Why you can never be too careful
- Thread starter Aguila Blanca
- Start date
- Status
Your scenarios miss an important factor.
I've shot in Cowboy Action Shoots. Each stage has a Safety Officer,or fellow shooter,as the person observing or verifying that the loading or clearing is done.
All people who might be affected by the loaded/unloaded status can witness for themselves as the "Armorer" demonstrates and explains what is going on.
Its not unusual for me,when interacting with someone when I have a gun,to lock back the slide,or open the cylinder,or open the bolt to show them the empty chamber.
"OK,Alec, here is the gun. Look with me as I turn the cylinder. Halya,please,you come look too."
A mutual trust for that moment is based on real time ,inspected fact.
Not some dipstick picking up a gun he has not inspected and calling it cold.
One more thing. There is a gap between the rear of the cylinder and the frame. You can see through it easily. If you take the zero effort and one second to glance through that gap, ANY cartridge rims will be obvious.
Yes,I do this with my own guns.
ANY brass visible screams "Hey!! There is SOMETHING in that chamber. "
Which is a great big "Wait a minute" Stop what you are doing,hold what you've got.
Thats so simple,so quick,so easy there is NO flipping excuse for it to not be universal knowledge for anyone around a sixgun. At least a Colt clone or Ruger.
I'm in the trucking industry. We have very specific rules to ensure safety. Does everyone follow them 100%? Probably not.
But if someone flouts a safety rule and there's an accident, the first thing the lawyers are going to go after is the employee who chose to break the rule. The second thing they're going to do is go after the company for not enforcing the rules.
In this case, Baldwin held both roles. He owns the production company.
When his accredited and experienced crew walked off the set because of safety violations, he made a really bad call in replacing them and not fixing the underlying issues.
I have no idea if criminal charges will be brought, but this will be a nightmare for him in civil proceedings.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
This is why what I have seen multiple prop masters and armorers describe as a rigid protocol:Metal god said:
The armorer brings an empty gun to the set -- for EACH scene that will involve a firearm. It is announced that there is a gun on the set. The armorer shows the empty gun to the AD and to the actor. Either of them is invited to personally verify that it is empty. Anyone else involved in shooting that scene -- cast or crew -- who wants to is also allowed to verify that the gun is empty.
Then both the actor and the AD are shown the ammunition that is to be loaded. If it is blanks, they verify that the rounds all have crimped tips. If it is to be blanks, they each get to shake each round so they can hear the BB rattling around inside to confirm that it's a dummy round. Only then does the armorer load the gun -- in the presence of the actor, the AD, and the crew -- and hand it to the actor.
As soon as the scene is done, the armorer retrieves the gun from the actor, clears it, and shows everyone on the set that it's clear.
I don't know this to be fact but, as I stated, I have watched interviews with maybe half a dozen Hollywood prop masters and armorers, all with years of experience, and this is what they have all said is the industry standard procedure.
The one thing that keeps coming to mind for me..
When I was a kid, 50 years ago, I had two plastic model kits of pistols, that were identical to the "real thing".
I'm talking all the way down to how they operated, not just appearance. One was a 1911, including the firing mechanism and fake bullets. Of course it wouldn't cycle but you could by hand.
I don't disagree with any of the safety comments but I do wonder why "real" firearms are even necessary on movie sets.
When I was a kid, 50 years ago, I had two plastic model kits of pistols, that were identical to the "real thing".
I'm talking all the way down to how they operated, not just appearance. One was a 1911, including the firing mechanism and fake bullets. Of course it wouldn't cycle but you could by hand.
I don't disagree with any of the safety comments but I do wonder why "real" firearms are even necessary on movie sets.
I think what bothers me here is that this is an indication of a lowered bar because they are 'mere' actors that they shouldn't be expected to be responsible with a firearm in their hands.
These are adult, professionals working in their trade. Part of being a professional is not harming your co-workers.
If I can go to a shooting match, with nothing more than my desire to not cause harm by being stupid and with no experience and can be guided through how to safely shoot a course by someone with experience, then an experienced actor can also be expected not to shoot a co-worker by gross negligence and disregard for the most fundamental aspects of handling a firearm.
This ain't rocket science. NOT shooting someone isn't a hard trick.
... and eflyguy... I was shocked to learn that a real, functioning firearm was used on a set. I always thought they used fake guns.
Obviously, there are actors that should never, ever, be allowed to touch a functional firearm.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Here's an example of NOT shooting at another actor in a scene. I can't say how many times I watched this before I noticed it, but now I can't not notice it.
04:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-k_BW8iLkk
04:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-k_BW8iLkk
I clarified that by pointing out they play pretend and we play for real . I mean my kids and grand kids play/ed with Nerf guns all the time and broke every damn rule there is . When you play pretend you are not expecting a bang . Play that game long enough it never even enters your mind there could actually be a bang . Baldwin said him self . How many rounds have been fired on set over the years , maybe a billion . After awhile it seems like the game is not real and I'm sure many play it as such .
I'm not even sure where this whole thread is headed . I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules or it's ok to break them . I'm only pointing out how "I" can see them being broken . That is all my points have been , not that I think what I'm arguing is OK .
