General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen it comes to guns, there are no accidents or mistakes. Just negligence.
Guns are dangerous.
Nobody should be handling a gun unless they have received extensive training, particularly about safety procedures, or are under the direct supervision of someone who is.
This won't eliminate all tragedies but it would greatly reduce them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MichMan
(16,630 posts)
Kaleva
(40,184 posts)"negligence
nĕg′lĭ-jəns
noun
The state or quality of being negligent.
A negligent act or a failure to act.
Failure to use the degree of care appropriate to the circumstances, resulting in an unintended injury to another.
An act or omission showing such lack of care."
https://www.wordnik.com/words/negligence
MichMan
(16,630 posts)Kaleva
(40,184 posts)marie999
(3,334 posts)When someone hands you a weapon it is your responsibility to make sure to examine it. If they say it isn't loaded or a 'Cold Gun' you check to make sure it doesn't have live ammo. You check the barrel to make sure there isn't any obstruction. If you don't know how to check a weapon you don't handle it.
Kaleva
(40,184 posts)
jeffreyi
(2,521 posts)
Captain_New_York
(164 posts)I have been in a situation where some one was presenting his weapon to a group Every one cleared and examine the weapon when taking responsibility for the weapon. No excuses
Crunchy Frog
(28,214 posts)This might be something that the industry needs to reexamine.
Kaleva
(40,184 posts)marie999
(3,334 posts)He/she must check the ammo to make sure it isn't live ammo and check the barrel to make sure that it is clean. Anyone holding a weapon is responsible for it.
JHB
(37,950 posts)
doc03
(38,833 posts)drunk, distracted, didn't have their car serviced, a mechanic didn't know his job, whoever made the failed part,
the state didn't have the road cleared, someone could be blamed in all accidents. I am amused at how many
people on here are movie production and gun experts. I am not passing judgment on anyone just because they did
something or said something in the past I didn't agree with which I think some are.
dem4decades
(13,682 posts)
ForgedCrank
(3,029 posts)verifiable information regarding this indecent to make an intelligent call at this point.
We only know what we have gotten from news media via hearsay.
But was he negligent? How do we know this? Is he even ALLOWED, as an untrained person, to open the weapon after the expert on set has declared it's condition? If he were allowed, does he know enough about firearms to even be able to make that call?
See, that's just one of so many questions that will have to be answered before any condemnation can be applied to anyone.
Waiting sucks, but that's what we need to do in this case, as well as all the others we are reading every day.
One thing I would bet bank on right now is that this will be a civil action condition, and we will hear all the actual facts at that time.
All I know is that I'm pretty confident Alec Baldwin had absolutely no intentions of doing any harm to anyone, and I feel really bad for the guy at this point. This would be a nightmare to live though.
Irish_Dem
(79,818 posts)He did not follow the safety protocols.
doc03
(38,833 posts)the proper loads were used?
Kaleva
(40,184 posts)Or they have someone qualified right there supervising them if they haven't received the proper training. Was the arms specialist right there?
Assuming Baldwin has little to no training, did the arms specialist safety check the gun before it was handed to Baldwin? From what I read, an assistant director handed the gun to Baldwin.
ForgedCrank
(3,029 posts)You have a union involved, and strict safety rules (and possibly even laws, I dunno) that people must abide by. We don't even know all of those.
Would you, were you the "target" of a gunshot on this set, be comfortable with a completely untrained individual determining if the prop gun is safe or not? I know I wouldn't. Maybe Baldwin is an expert with firearms, but we don't know that, and that's why professionals are on set to deal with this very dangerous aspect of production.
Obviously, something went horribly wrong in the process here. A strict rule almost had to be broken or overlooked in order for this to happen. But I'm not going to be so quick to blame Baldwin or anyone else until I understand all the variables in this incident.
On another note: I would have a difficult time shooting even a prop gun at someone no matter the case. It makes me feel really unsettled thinking about it. It's taboo, it's not something you are supposed to be doing at all no matter what as far as I have always been taught. That's hard to let go of.
