Crew member killed when shot by prop gun on set of Baldwin movie

[Butch627]

Hollywood has to choose between drama and realism. It can't have both.



Trying to mix the two by using real guns with blanks - but handled according to fake gun rules - has been proven to work out tragically again and again.

There have been 3 highly publicized incidents over the last 20 years that I am aware of. Brandon Lee, the Hexum (sp?) guy who put a gun to his temple , and this one. Over 20 years with the 10s of thousands of scenes filmed with power in that time frame is that what you consider to be "time and time again" or do you have a longer list you are basing your comments off of? Please post up your list

 

[Twangbanger]

Because there are people behind you whose job it is to safe the guns, and you are specifically instructed in YOUR job not to manipulate them in any way.

If the electrician crosses the wires in your wall and sets the building on fire when you flip the switch, it's not your fault for flipping the switch without tearing the wall open to check first. I feel like I've given a thousand other examples in this thread that are simply ignored over and over. Maybe I'll bold it this time so people understand:

It's not the same as shooting your gun with live ammo at the range. The rules are not the same. The responsibilities are not the same. There is no comparison. Your NRA four gun rules are not relevant to prop guns and blanks on a movie set. You're not using logic because you already hated Alec Baldwin and your emotions dictate that you rationalize the feeling that it's his fault.

I'm completely done with this entire topic, it has completely shut gun owners' brains off. "It's Alec's fault" is our version of "Kyle Rittenhouse is a mass shooter", it's just a big 'ol emotional blob that logic and law cannot penetrate.

Again, your analogy is flawed, because flipping a light switch is not an inherently dangerous act. Pointing a real gun with blanks at a person and pulling the trigger, is. More responsibilities accrue to that act, and rightly so, because it is inherently dangerous.

You seem to have difficulty with the concept of more than one person being responsible. Nobody here that I've seen has tried to make the case the Armorer isn't responsible. We all recognize she is. What you fail to grasp, is that everyone who touched that gun - between loading and pulling the trigger - is also responsible.

You seem to be so obsessed with "pwning the Right-Wingers" that you cannot grasp the concept of multiple people being responsible here.

 

[Twangbanger]

There have been 3 highly publicized incidents over the last 20 years that I am aware of. Brandon Lee, the Hexum (sp?) guy who put a gun to his temple , and this one. Over 20 years with the 10s of thousands of scenes filmed with power in that time frame is that what you consider to be "time and time again" or do you have a longer list you are basing your comments off of? Please post up your list

I'm not going to semanticize the definition of "again and again" with you. 3 incidents, with the most recent a couple weeks ago, is sufficient to convince me your industry is failing to deal with a real problem.

Have you personally participated in films where real guns were used, and the four rules weren't followed? Are you defending the practice? I'd love to know your experience. It looks to me like your industry has a problem.

 

[thunderchicken]

Because there are people behind you whose job it is to safe the guns, and you are specifically instructed in YOUR job not to manipulate them in any way.

If the electrician crosses the wires in your wall and sets the building on fire when you flip the switch, it's not your fault for flipping the switch without tearing the wall open to check first. I feel like I've given a thousand other examples in this thread that are simply ignored over and over. Maybe I'll bold it this time so people understand:

It's not the same as shooting your gun with live ammo at the range. The rules are not the same. The responsibilities are not the same. There is no comparison. Your NRA four gun rules are not relevant to prop guns and blanks on a movie set. You're not using logic because you already hated Alec Baldwin and your emotions dictate that you rationalize the feeling that it's his fault.

I'm completely done with this entire topic, it has completely shut gun owners' brains off. "It's Alec's fault" is our version of "Kyle Rittenhouse is a mass shooter", it's just a big 'ol emotional blob that logic and law cannot penetrate.

Well it's probably useless since you are "done with this topic". But I couldn't care one bit who the actor was holding the gun. What I have seen/heard from others in the film industry since this happened has indicated that Alec should have been shown the gun was clear and seen it for himself before accepting it from the AD.
I'm not going to harp on the 4 rules. I get that it's a movie set and things are done differently.
Regardless if they are using live ammo or blanks, the actor should see that the gun is either "hot" or "cold" before accepting it. Never said that Alec should have manipulated the the gun in any way, just he should have witnessed it being clear.

