All 4 of the basic rules were not followed.
Alec Baldwin gun incident
- Thread starter measureman
- Start date
- Status
I think the video in post #18 is staged.
The 7.62X37 round is big and loud and has recoil.
That cute chimp was popping off lower level blanks.
Also, after the first burst the soldiers stayed around too long before scattering.
The 7.62X37 round is big and loud and has recoil.
That cute chimp was popping off lower level blanks.
Also, after the first burst the soldiers stayed around too long before scattering.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
A very sad event.
This should never happen on any set. I am however no fan of AB.
This should never happen on any set. I am however no fan of AB.
I'm not sure that part of it is a strong argument. Just about every movie has an element that isn't real, or takes liberties with the truth. You and I might notice the firearm isn't real, but my wife and kids would never even think twice about it. My daughter might notice a dress isn't period correct, but I wouldn't. None of this takes away from the movie, and I don't think the movie directors and producers even care. There is no reason to use real firearms anymore in Hollywood if they truly want to eliminate the danger.
I’m not the one making that decision. There is a long history of real firearm use, for realism. It’s a director decision. It’s common.
There are extensive protocols followed when real firearms are on set.
All accounts appear to show that those protocols were not followed here.
On Set of Alec Baldwin Movie, Some Basic Gun-Safety Protocols Appear to Have Been Skipped, Experts Say
The account of the fatal shooting in affidavits prepared by authorities suggests that certain precautions weren’t followed during filming of the Alec Baldwin movie, industry experts say.
www.wsj.com
There were many points of failure but just because a lot of unsafe idiots contributed won't absolve any of them from blame. Blame mostly lies with the incompetent armorer 'expert,' the person in charge of hiring the incompetent armorer, whoever allowed the guns to be used with live ammo and whoever provided the live ammo, and yes ultimately Baldwin himself as the actual shooter.
Using the airplane flying, skydiving, or HVAC examples, I don't think they are good examples because those require a special level of highly technical education and certifications and experience. Those skills could not be taught to a 10 year old in a short period of time. Yet, still, let's run with these examples. If you were an actor doing a parachute scene and the 'expert' you would still probably look over the pilots shoulders and pay attention for anything amiss, and you would personally feel and inspect your own parachute harness looking for anything amiss, would you not? I don't think these are particularly good examples.
With firearms safety it's different. A 10 year old of average intelligence could be taught how to inspect a gun for ammo. It appears the gun he was using was a very simple single action cowboy gun with a loading gate, and 6 cylinders. It would be very easy to check it for live ammo, even if one had to remove each shell to ensure it is a crimped blank and not live ammo. Better still, a policy should be in place that 2 persons, the expert and the actor, must observe the loading of any gun with blank ammo, both confirming verbally it is blanks, and then that gun never leaves the possession of the positive control of it and if he loses positive control the process must be repeated. If a child could be trained to do something like this, Baldwin surely could do it and should have. Why? So this exact type of tragedy is avoided.
We are not talking about some abstract painter artist who never handles guns and has a childlike understanding of them. Baldwin, by the nature of his business directing an action film and having starred in them, seems to demand a higher level of competency here. I like Baldwin as an actor, and he's been in many action films involving firearms including The Getaway, The Hunt for Red October, The Edge, The Departed, and others. The very NATURE of his profession seems to demand he have a professional responsibility to be familiar with firearms safety. PLUS hire competent trustworthy people to be set experts.
Here's a better analogy. If I were an actor staring in many high speed car chase movies, and then a director filming a movie involving high speed car chases, which I star in, I'd certainly hire qualified experts on such things. But I also would not blindly trust my experts who tell me the city streets are blocked off and clear for a race thru London. I would personally go look, probably slowly drive the course to ensure the roads are blocked off, there are no pedestrians are in the roads, no obstructions, etc. That is about the same level of difficulty as what we are talking about here.
Firing into a clearing barrel is not a good solution because the gun presumably would have been loaded with blanks.
Using the airplane flying, skydiving, or HVAC examples, I don't think they are good examples because those require a special level of highly technical education and certifications and experience. Those skills could not be taught to a 10 year old in a short period of time. Yet, still, let's run with these examples. If you were an actor doing a parachute scene and the 'expert' you would still probably look over the pilots shoulders and pay attention for anything amiss, and you would personally feel and inspect your own parachute harness looking for anything amiss, would you not? I don't think these are particularly good examples.