Kaleva
(40,184 posts)"Would you, were you the "target" of a gunshot on this set, be comfortable with a completely untrained individual determining if the prop gun is safe or not?"
I'd be very uncomfortable with the idea of someone untrained having a real gun in their possession unless they were under the direct supervision who was trained and that trained person safety checked the gun before handing it to someone who wasn't trained.
Happy Hoosier
(9,404 posts)If an actor cannot do that, don't cast them, or use a stunt person.
I've done a few small films that involved firearms.... I never deliberately aimed the weapon at someone. Always off to the side. And I personally inspected the ammo and the gun before using it.
It seems like the safety rules were ignored on this set.
ForgedCrank
(3,029 posts)one should always practice multiple layers as safeguards against mistakes, incompetence, etc. This happens when humans are involved.
And I agree, Baldwin should know how to do this, anyone on the set should know how to do this.
My only point was that we don't really have enough solid information (from what should be considered reliable witnesses) to be demonizing Baldwin just yet.
I said this previously, he certainly does share some level of blame on a personal level. I know I wouldn't be able to pull the trigger on someone else unless I had seen for myself and checked by someone else knowledgeable as well.
Fact is, we really don't even know the entirety of the circumstances yet, and that was my only real point in this particular thread.
Absolutely and without doubt, safety protocol was not followed because this could never happen if it were. It's the who, the why, and the how that will remain fuzzy for some time. And due to almost certain tort issues that will very soon appear, all information might go completely dark for a very long time. Who really knows.
Happy Hoosier
(9,404 posts)I'm sure he is reliving those few moments over and over again in head.
Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)Happy Hoosier
(9,404 posts)Safety needs to be multi-layered. If someone hands you a gun and tells you it's safe, verify that for yourself. And THIS incident is the reason why.
More than once I've been handed an "unloaded" gun that had a round in the chamber.
doc03
(38,833 posts)is a person paid to make sure the guns are safe. I am wondering what type of gun it was and by live round what does that mean? Was it a round with a bullet or a live blank? Alex Balwin's job is acting and he pays someone probably a good salary to be responsible for the weapons.
Happy Hoosier
(9,404 posts)Once the gun is in YOUR hand, YOU are responsible for it. As Alec Baldwin is now discovering, the idea that it is someone else's responsibility to check the ammo is cold comfort when it was YOU that pulled the trigger. Checking the ammo would have taken a few seconds. Honestly, if it was a revolver, the bullets in the cartridges would be VISIBLE from the front of the gun. There ARE dummy cartridges that are used for cosmetic reasons, but then you open the cylinder to ensure there are no active primers.
I feel bad for Baldwin. This will haunt him for the rest of his life. And will likely cost him a lot of money.
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 24, 2021, 02:03 PM - Edit history (1)
that the gun was handed to Baldwin and it was yelled as "cold" which means no live rounds.
As the producer though he must've okayed the hiring of the armorer who was only on her second job as armorer. She's the daughter of a long time movie armorer. So there's some fault there for him.
Kaleva
(40,184 posts)I don't know.
USALiberal
(10,877 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)Oks hiring etc.
meadowlander
(5,097 posts)They have different responsibilities. We don't know which one(s) of them were responsible for which decisions.
Usually when an actor is also a "producer" it just means they invested their own money in the project, get a say in some creative decisions and get a bigger share of the profits. It doesn't mean he was making day to day HR or budget decisions.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)It is now known there were 3 gun misfires on the set before this happened.
doc03
(38,833 posts)did something unrelated to this that people have an axe to grind about.
Response to doc03 (Reply #11)
Tomconroy This message was self-deleted by its author.
I'm okay with that. That's what a lot of us have been calling for when buying a gun. EVERYBODY WHO BUYS A GUN GETS THIS TRAINING BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF A GUN FROM A GUN SELLER.
Yeah, I'm okay with that.
