didn’t kill the director.
deleted by creator
He was literally at work… He did it more for money than fun.
…people aren’t allowed to have fun at work?
Who said he wasnt having fun?
It was off camera and not related to work at all.
It was on set and very much work related which is why a COWORKER died.
How is that a grey area? He never should’ve gotten a real gun on set, there’s nothing grey.
From what I understand it’s pretty common for Hollywood movie sets to use real guns and fake ammunition.
" without absoult certainty do not point at what you are not willing to destroy…" which kind of defeats the idea if you dont for shure fully know without a doubt it wont do exactly that.
That’s a saying for a weapon. What he was handling was not supposed to be a weapon.
On a film set, prop guns are absolutely going to be pointed at people. Watch any movie and tell me if they practice gun safety while they’re actively shooting people.
and who hired those that put live rounds into" not a weapon"… if it was known that he knew this. then he is just as responsible even if he didnt pull the trigger. and even then not weapons eject something. being the wad only is still lethal if close enough. when you throw a punch your not actually supposed to full contact the person. your telling me they had to aim straight at them…
Army dude gave his take on the topic. Random person replied questioning his qualifications to talk about the subject. Army dude explained why he was qualified; he has indeed taken a weapon safety class, he’s led an entire squadron in armed combat. That’s the “don’t you know who I am”.
Regardless of the failure of physical controls, no one seems to be noting that safety training is also not Baldwin’s responsibility.
I certainly don’t look at a rich old hyperlib and think “Yeah, he knows this ‘prop gun’ is just an actual gun.” I don’t look at Baldwin and even think “He knows not to point this at something he isn’t willing to destroy.”
I wouldn’t assume he knows a single thing about guns I didn’t directly tell him and have him repeat back to me.
What armorer?
Alec Baldwin, as producer for the show in question, conducted that shoot without one on the set.
Thus why Baldwin is the one at fault for the shooting - and, funny enough, NOT because he was the one holding the trigger at the time it happened.
…what are you talking about? There was an armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, and she’s being charged.
Something’s strange; because last time I looked into the issue, there was definitely some note about a previous armorer on the crew being fired or not brought to the set on that day. Currently, I admit I’m unable to locate a source on that, but I can’t imagine I was remembering that from nothing.
While you may not be remembering it from nothing, you were obviously misinformed. This is easily verifiable.
deleted by creator
An architect designs a bridge. The materials include a number of steel beams that dont actually meet the support requirements for the bridge’s expected traffic. The bridge collapses.
This guy, to the survivors of the collapse: Have you ever even taken a bridge safety course?
This analogy is flawed. The engineer would be a gunsmith. The bridge collapsing would be the gun catastrophically failing. A bridge is not deliberately designed to inflict damage on animals (mostly humans) the way a gun is.
I wasn’t aiming at crafting the perfect analogy. I wanted to capture the absurdity and fucking asininity of the responders comment.
The point is that it’s not up to either the bridge’s users (the actors in the film) to “take a safety course” - it’s up to the bridge designers/builders (the film set’s armorer if we’re talking about direct blame or the executive film staff if were talking about corner cutting or poor funding) to make sure the bridge (the prop gun) is safe to use.
If Baldwin is culpable for corner cutting as an executive staff member (and for example, hiring a shitty armorer to save on costs), so be it. I don’t give a shit about him. But being mad at someone for not checking a gun when the responsibility lies on a hired expert and this is just how Hollywood operates and in a century of filmmaking there have been a handful of freak accidents?
That’s pretty much what this sounds like to me.
Here’s a more applicable example.
Two carnival clowns are having a faux sword fight. One clown hits the other clown, only to find out that his sword is razor sharp. The second clown is impaled and dies.
Do you think we would give the clown the benefit of the doubt?
Is there a clown armorer in the clown troupe who was supposed to diligently do his job and check that the swords are fake?
I’m not against making the clowns take a class about pressing their thumbs to the blade or trying to slice a piece of paper in half (checking that the bullets in the gun are crimped and, therefore, blank), but if the clown industry’s SOP is to always have a clown armorer on staff and one of the clown armorer’s main jobs is to make sure that all the swords are plastic, then who’s to blame here? Who even stored a real metal sword with the fake plastic clown swords? This is a massive failure in clown procedure.
All of what you said can be true and yet, we would probably convict the clown anyway. The clown is poor, “stupid”, and disposable. Alec Baldwin is protected by his class, wealth, and fame. There are two standards of justice here and Baldwin will be given the benefit of the doubt because of his power.