The comparison examples you continue to give aren't even close to being a parallel just apples to watermelons.

 

[thunderchicken]

There have been 3 highly publicized incidents over the last 20 years that I am aware of. Brandon Lee, the Hexum (sp?) guy who put a gun to his temple , and this one. Over 20 years with the 10s of thousands of scenes filmed with power in that time frame is that what you consider to be "time and time again" or do you have a longer list you are basing your comments off of? Please post up your list

I don't know enough about the industry or available technology (cgi & such) to say if the practice of using real guns is necessary or if it is a practice that can be more limited.
Forgetting the 4 rules for a moment, they are using a gun in a manner in which the manufacturer never intended it to be used.
If technology allows a better way of doing things then maybe it should be explored.

Example- maybe machine a cylinder so it has the appearance of being loaded for those close up shots but actually isn't capable of chambering anything. Or using inert rounds with a steel case and welding them into the cylinder. Maybe that's one piece of the puzzle that needs looked into. Who knows when the last time ideas for how to do the job safer or better was considered vs following standards that have been in place for years.

 

[Ark]

Again, your analogy is flawed, because flipping a light switch is not an inherently dangerous act.

Discharging a blank in a prop gun is not an inherently dangerous act. It's been done millions of times over a century of moviemaking with fewer injuries in that entire history than we have shark attacks in a given year. It is an utterly and completely innocuous and safe act for an actor to discharge a blank in a prop gun, specifically because of the whole chain of professionals whose job it is to make that act safe.

No malice aforethought, no duty of care, no liability as the trigger-puller.

 

[Butch627]

I'm not going to semanticize the definition of "again and again" with you. 3 incidents, with the most recent a couple weeks ago, is sufficient to convince me your industry is failing to deal with a real problem.

Have you personally participated in films where real guns were used, and the four rules weren't followed? Are you defending the practice? I'd love to know your experience. It looks to me like your industry has a problem.

My definition of "again and again" seems to be a lot different than yours.
I have been in many films with functional firearms and can conservatively say over 1000 blanks fired and the industry rules were always strictly followed and no one was shot or any ND's. I am not privy to the rules given to this crew but I feel confident in saying that they broke most if not of them and that if they had followed them this thread would not exist. Having said that if you think "again and again" means 3 times in 10s of thousands of blanks discharged over over 20 years you probably believe 2 also meant the same so we will have to just disagree.

Digital effects will take over at some point and it will make scenes with firearms safer and save a lot of time, labor, and money.

There is much done with set dressing, props, special effects, wardrobe, etc on set that will never be seen by the camera. In conversation with many people much higher up on the food chain than I am I have been told that it is to help the actors feel their roles and help their reactions for the camera. I suspect blanks help in that regard.

 

[Gabriel]

35 pages so far. Wow. Have you guys determined who is at fault, devised new rules to put in place so movie making is safer, and generally made Hollywood a better place yet?

 

[cbhausen]

Given that we know the 4 rules aren't necessarily the safety protocols followed on a movie set here is my thoughts. If you are knowingly going to point a gun in the direction of anyone, you better dang well care enough to at make sure it's empty. Even if someone (armorer or AD etc) says it is, you have a responsibility to at least have them show you it is clear and "cold" before anyone declares it "cold" and using it in a manner for which it really was never intended to be used for.

Clearly Baldwin failed to care for the safety of others on the set. Regardless if the AD handed it to him. It was in his hands, he must carry some burden of responsibility

If it’s a gun, capable of killing if pointed at another human being and discharged, ALWAYS keep it pointed in a safe direction., PERIOD. Problem solved and it would’ve saved one life and spared another persons injury. Adherence to this rule can be ironclad without getting in the way of any safe use of the gun including defensive shootings and cleanings. In the case of a defensive use the safest direction is pointed at the bad guy and when being cleaned it’s no longer a gun once rendered inoperable as part of the cleaning process.