If nobody ever bent the rules or did something stupid or on accident the world would be a much less stressful place to live haha
Last edited:
this reminds me of a story told about John Wayne filming THE GREEN BERETS in Vietnam. No idea if its a true story, but it goes like this...
there was an actual mortar attack and everyone hit the dirt/dove for cover except Wayne. After a bit (and before the attack ended) he did take cover. Afterwards, some one asked him, why he didn't take cover right away, was he trying to protect the reputation of "John Wayne"??
To which he replied, "Hell no, son, its just I've done so many war movies it never occurred to me that it might be real!"
I'm not saying he didn't ever cock the hammer in that entire scene, but if he did I can't find it. To me, even the scene where he is 'fanning' the hammer a few seconds before your mark looks to me like he is faking it and the camera angle is such that you can't actually see the hammer. I went through those scenes stopping it several times and I cannot find a single frame where the hammer is moved.
He does touch the hammer with his thumb, but it isn't moved. The camera work and editing are very clever in that the gun play looks like what you want it to look like, but I'm not even sure Clint ever even touched the trigger in those shots.
I wanted this to be true, because JOHN WAYNE dammit. But alas, it seems the film was shot in Fort Benning, GA (according to wikipedia. They can't be wrong, right?)
Last edited:
Yes. If the production company hires someone who they know or should have known to be incompetent, or if they continue to employ someone they know, or should have known to be incompetent then they are responsible at least in part for any negative outcome.
But that's very different from saying that Baldwin is culpable because he wasn't following the general rules of gun safety on set. We've got more than adequate evidence from reliable sources that the general rules of gun safety don't apply on set.
Yes, people shouldn't be playing around with the guns unless they're actually doing the job of acting. Which he was.
You can listen to the podcast if you don't believe the quote I provided from it. They do point guns at people on set. It's not against the guidelines. The guidelines even admit it happens and provide guidance for that situation.
Absolutely! Because there are activities taking place that are considered to be dangerous, the control is extremely rigid. Instead of just a handful of rules, there are around 70 rules. They're just not the SAME rules.
Now this is an excellent observation that is based on the facts. Like the armorers in the podcast note, there's really no need for new regulations or laws, it's just necessary to follow the existing guidelines properly.
No, not it's not at all! Race car drivers are not supposed to run over crew members. Actors ARE supposed to point guns at people on set when the script calls for it. Holding the actor responsible is like penalizing a race car driver for speeding--for doing what he's supposed to do.
It is absolutely not true that everyone did everything right. Clearly someone, or multiple someones did things wrong or there wouldn't be two people shot. As things stand right now, the armorer clearly bears the primary responsibility.
It was her responsibility to make sure no one got shot and she failed. Unless someone specifically circumvented her commands or intentionally sabotaged the situation, the bottom line is that it's her fault. The production company may bear some responsibility if they knew or should have known that she wasn't capable/competent, but that won't lessen her responsibility in the least.
No, that's not it at all.
It's not that they get a pass to break the general gun safety rules, it's that they are sometimes REQUIRED to break them to do their job. Because you are fixated on the incorrect idea that the general gun safety rules apply on set (while acting/on camera, however you want to say it) you can't see that it's not about trying to lessen Baldwin's responsibility for his actions on camera, but about realizing that his actions were part of his job and within the normal spectrum of activities that can happen while filming a movie.
I can't tell if you're doing it on purpose or if you really don't understand. The ARMORER is responsible for making sure the actors don't harm others during filming. As long as the actors follow instructions, if something goes wrong it's the armorer's responsibility for insuring that no one comes to harm.
Again, this seems like you're being intentionally obtuse. Not shooting someone is very easy. Not shooting someone so that it is impossible to tell that you didn't actually shoot them is quite difficult. That's why there's a professional on set specifically tasked with insuring that the actors can do things with the guns that would normally be considered unsafe while still keeping everyone safe.
I just don't get it. The evidence is really clear. Why is it so important to try to twist the facts to make Baldwin criminally culpable?
It shouldn't have even been a surprise that actors point guns at people on set. I'm amazed that so many people seem to think that is surprising or unsettling. But now we have confirmation that it happens and is within the industry guidelines.
Why is it apparently so undesirable to just look at the facts and let them speak for themselves?
This is part of what is wrong with things these days. People refuse to accept the facts and convince themselves that someone is guilty (or innocent) in spite of reality. Then when it turns out that person isn't convicted (or acquitted), they are sure there's some kind of a conspiracy or a total failure of the justice system, or some such.
Yup, go back half a century and they were more limited in what they could do safely. Those were live blanks from an unplugged barrel which limited what they could do with them safely.
At 4:43 you can very clearly see him cock the hammer, starting with it forward and drawing it back. At 4:45 you can clearly see that the hammer is cocked--as the gun turns, you can even see the firing pin on the hammer silhouetted against the lighter-colored floor. At 4:48, after the shot, it's clear that the hammer is down, just as expected.
One of the (much) better "let me show you the facts" live explanations/demonstrations of
what had to have been the sequence of human failure -- once the gun had a live round in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl_PEtnqINg
what had to have been the sequence of human failure -- once the gun had a live round in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl_PEtnqINg
Yes, by the armorer.
The actors are not supposed to be messing with the guns past what the script tells them to do and the armorers instruct them to do. The podcast I linked to discusses this and the reasons for it.
"When I hand a gun that's ready for a firing take with blanks to an actor, I don't want them messing with it, I don't want them chamber checking it, I don't want them messing with the safety."
- Status