With firearms safety it's different. A 10 year old of average intelligence could be taught how to inspect a gun for ammo. It appears the gun he was using was a very simple single action cowboy gun with a loading gate, and 6 cylinders. It would be very easy to check it for live ammo, even if one had to remove each shell to ensure it is a crimped blank and not live ammo. Better still, a policy should be in place that 2 persons, the expert and the actor, must observe the loading of any gun with blank ammo, both confirming verbally it is blanks, and then that gun never leaves the possession of the positive control of it and if he loses positive control the process must be repeated. If a child could be trained to do something like this, Baldwin surely could do it and should have. Why? So this exact type of tragedy is avoided.
We are not talking about some abstract painter artist who never handles guns and has a childlike understanding of them. Baldwin, by the nature of his business directing an action film and having starred in them, seems to demand a higher level of competency here. I like Baldwin as an actor, and he's been in many action films involving firearms including The Getaway, The Hunt for Red October, The Edge, The Departed, and others. The very NATURE of his profession seems to demand he have a professional responsibility to be familiar with firearms safety. PLUS hire competent trustworthy people to be set experts.
Here's a better analogy. If I were an actor staring in many high speed car chase movies, and then a director filming a movie involving high speed car chases, which I star in, I'd certainly hire qualified experts on such things. But I also would not blindly trust my experts who tell me the city streets are blocked off and clear for a race thru London. I would personally go look, probably slowly drive the course to ensure the roads are blocked off, there are no pedestrians are in the roads, no obstructions, etc. That is about the same level of difficulty as what we are talking about here.
Firing into a clearing barrel is not a good solution because the gun presumably would have been loaded with blanks.
AZjeff
$50 Site Donor 2023
We can argue about the movie industry not following the 4 rules of gun safety as a matter of choice all day long but the fact is they have their own safety protocols that when followed allow for safe gun fight scenes. We talk about the 4 rules being absolute but they can't be on a movie set. As was previously mentioned knowing the beliefs of Hollywood in general most actors likely hate guns and want nothing to do with them but it's necessary for the job. IMO I'd rather have 1 expert armorer 100% in charge of every gun on set and hand an actor a gun of known state from a controlled area than have every non-gun person try to safety check every type of gun they might have to handle. What better way to have problems than to try to force someone who doesn't want anything to do with them to learn how to check a revolver, lever gun, semiauto, bolt action, single shot etc? Industry safety protocols were not followed, period. No different than someone not following established safety procedures in manufacturing getting hurt or killed or causing harm to someone else.
Many movies, I think Platoon or Full Metal Jacket, have scenes with obviously crimped ammo. It doesn't detract from the film in any way and only the most astute will notice it.
And in 2021, that should not matter. It would be a simple process for a CGI team to fill that in with editing.
With now at least a 3rd death from unsafe practices on movie sets, which should be easily totally controlled environments, clearly protocols set by people who don't know anything about guns are not working very well. There should be zero deaths from movie scenes involving guns.
I agree that traditional gun rules must be broken during shooting scenes. But the way to make this work is to have multiple people - not 1 as you suggest - stand over the guns to watch them being loaded with confirmed blanks, and then the actor retain 100% positive control of the gun for the scene, and then the gun is taken into control by 1 other responsible person, unloaded, fully inspected for any obstructions in the barrel or other issues (which caused Lee's death) and locked away. When it is needed again, the process is repeated. 2 or 3 people stand over the gun while it is loaded with known confirmed blanks, and then the actor retains positive control for the scene.
These off-scene loading of guns by "experts" who then casually hand it to an actor to use is rife with problems.
Another safety protocol, I think I read somewhere, is that studios have been placing thick ballistic glass shields between actors if/during scenes where guns are shot at each other. Such a thing would have cost very little in this case, and saved a life and serious injury and all the legal trouble here.
Gentlemen - You’re shooting (sorry ) the messenger here.
I’m telling you what is done on movie sets.
You keep posting what should be in response.
I’m not the director and I’m not in the industry. I don’t make the call. I’m not defending the decisions.
I offer facts, as explanation, to better understand how this could have happened.
I’m telling you what is done on movie sets.
You keep posting what should be in response.