There, I didn’t mention any rule numbers!

 

[Butch627]

I don't know enough about the industry or available technology (cgi & such) to say if the practice of using real guns is necessary or if it is a practice that can be more limited.
Forgetting the 4 rules for a moment, they are using a gun in a manner in which the manufacturer never intended it to be used.
If technology allows a better way of doing things then maybe it should be explored.

Example- maybe machine a cylinder so it has the appearance of being loaded for those close up shots but actually isn't capable of chambering anything. Or using inert rounds with a steel case and welding them into the cylinder. Maybe that's one piece of the puzzle that needs looked into. Who knows when the last time ideas for how to do the job safer or better was considered vs following standards that have been in place for years.

There are prop houses, prop masters, and armors that all have their own inventories and I feel safe in saying that there are 10s of thousands of functional firearms in that group. New firearms are always being added. Beyond going digital without powder I am sure that there will be other changes in the firearms themselves and the rules used in the industry.

 

[bwframe]

35 pages so far. Wow. Have you guys determined who is at fault, devised new rules to put in place so movie making is safer, and generally made Hollywood a better place yet?

I'm thinking this tragedy in the modern day will teach the hollywood anti-gun crowd a thing or two about the real world.

 

[thunderchicken]

If it’s a gun, capable of killing if pointed at another human being and discharged, ALWAYS keep it pointed in a safe direction., PERIOD. Problem solved and it would’ve saved one life and spared another persons injury. Adherence to this rule can be ironclad without getting in the way of any safe use of the gun including defensive shootings and cleanings. In the defense of shooting the safest direction is pointed at the bad guy and when cleaned it’s no longer gone once rendered inoperable.

Hey there, I did mention any rule numbers

I agree with you but am open to understanding that for those close up camera shots maybe a better inert gun would be better to use than say a rubber gun so as to capture the look.

An operational gun is a potentially deadly gun in anyone's hands

 

[Butch627]

35 pages so far. Wow. Have you guys determined who is at fault, devised new rules to put in place so movie making is safer, and generally made Hollywood a better place yet?

Financing, accountants, insurance companies, producers, propmasters, armors, department heads, actors, the union, and AD's offhand all had a hand in this in no particular order.

 

[cbhausen]

If it’s a gun, capable of killing if pointed at another human being and discharged, ALWAYS keep it pointed in a safe direction., PERIOD. Problem solved and it would’ve saved one life and spared another persons injury. Adherence to this rule can be ironclad without getting in the way of any safe use of the gun including defensive shootings and cleanings. In the case of a defensive shooting the safest direction is pointed at the bad guy and when being cleaned it’s no longer a gun once rendered inoperable as part of the cleaning process.

There, I didn’t mention any rule numbers.

35 pages so far. Wow. Have you guys determined who is at fault, devised new rules to put in place so movie making is safer, and generally made Hollywood a better place yet?

Yes. See the post immediately following yours. Unfortunately, because of the negligence of some the restrictions will become much more stringent. Once again, it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the whole bushel.

 

[thunderchicken]

35 pages so far. Wow. Have you guys determined who is at fault, devised new rules to put in place so movie making is safer, and generally made Hollywood a better place yet?

Well it would appear that opinions vary. Care to express yours?

 

[bwframe]

 

[WebSnyper]

Yes.

I tracked down the article mentioned but not linked earlier, I think it is worth a slow read pondering all the points he made. https://lawofselfdefense.com/legal-...on-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-manslaughter/

That article really lays it out well. Also manages to use Alec's being an outspoken antagonist of the 2nd amendment to his disadvantage ("obvious knowledge that guns can be dangerous") which is an interesting spin often used against 2A supporters.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Who was the b**** with the cellphone? She was more irritating than he was.

 

[WebSnyper]

Who was the b**** with the cellphone? She was more irritating than he was.

Believe that's his wife (?)

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Believe that's his wife (?)

Yikes...