Kaleva
(40,184 posts)I bought dummy rounds along with the revolver. Kept them in a gun safe when not in my possession. I only took them out when I was alone in the house and I practiced unholstering the gun, aiming, dry firing, and holstering the gun. I also practiced loading and unloading the resolver with the dummy rounds. After practice, the gun and dummy ammo went back into the gun locker. Once I felt I was quite proficient in safely handing the gun, I bought ammunition and then practiced shooting at a firing range outside of town.
Soon after that, I signed up for and completed a gun safety course.
Therein lies the issue. AFTER, not before. I assume you didn't have to show proof of military service as nobody does and please don't take this as a personal confrontation. I applaud the approach you took in getting training and dummy rounds etc but the training or proof of training should have been a requisite of getting hands on a gun.
FWIW I didn't get this training either, just bought guns. Didn't get it before getting an C&R FFL either. What's wrong with this?
Too many people have guns, guns are too easy to get, some people shouldn't have them. I think that's pretty obvious. The question remains, "What to do about it?"
jeffreyi
(2,521 posts)When I was a kid, (50's and 60's) with toy guns, pointing them at anyone was verboten, by parents. Later, parents supervised practice with a 22. Later, hunter safety training, used to be a positive thing by NRA. Anyway. Always check the firearm, no matter what. It's a personal responsibility, a ritual, to be obeyed.
albacore
(2,744 posts)It's not just gun safety training.... it's gun culture safety training.
Obsessive training. Always training. Not ONE relaxed, unthinking moment around firearms. Not hunting... not target shooting...not plinking.
It has to start early, and be kept up. Constantly.
Firearms need the constant attention of anyone handling them.
Too many people now are getting them "for protection", or sometimes just as a fashion accessory. Or a political statement.
NOT a toy. Serious business. Dead serious.
AndyS
(14,559 posts)Perhaps auto fill did me in.
In any event apologies to Gato for bringing them into this.
I fixed it, too late, but I fixed it . . .
FakeNoose
(40,185 posts)Even shooting blanks is dangerous, as was evident in the Brandon Lee tragedy. No gun that shoots ammo (blanks or otherwise) should ever be on a movie set.
Everything you say about negligence is correct, but irrelevant. There was no need for a gun to be used in that movie. The actors should use a toy (non-working) gun as a prop, and the sound effect can be edited in later.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,766 posts)no one can convince me that the entertainment industry can't invent replica weapons of all sorts that simulate the noise and gas exhaust of the real thing but that present little danger to humans other than possible hearing and eyesight damage, which can be prevented using safety gear like earplugs.
The barrels of replica weapons should be designed to not allow any projectiles to be launched, period.
I agree that no replica weapon should be made that physically allows the loading of real ammunition. Even if a scene requires an actor to be seen loading ammo into a weapon, they can make simulated weapons and ammo of a different (and unique) caliber that cannot be fired.
catsudon
(884 posts)bullets are so much cheaper than CGI
why did the union workers walk off the set due to poor conditions? the producers of this didn't want to spend too much money and this is the result
Straw Man
(6,928 posts)If they're to be handling firearms on the set, they should get training themselves. The NRA Home Firearms Safety course would be a good start.
More Details: This is a four-hour course for safe gun handling that is conducted in the classroom only. Students are taught NRA’s three rules for safe gun handling; primary causes of firearm accidents; firearm parts; how to unload certain action types; ammunition components; cleaning; care; safe storage of firearms in the home; and the benefits of becoming an active participant in the shooting sports. Students will receive the NRA Home Firearm Safety handbook, NRA Gun Safety Rules brochure, Basic Firearm Training Program brochure, and course completion certificate.
After that, there are specific live-fire courses covering the basics of rifle, pistol, and shotgun operation.
No one should never depend on someone else's assessment of the condition of a firearm that is being placed their my hands.
Crunchy Frog
(28,214 posts)They're a right-wing terrorist organization.