I’m not the director and I’m not in the industry. I don’t make the call. I’m not defending the decisions.
I offer facts, as explanation, to better understand how this could have happened.
Read the article I posted, and others, and you’ll find that those practices you suggest, and others, are already in place.
The crux of the issue in this case is: why were those safety practices NOT followed?
The irony here, is a bunch of anti-gunners who criticize pro-2A folks for guns and lack of safety, who then hypocritically go make millions of dollars on violent movies involving guns. Then a bunch of anti-gunners seem to bring live ammo, skip off into the desert to shoot these evil guns. And their corporate and personal greed skimps on gun safety, resulting in tragedy. The irony is sad and staggering.
You're talking above the average bitoger's ability to have an on-topic, relevant, and rational conversation.
not so easy, because using them for movie production. you know, acting, actors,...
but he could verify what is actually in the gun....
The article is behind a paywall, perhaps you can summarize it? But regardless, yes of course, there's safety protocols. Yes, of course the crux of the issue is why were those not followed?
The answer is as I wrote above. Holier than thou, anti-gun, gun-ignorant, hypocrites who think rules are for other people, hiring inept people based on quota qualities other than merit, and a lot of other egregious oversights and violations of basic safety protocols.
I cannot fathom ever pointing a gun at an innocent person and pulling the trigger, and even if I did it as part of an acting scene or rehearsal, I would personally check the gun 10 times with a sober mind, before doing the scene. I would not trust my mother if she told me the gun was "cold." I would check it myself, 10 times.
Update news conference, is that no charges for anyone yet, but they are still deep in the investigation and evidence is being processed with help from the FBI. District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies said that she will not comment on potential charges that Alec Baldwin could face. However, she noted that criminal charges are on the table, and obviously Baldwin fired the fatal shot.
What I find puzzling is still this persistent belief this was an "accidental discharge." I don't know if this is failed media reporting, or persistent failure by even the investigators or district attorney. This frustrates me that even "experts" might not understand the difference between accident and negligence.
An accident would be dropping a Colt single action revolver and having it fire from a hammer strike. This is a purposefully drawn, cocked, pointed, and fired gun. That makes it NEGLIGENCE. One or probably multiple people were NEGLIGENT at many steps here. Maybe the hiring decisions. Maybe the safety protocols oversight. Maybe the allowance of using the guns for real shooting off set. Maybe the allowance of live ammo on set. Maybe lack of inspection of the ammo in the gun by the end user and shooter. I could see criminal charges for several people.
"The firearm that Alec Baldwin was holding when an accidental discharge resulted in the death of Halyna Hutchins was an F Lee Pietta long colt 45 revolver. "There was other ammunition in the gun that we believe was fired by Mr. Baldwin. As of right now there were three firearms that were located on the set within close proximity to the incident," Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said."
What I find puzzling is still this persistent belief this was an "accidental discharge." I don't know if this is failed media reporting, or persistent failure by even the investigators or district attorney. This frustrates me that even "experts" might not understand the difference between accident and negligence.
An accident would be dropping a Colt single action revolver and having it fire from a hammer strike. This is a purposefully drawn, cocked, pointed, and fired gun. That makes it NEGLIGENCE. One or probably multiple people were NEGLIGENT at many steps here. Maybe the hiring decisions. Maybe the safety protocols oversight. Maybe the allowance of using the guns for real shooting off set. Maybe the allowance of live ammo on set. Maybe lack of inspection of the ammo in the gun by the end user and shooter. I could see criminal charges for several people.
"The firearm that Alec Baldwin was holding when an accidental discharge resulted in the death of Halyna Hutchins was an F Lee Pietta long colt 45 revolver. "There was other ammunition in the gun that we believe was fired by Mr. Baldwin. As of right now there were three firearms that were located on the set within close proximity to the incident," Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said."
Last edited:
Certainly plenty of folks who seem to feel they have all the causation figured out, touching on a whole suite of beliefs.
I work in an industry where we have a ton of safety regulations (think heavy civil construction). Many of those regulations, processes, and procedures were put in place the hard way - after people have been seriously hurt, or died.
And yet, every year, on at least one construction site I visit, some crew or company has forgotten all of these lessons and is cutting corners, but is getting the job done (in their words).
