Why you can never be too careful

[HiBC]

I initially approached this argument as a member of the "Gun Culture" ,siding with the idea that everyone who takes control of a firearm is responsible for checking to see if it is loaded. And,I found fault with Baldwin for not checking it.
IMO,that would be consensus among shooters.

Johnska made a good counter arguement. I may have adjusted my position.

Among moviemakers,actors,stage hands,etc we have a different set of stakeholders. A large percentage of them have zero firearms knowledge or competence.
The screen actors guild and whoever else came up with their code of how things will be done. It suits the needs of making movies.
Actors die of drug abuse and poor choicemaking pretty often. I do not think it wise to put the responsibility for firearm safety into those hands,yet they may be part of the gun handling cast.
One set of rules can work,even if it is a different set of rules.
What can get people killed is someone who follows a different set of rules.

It can work if one and only one expert armorer preps the guns,and is the sole chain of custody for that gun. The armorer hands the gun to the actor,takes the gun from the actor and watches the actor as "Range Safety Officer"

That can work. If that is the system, I,as Armorer,do not even want Sean Penn to open the loading gate on the SAA I hand him. If he does,its RED ALERT time. Nothing can be loaded into an unloaded gun without opening the loading gate.
That MAY be the best approach to handling guns on a movie set.

A problem being,It is not the way it was done on this movie set. The three guns on the cart were uncontrolled. At leat one of them was loaded.(Bad Armorer) The assistant director did not stay in his lane, He jumped over to the Armorers job. He broke the process. He announce "Cold Gun" when he,as a non-armorer,had no business doing that.(Bad Assistant Director)Who,BTW,has a history of being fired for gun safety problems.
Alec Baldwin as "Actor" should have been able to trust "Cold Gun" as much as Shirley McClaine should be able to trust "Cold Gun".

I.myself,do not (or might not) hold Alec Baldwin the Actor accountable.

However!! Alec Baldwin is also Producer. And as Producer,he is responsible for having a safe set, where Screen Actor Guild Gun rules are followed. Don't forget,there were TWO gunfire incidents within days of the fatality. Wake Up!
Alec Baldwin is responsible for having an incompetent Armorer on staff.
And Alec Baldwin is responsible for tolerating an Assistant Director who broke chain of custody,and negligently passed a loaded firearm calling it a "Cold Gun"
Good help is hard to find.

Alec Baldwin,Producer, is responsible for having a safe set, proactively.
Every day from day ONE.
It does not work to be lax, to be negligent,to cut corners till someone is dead.
Then say "We are cooperating with law enforcement" We are studying the situation. We will make corrective action. We have our best lawyers and PR firm doing damage control.....

Too late . Halyna is Dead. Who is the One Person in the World who had the position and power to make sure no one making that film was killed,by demanding the set was run to Screen Actor Guild code? Note Union Staff filed Gun Safety Grievances. Some were walking off. The "I didn't know" does not work.

 

[armoredman]

I don't know if there's a way it could be set up to show bullets to simulate a full load for a closeup frontal camera shot...

Thinking outside the bun, but what about a chamber insert with a gray paper cone that would LOOK like a bullet from a few feet away, and would blow apart at the force of the blank?

 

[Jim Watson]

Do you have "prop cars" that are non-functional? Prop doors to rooms that don't open?

Yes.
I read an article by a guy who sold his old car to a studio. It made a couple of moving appearances until the script called for it to be sideswiped. After that, it was just parked with the undamaged side showing. Then scrapped lest it get too familiar.

The "house" on the Ponderosa location near Lake Tahoe was not a livable home. Stairs to nowhere, doors that didn't open

 

[44 AMP]

Blast From the past

As previously mentioned, "prop" is short slang for proptery and literally applies to everything on the set that the audience sees that isn't the actors.

Also as noted, nearly all props are functional completely or partially.

Chairs off the set are chairs but on the set, they are also props.

Now where the confusion comes from is that function, partially functional and non-functional items that look correct are all "props" on the set.

That saloon chair can be a regular chair made to sit in or it could be a special "prop" chair made to be broken over a stunt guy's back in the fight scene.

And so "prop guns" can be real functional firearms, modified real guns, or complete non-functional replicas. But the common conception today is that "props" are all (or should be) non functional replicas. They aren't. Props are what ever is used in the scene.

Now, the discussion of how the movie industry could be safer by not using real firearms got me thinking about a "blast from the past".

Back in the 60-70s there was an outfit that sold replica guns. Replica Models Inc. They ran ads in the gun mags for decades. Their replica's were a "special zinc alloy" and wood/rubber etc. The were precise replicas, with all internal parts that functions, working spring, ect.