Are there really no other available gun safety courses?
sarisataka
(22,232 posts)Anyone who is teaching gun safety is either using NRA materials or teaching a course that is derived from them.
None of the Gun Safety (control) organizations offer safety training.
Crunchy Frog
(28,214 posts)sarisataka
(22,232 posts)To a couple of organizations connected to a certain ex-mayor and Presidential candidate. I offered to help as a member of a group to develop a safety program as an alternative to the NRA.
One told me it was an interesting idea how I could make a donation through their website. The other said my assistance was neither desired nor required.
Hopefully the NRA will continue to shoot itself in the foot (pun intended) as it seems many gun owners and shooting organizations as nearing the tipping point of looking for another option.
Crunchy Frog
(28,214 posts)any former presidential candidates, or other existing organizations.
It seems like there's a gap there that you and other likeminded people might fill. I'm not trying to be a smartass, I actually mean it.
sarisataka
(22,232 posts)Who has suggested that, the first being my wife.
It is hard to see myself as a national leader but I would like to help a group that emphasizies and teachies with rights come equal responsibilities.
doc03
(38,833 posts)late Ed Schultz used to talk about it on his show.
Straw Man
(6,928 posts)... and non-political, as hard as that may be to believe.
Happy Hoosier
(9,404 posts)Any competent armorer should be able to train an actor on how to check and safely handle a firearm, real or otherwise, that will be used on set.
Straw Man
(6,928 posts)... but their training materials are comprehensive. And non-political.
Without an established curriculum, you're leaving it to the whims of the individual armorers. I don't think that's a good idea. Maybe IATSE would come up with a program of their own. It's worth doing.
Crunchy Frog
(28,214 posts)It seems like a really unnecessary risk.
the producers were cutting corners. bullets are soo much cheaper than CGI
the union workers walking off the set is a good indicator of that
Happy Hoosier
(9,404 posts)People react to loud bangs in real life in a way that is hard to fake.
There ARE prop guns that are used frequently that are incapable of firing real ammo.... airsoft or pellet guns being a prime example. They can look extremely real with much lower risk. But not every type gun is made that way. I have a prop gun I use with a costume that is a pellet gun. Looks VERY real, but cannot fire real ammo.
I have seen real guns that were modified so that they can only fit blanks. But those tend to be expensive.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,766 posts)and that applies to many things, not just guns. Driving vehicles and handling live electrical devices or explosives and working with animals are some other things that come to mind.
Although I feel there's far too much gun usage shown in movies and on TV, gun usage simulation is sometimes needed to realistically illustrate a story. It would be impossible to document the story of Al Capone without showing safe replica guns, but they should never be glorified.
After surviving decades of working in very dangerous industries without serious injury, my example proves that repeated safety training creates a constant consciousness of safety that really works.
KY
KentuckyWoman
(7,365 posts)This sort of accident has happened before. There have been people killed by blanks as well.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048295916/props-gun-death-injuries-rust-movie-set-rare
It is inexcusable that movie set guns are even capable of firing.
doc03
(38,833 posts)Kaleva
(40,184 posts)But for those cases where a driver is negligent, they are often ticketed or even arrested and charged.
doc03
(38,833 posts)to fast for conditions or maybe the DNR let the dear population expand to where they are a hazard.
marie999
(3,334 posts)or lightning strikes your car and messes up the computers.
Kaleva
(40,184 posts)Happy Hoosier
(9,404 posts)Driving is one of them. However, it is possible to verifiy that prop gun is not loaded with live ammo 100% of the time. There had to be a breakdown in protocols for this to happen.
doc03
(38,833 posts)Court martialed or firing several rounds from a 45 auto in the barracks, nobody was hurt. They court martialed the soldier for chambering a round in the weopon. But also the arms room Sargent for issuing a weapon with a defective sear pin.
Happy Hoosier
(9,404 posts)The weapon discharged due to the faulty sear?