I’m not so sure we’d convict the clown - but I also wouldn’t argue that the wealthy and famous don’t have their own lane when it comes to legal matters. Even if we didn’t convict the clown, Baldwin’s own road to vindication and absolution would be much, much easier.
And for the record: I don’t care about him in the slightest. If he got life in prison over this, all I’d care about is whether it was a just verdict and sentence.
I agree. I don’t know for sure if we’d convict the clown. I also don’t care about Baldwin. And finally, I also think his privilege protects him.
Why the fuck do they use real weapons on a set and not prop weapons? That’s the part I don’t understand at all…
Prop can also mean it’s a real gun.
You usually want them to be shot, at least with blanks. Nowadays you could probably fake that well with CGI, but using blanks is probably easier (and thus cheaper).
On automatica, they have to put partial obstructions inside the barrels to provide enough back-preasure to cycle the weapons without a bullet. That also means they cannot fire a live round.
Revolvers don’t need the same modification to operate with blanks, but after The Crow and this, they really should have it done anyway.
Well, that or have the actors learn this information:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jjk3j2bsxVw
BEFORE filming starts. Make them take a class on it for all I care and don’t let them touch real guns if they fail. Simple as. If an actor (or literally anyone) can’t even learn Col. Jeff Cooper’s Four Rules they don’t deserve to touch something they could kill someone with. And this clown should know how fucking easy that should be, not making stupid excuses about job titles precluding you from responsibility of safety precautions.
Iirc Hexum’s gun was loaded with blanks. He held it to his temple not realizing the explosive pressure from the blank was enough to send a piece of his skull through his brain.
More info from the wiki
On October 12, 1984, the cast and crew of Cover Up were filming the seventh episode of the series, “Golden Opportunity”, on Stage 18 of the 20th Century Fox lot. One of the scenes filmed that day called for Hexum’s character to load cartridges into a .44 Magnum handgun, so he was provided with a functional gun and blanks. When the scene did not play as the director wanted it to in the master shot, there was a delay in filming. Hexum became restless and impatient during the delay and began playing around to lighten the mood. He had unloaded all but one (blank) round, spun it, and—simulating Russian roulette—he put the revolver to his right temple and pulled the trigger, unaware of the danger.[8]
The explosive effect of the muzzle blast caused enough blunt force trauma to fracture a quarter-sized piece of his skull and propel this into his brain, causing massive hemorrhaging.[3][9]A 44 magnum? Did he not know how insanely loud those are even with blanks?
I might not know jumping in a jet engine will kill me, but the noise is enough to scare me off trying.
No link?
It might be cheap?
’Murica, where real guns are cheaper than fake guns.
Being paid for your work, where time spent editing is more expensive than doing it practically.
deleted by creator
If you manufacture a prop gun in such a way that it is indistinguishable from the real thing in how it looks, sounds, and functions, you’ve just made a real gun. If you’re able to do all that and make it a completely safe prop without the capability of killing someone when loaded with real ammunition, you could make bank.
deleted by creator
How would a fake gun make the sounds? Guess you could add in editing afterwards but the cleanest, easiest and most realistic would always be to use a real gun with blanks I would have thought. But I’m not a movie producer, so idk
Could also be that even if you’re able to get similar quality gun shots off a fake gun, it would cost a lot more in production etc
Ah, didn’t realize that’s what they did. I thought they just fired fake guns (eg something like an airsoft gun with gas blowback or something fancy )and edited the sounds in later.
From what understand, guns are silly loud. Much louder than they sound in movies.
But I’ve never fired or even held one, so what do I know :)
I don’t actually know how they do it in movies but from this one example I’m assuming it was industry standard but I could be wrong.
Other movies might do what you said e.g. airsoft gun or fake gun, with edited sounds later
I do find it hard to believe the industry standard is to use real guns with blanks but it may be that way. It’s a lot simpler, but obviously more dangerous
And yes guns are very loud, after a gun goes off beside you, you will have a sort of numbing in your ear for a few seconds and you can’t hear anything out of it lol
You’re right, big loud. If that is what actors are doing they should all be wearing earpro.
Have you ever heard a large firecracker pop? It’s very similar.
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.
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.
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
“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
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
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 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
Removed by mod
The tweet is from January. The trial only started today, so I’d argue it’s topical. But there’s no limit on the age of posts in this community. As the community grows, or someone other than me submits a post we’ll revisit that rule. As I’m doing all the legwork for this community and two others, I’m disinclined to make things harder for myself right now tbh - plus I don’t use Twitter or Facebook so I’m just stealing posts I like from Reddit to get things going. If anyone wants to do the same, the dystopia app for sight impaired users is free and has no ads. Just don’t vote or comment and Reddit won’t benefit from your views.