Hollywood is like any other industry. Those pesky rules, processes, and procedures are there to keep everyone safe and going home at the end of the day. By all accounts, this production had multiple issues in this arena. Line up all the holes in the swiss cheese, and here we are... You got away with something once, so you do it again... The odds eventually catch up to you.
I work in an industry where we have a ton of safety regulations (think heavy civil construction). Many of those regulations, processes, and procedures were put in place the hard way - after people have been seriously hurt, or died.
And yet, every year, on at least one construction site I visit, some crew or company has forgotten all of these lessons and is cutting corners, but is getting the job done (in their words).
Hollywood is like any other industry. Those pesky rules, processes, and procedures are there to keep everyone safe and going home at the end of the day. By all accounts, this production had multiple issues in this arena. Line up all the holes in the swiss cheese, and here we are... You got away with something once, so you do it again... The odds eventually catch up to you.
I did not see it posted here, but the NY Post reports that the "armorer" on the Rust film was a rook with a poor track record for gun safety violations and knowledge. This article makes me cringe, and if this was her M.O. I'm guessing she's going to be toast. This article confirms my belief, this woefully inexperienced and dangerous person was hired and not given support in a cost-cutting measure to save money, probably hired for reasons other than merit, and ironically "gun safety" was not a priority for those that like to preach it to others.
nypost.com
A furious Nicolas Cage stormed off the set of a film where Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was in charge of weapons — and ripped the rookie armorer for firing a gun without warning, crew members said in a new report...she walked onto the set with live rounds or blanks without announcing it to the cast and crew. She also walked around with pistols tucked under her armpits such that they were pointing back at people, and allowed firearms to be aimed at people, Brumbaugh told the Wrap.
Another crew member — who spoke on the condition of anonymity — confirmed the concerns.
Gutierrez-Reed “put the cast and crew in several unnecessary and dangerous situations,” the unidentified crew member told the Wrap...Before the fatal shooting on “Rust,” Gutierrez-Reed — the daughter of Hollywood weapons expert Thell Reed — had admitted to not feeling ready for the job.
Brumbaugh blamed movie producers for putting such inexperienced people in key jobs just to save money. “It’s been happening more and more,” he told the Wrap. “As producers refuse to bring more experienced people because their rates are higher, they demand we take our time and (producers) don’t want to pay it. So they hire a newbie who is energetic and wants the job and will do it with less people,” he said. More than Gutierrez-Reed’s inexperience, he believes the problem on “Rust” was that “she didn’t have help,” Brumbaugh said, echoing complaints from other experienced movie crew members.
Rookie ‘Rust’ armorer once made Nicolas Cage storm off film set after firing gun
The 24-year-old “Rust” armorer was repeatedly accused by crew members of breaking basic safety protocols on the Montana set of Cage’s “The Old Way” in August.
nypost.com
"Rookie ‘Rust’ armorer once made Nicolas Cage storm off film set after firing gun
A furious Nicolas Cage stormed off the set of a film where Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was in charge of weapons — and ripped the rookie armorer for firing a gun without warning, crew members said in a new report...she walked onto the set with live rounds or blanks without announcing it to the cast and crew. She also walked around with pistols tucked under her armpits such that they were pointing back at people, and allowed firearms to be aimed at people, Brumbaugh told the Wrap.
Another crew member — who spoke on the condition of anonymity — confirmed the concerns.
Gutierrez-Reed “put the cast and crew in several unnecessary and dangerous situations,” the unidentified crew member told the Wrap...Before the fatal shooting on “Rust,” Gutierrez-Reed — the daughter of Hollywood weapons expert Thell Reed — had admitted to not feeling ready for the job.
Brumbaugh blamed movie producers for putting such inexperienced people in key jobs just to save money. “It’s been happening more and more,” he told the Wrap. “As producers refuse to bring more experienced people because their rates are higher, they demand we take our time and (producers) don’t want to pay it. So they hire a newbie who is energetic and wants the job and will do it with less people,” he said. More than Gutierrez-Reed’s inexperience, he believes the problem on “Rust” was that “she didn’t have help,” Brumbaugh said, echoing complaints from other experienced movie crew members.
As I'm learning, the entertainment industry (TV shows, movies, etc) have a person on staff called an "armorer". This is a "gun person" so I suspect he/she isn't the "anti-gunner" type. Are there people on the set that are ? Sure, but not likely this armorer person.
- Status
Similar threads