That is, the shooter was gettin' macho, but did not intend to fire the gun?
doc03
(38,833 posts)dropped without him pulling the trigger and the weapon fired until empty. So both were at fault. There is no way he should have chambered a round period.
Happy Hoosier
(9,404 posts)doc03
(38,833 posts)what the outcome was.
Kaleva
(40,184 posts)Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)
MineralMan
(150,641 posts)The second rule is: Never point any gun at anyone you don't intend to kill.
It's pretty simple, really. Those are basic, simple rules that, if followed, will prevent such tragic deaths.
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)there were clearly multiple people acting negligently, according to what has been reported.
The Armorer should have never allowed Guns that were being used in the movie, to be used by crew members off-set for target practice. If that is true, it was a HUGE mistake, as it provides a simple conduit for fully loaded, functional ammunition, to be introduced to the movie set, which should never, ever happen. Even if functional ammo was not left in the firearm, by using them for target practice, it also creates the possibility of someone firing a squib round, in which the primer goes off but the powder charge does not, which can lodge the bullet in the barrel and leave it there. If a firearm with a bullet stuck in the barrel was then brought on set and used with a blank round, it could produce enough pressure to blow the obstructing bullet out of the barrel in a lethal manner. That is apparently what occurred with Brandon Lee. In any event, the Armorer is responsible for examining the weapon prior to it being used on set and that includes making sure there are no cartridges, either functional or blank in the cylinder and that the barrel is not obstructed, before using it either as a "cold" gun or loading it with the number and type of blank needed for the scene. So clearly the Armorer is in deep doo-doo.
The AD is responsible for safety on the set and for making sure that the Armorer is doing their job. In this case, the AD took the weapon off of the cart and handed it to Baldwin and announced "cold" gun. If he is going to pick up the weapon to give to the talent, instead of supervising the Armorer doing so, then he Damn well better check the cylinder to make sure it's not loaded, before he announces the status as "Cold". In addition, he could plainly see that Baldwin was pointing the gun in the direction where the DP, Camera Operator and others were standing. He should have stopped things right there. Even if the gun is empty, there should never be a situation where it is pointed at a person and he was standing next to Baldwin the first time he practiced drawing the weapon and pointing it. HUGE mistake on the AD's part and he is also in deep doo-doo.
Baldwin is doubly culpable, both as the Producer, who is supposed to make sure that competent people are hired to oversee safety procedures and also as the person who pointed a gun at three people and then pulled the trigger. Even if the AD's assessment of it being a "cold" gun was correct, cardinal rule number #1 is that you never point a gun, loaded or unloaded, at another person and you sure as hell don't pull the trigger when doing so. If Baldwin wanted to practice his fast draw, so that it looked realistic, then use a non-firing replica, don't point it at other people and keep your finger off of the trigger. If he didn't want to check to see if it was loaded himself, he should have requested that the Armorer or the AD check the cylinder in his presence. As a last ditch, if you absolutely have to use a real gun and pull the trigger in the process, in order to perfect your fast draw and make it look realistic, then take 20 seconds and point the barrel into the ground and cock the revolver and pull the trigger 6 times. If you get six clicks, you are probably good to go (yes, you could get a mis-fire that went off the second time around, which is why you visually inspect the cylinder to insure that it's not loaded, but it's unlikely) if it goes boom, then you have a major problem but at least someone is not dead. So, IMHO, Baldwin acted negligently and has a portion of the responsibility for this senseless tragedy. He is not blameless and is not a victim, the victims are the individuals who were shot.
cksmithy
(425 posts)My father never even let us point toy pistols at each other without hell (belt) to pay. We had 22's pistols and rifles, 38 and 45 pistols. This was the 1950's. (My father would get so angry and threaten us with death if we misbehaved, I really thought my father would kill one of us one day.) I believe, and am glad, that most people don't have that kind of childhood anymore, but they also don't have the fear of guns and the proper respect and learn how to use guns safely. So I agree with you, there are many people responsible for this tragedy. Every gun should be treated like it is loaded, before picking it up and determining it isn't.