I had a Broomhandle Mauser replica for many years. ALL EXACTLY the same as the real gun except,

#1, the firing pin was too short,
#2, the chamber was not cut deep enough to accept live ammo
#3, the barrel was plugged with a steel rod (which could only be seen looking straight down the muzzle.

Had more than a couple people offer to buy it from me, thinking it was a real gun. Until I pointed out the rod in the bore....

They had replicas of nearly every common gun from the Colt SAA to a German MP40

I don't see any reason 99%+ of movie use couldn't be done with a "prop" like that in total safety from accidental or negligent discharge.

However I do understand the use of actual guns, but not a half assed system of maintaining positive control over them and ALL forms of ammunition.

I can also understand, though not condone a lax attitude, its all too common when its "there's nobody here but us, and we know what wer're doing" When people act like that, its a dice roll, sometimes you get away with it, and sometimes you crap out. They gambled, and lost and a woman lost her life as the result.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have seen more than one article about this incident in which the writer asked why they were using real guns when they could have been using blank-only guns. IMHO that comment tells us the writer hasn't done any research.

As a person who had done a little research, non-firing weapons certainly can be used on the set. They don't have to be blank guns, but completely nonfiring guns.

Here is a fun little movie to illustrate what I am talking about. It is obviously a non-Hollywood production, but it makes the point quite well. "Finger Guns..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hytreeSnaY

All fingers are loaded all the time.

Of course, the production could be better with better CGI, but the point is still there.

 

[longrangeshooter]

This isn't the first time such a thing has happened on set. It's been a few decades but an actor named Jon Eric Hexum was playing with a pistol on set that was loaded with blanks for want of a better term. He held the gun up to his head and pulled the trigger. He died of the resulting brain injuries about two days later. Honestly I think any actor that isn't familiar with firearms should get training before being allowed to even touch one. The problems resulting in this tragedy seem obvious to anyone here but clearly not to many others.

 

[langenc]

More "gun control" is obviously needed.

 

[zeke]

More "gun control" is obviously needed.

1= Drug/alcohol tests for all involved, then for anyone that will even touch a gun. Any
evidense of intoxication=no touching guns for 5 years.
2=Mandatory safety training for anyone that will will even touch a gun
3=Guns locked up till ready for filming
4=Anyone not legally able to own a firearm, not allowed to touch a firearm
5=ABSOLUTELY NO PLAYING WITH THE GUNS TO BE USED IN FILMING. Anyone who
allows this should go immediately to jail without passing go first
6=No live ammunition that could fire in the films firemarms allowed on vicinity.

 

[rickyrick]

I think any actor that isn't familiar with firearms should get training before being allowed to even touch one.

With all other industries, minimum safety standards require a person that will use a hazardous item must be trained how to use that item safely, including how to recognize hazardous conditions. This is the minimum requirement at any workplace.
I use tools that if they leave my hand for even a second, it must be reinspected before I use it again.

But it seems that celebrities get a free pass

 

[Double Naught Spy]

With all other industries, minimum safety standards require a person that will use a hazardous item must be trained how to use that item safely, including how to recognize hazardous conditions. This is the minimum requirement at any workplace.
I use tools that if they leave my hand for even a second, it must be reinspected before I use it again.

But it seems that celebrities get a free pass

OSHA violations abound. Apparently, lots of people get free passes https://www.calpaclab.com/fridayfail/

 

[gaseousclay]

Honestly I think any actor that isn't familiar with firearms should get training before being allowed to even touch one. The problems resulting in this tragedy seem obvious to anyone here but clearly not to many others.

Agreed. There's videos on Youtube of many celebrities who do actual firearm training, like Keanu Reeves, John Bernthal, Gina Carano, etc. Those actors use guns in the films they make but they're the exception not the rule

 

[44 AMP]

1= Drug/alcohol tests for all involved, then for anyone that will even touch a gun. Any
evidense of intoxication=no touching guns for 5 years.

I find that kind of on the harsh side of strict. Considering that people still have a legal right to use intoxicants on their own time, drug/alcohol testing is often worthless. Testing positive for a substance in your system is not the same as being intoxicated/impaired AT WORK . Sobriety testing, on the set prior to beginning work is the only thing that would be useful.
And even that will not prevent accidents caused by ignorance or willful disregard for safety.

2=Mandatory safety training for anyone that will will even touch a gun

Agreed, but again, training is not an ironclad guarantee that it will be followed.