I’ll be making a stickied post in the coming days asking for additional moderators and for feedback on the rules. I’d encourage everyone to have their say then - I would like this community to be a group effort, rather than me just making the rules as I go. Meanwhile, please feel free to post your own content and help make this community more diverse (and interesting!)
EDIT: I’m getting myself confused. I’ve already made a stickied post requesting additional moderators and inviting people to discuss the rules and/or the way this community is being run.
That’s the place to bring up your concerns. I’d prefer to keep the post comments relevant to the post and as conflict free as possible. Please post in the stickied thread, or create your own discussion thread.
Removed by mod
Remember when memes didn’t have watermarks and didn’t require attribution? They were just out there for lols with no concern for building followers or engagement. It really wasn’t that long ago.
I get it, but it still feels weird to me that literally everything on the internet has monetary motivation
Edit: I more or less agree with your other points
Removed by mod
I’m pretty left wing myself, and British, so I feel reasonably sure I’m not pushing any right wing agenda. Discussion of the topics posted is completely fine as long as everyone follows the community, instance and site-wide rules. It’s perfectly acceptable for people to have different opinions from me or you, as long as they are respectful in discussing them.
They’re not memes, they’re screenshots. Have you heard of content aggregators? It’s a pretty standard thing - and it probably accounts for at least 50% of what you see online.
2.5k subscribers suggest people they’re enjoying this community and content. There was remarkably little content on lemmy a month ago that wasn’t tech related or actual memes. If we want lemmy to succeed we need light hearted communities as well as the serious stuff. I want lemmy to succeed, I don’t want to go back to Reddit, so I’m doing my part. Why are you here if you don’t like the content? Why don’t you post your own content if you like the community but not the content? Why don’t you volunteer to mod if you don’t like the way I’m running this community?
As to your questions;
-
I feel confident that a squad leader of specialist army division will have had a weapons safety lesson or two in their time. This meets the posting guidelines I wrote, imo.
-
I don’t know what a chud is. But assuming it’s something bad, I think it’s important to talk about contentious issues as long as everyone follows the rules. Avoiding topics completely just because chuds (?) also talk about the topic is silly. Bigots, rule/aggressive people, and people arguing in bad faith are not tolerated here. Report rule breaking comments and they will be deleted. Violators of the rules get one warning before being banned.
-
This community didn’t exist a month ago. The shooting was not discussed here. This community is primarily for entertainment purposes - although discussion is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged. It is possible to discuss something without getting too serious about it.
You aren’t everyone. You aren’t the discussion police. If you’d like to dictate what people can or can’t post and talk about, create your own community.
- Once again, not a meme. Content aggregation. I’d prefer it if you didn’t liken me to Elon musk or call my efforts bullshit. As a reminder; insults and name calling is not allowed. That’s not my rule, it’s lemmys.
Thank you for your input.
Removed by mod
You’re being aggressive, argumentative and condescending. It’s uncalled for and unwelcome.
I started to reply to each point before I realised it’s futile, and frankly it’s not what I want to do with my Friday night.
I think it’s best if you leave the community.
Removed by mod
-
Can you explain the link between The Crow and John Wick? I’ve not heard this one.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I thought it was because he was a producer.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Yup, everyone on set was shooting live non-blank rounds between takes
The first five gun safety rules
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.
Alec Baldwin was a producer on the movie and thus was involved in the decision making process to have nonunion crew on set. IATSE armorers have a near-perfect track record with firearms on set. As somebody with the clout to make it happen, Baldwin should have insisted on the shoot being a union set.
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.
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.”
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
OK Rambo.
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.
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
Million dollar idea right here
Yep. It would cost a million dollars to develop and still no one would use it.
Bro really looks like a call of duty character
Haha he really does
Whatever happened was horrible but also, and my brain can’t stop thinking about this, will the movie ever come out? I don’t think it did
They resumed filming after Bladwin was found not guilty and subsequently wrapped, but there’s no release date or anything yet
Oh yeah the execs will sit on it until they feel safe that the release will not reflect badly on them.
He wasn’t found “not guilty”, it doesn’t even sound like charges were brought against him, his lawyers just started that he wouldn’t be charged which means that there is a possibility of charges being brought against him in the future if new evidence comes to light.