3=Guns locked up till ready for filming

No issue with me there, it provides security and a single point source if something fails (assuming only ONE person has the key)

4=Anyone not legally able to own a firearm, not allowed to touch a firearm

This is actually the law for any and everyone who is classified as a prohibited person, has been the law for decades. Enforcing that is another matter. It would be the responsibility of the production management to A) know who is, and isn't a prohibited person, and B) ensure they have no access to real firearms. There are some pretty famous and successful actors who are prohibited persons. And I'm sure there are people who work on the other side of the camera that are, as well. The simple way to ensure they don't have access to real firearms on the set, is one of two things, either don't hire them, or don't have ANY actual firearms on the set. Anything else is failure prone and that can be costly.

5=ABSOLUTELY NO PLAYING WITH THE GUNS TO BE USED IN FILMING. Anyone who
allows this should go immediately to jail without passing go first

agreed, do not pass go, do not collect $200...

6=No live ammunition that could fire in the films firemarms allowed on vicinity.

This has been a movie industry rule for decades. Clearly, in the RUST movie shooting that rule was not followed.

 

[zeke]

I find that kind of on the harsh side of strict. Considering that people still have a legal right to use intoxicants on their own time, drug/alcohol testing is often worthless. Testing positive for a substance in your system is not the same as being intoxicated/impaired AT WORK . Sobriety testing, on the set prior to beginning work is the only thing that would be useful.
And even that will not prevent accidents caused by ignorance or willful disregard for safety.


Agreed, but again, training is not an ironclad guarantee that it will be followed.


No issue with me there, it provides security and a single point source if something fails (assuming only ONE person has the key)



This is actually the law for any and everyone who is classified as a prohibited person, has been the law for decades. Enforcing that is another matter. It would be the responsibility of the production management to A) know who is, and isn't a prohibited person, and B) ensure they have no access to real firearms. There are some pretty famous and successful actors who are prohibited persons. And I'm sure there are people who work on the other side of the camera that are, as well. The simple way to ensure they don't have access to real firearms on the set, is one of two things, either don't hire them, or don't have ANY actual firearms on the set. Anything else is failure prone and that can be costly.



agreed, do not pass go, do not collect $200...



This has been a movie industry rule for decades. Clearly, in the RUST movie shooting that rule was not followed.

Yup, the first is strict, but the drug part is in Fed law. Fed form 4473, line 11e disqualifies a person from purchasing firearm for drugs. Weather or not i agree with it, it is still federal law. If memory serves, there are Wi laws about carrying a firearm while having an minimal alcohol content. Imo, anyone on movies set who was drinking any alcohol should not be allowed to touch firearm.

But good catch, was trying to specify standards for the film set. But imo shouldn't be using/carrying any guns while drinking or drugging.

 

[ghbucky]

I know there has been focus on the inexperience of the chief armorer, but I can just imagine a famously mercurial producer might have a hard time being able to retain the services of someone more established.

I also can imagine his famous temper would cause her to be very hesitant in correcting the guy who is her boss.

 

[rickyrick]

Who’s to say that the involved parties weren’t trained either? Lots of people receive training but fail to comply with what they learned.

 

[Mainah]

Anyone in the movie industry who ignores the criminal, civil, and pr consequences of this is too stupid to handle a rubber gun let alone a real one (yes, they're both props).

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I know there has been focus on the inexperience of the chief armorer, but I can just imagine a famously mercurial producer might have a hard time being able to retain the services of someone more established.

A couple of days ago I read an interview with a Hollywood prop master or armorer (I don't recall which) who was approached to work on Rust and who turned the job down because he felt the number of guns involved required a prop master, an armorer, and an assistant armorer -- and the producers wanted one person to handle all three jobs.

I guess the guy was right -- it was too much for one person to handle.

And, according to the NY Times, the Sante Fe County DA has confirmed that there was a lot of live ammo on the set -- which is a movie industry no-no.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/movies/alec-baldwin-shooting-ammunition-found.html

 

[stagpanther]

500 actual cartridges with projectiles on the premises is what I think the sheriff said in a news conference.

 

[44 AMP]

500 actual cartridges with projectiles on the premises is what I think the sheriff said in a news conference.

According to the MSN report of that news conference the 500 rounds included blanks, inert 'dummy" rounds and what were suspected to be live rounds. The suspected live rounds have been sent to the FBI lab to determine the actual count.

At this point in time, we do not know the actual number of live rounds collected by the Sherriff's dept.

It might be a lot, it might be only a handful we don't know...yet...

 

[eflyguy]

It only takes one.