The Unloaded Gun

We all know what should have happened but apparently some folks have the inability to separate what should have happened from what did happen. We know there are several departures from normal operating procedures on the set of this movie. We know the original union staff walked off and were replaced with lower cost non-union personnel. We know they were on a shoe string budget. We know the armorer was not in the church when the shooting happened and that the AD handed the revolver to Alec Baldwin. That alone is a big red flag. Yes, we know it is the armorer's job but we also know the armorer has a boss and that is Alec Baldwin. We know that someone brought live ammo onto the set and that at least some of the actors and/or staff were shooting in the desert with prop guns. We also know that COVID has changed the way film crews interact with one another and that could have played a part here. I'm betting good money that COVID rules are why the armorer was not on the set when the shooting happened. We know that there had to be multiple failures to get this result. Yet lots of folks are jumping for the easy answer, which I guess is typical human behavior.

Ivy Mike said:

It's her ONLY job on that set.

Click to expand...

We know for a fact that it was NOT her only job on THIS set.

Kleanbore said:

Or the property master.

Click to expand...

If there is an armorer on-set, you don't usually have the prop master handling guns. That's kind of the point of having a dedicated armorer.

Had the gun that fired the fatal bullet not been "issued out" for a rehearsal?

Click to expand...

Guns are not really issued out. The armorer would physically hand the gun to the actor who would use it for the one scene and then hand it back to the armorer. The armorer is also right there directly observing to make sure the gun runs correctly, to correct issues, to ensure nobody enters the field of fire. It's not like a police armory where the armorer issues the gun to a cop who is then required to care for it.

So the rules appear to say, but the AD on Rust has reportedly said otherwise in an affidavit.

Click to expand...

We can see what deviation from industry practices and gun safety rules gets you. Just because the AD said things were a certain way, doesn't mean they should have been that way. That's the reason only the armorer touches the guns when not in use.

No.

Click to expand...

Yes. Wrangling the guns and ensuring their safe operation is the job. It's the only job. There are multiple facets to that job but they all exist for one purpose and that is the safe use of real firearms on film.

Actors customarily handle guns loaded with blanks and dummy cartridges on movie sets--right?

Click to expand...

Yes, under the direct supervision of the armorer (or prop master if there is no dedicated armorer) who only lets the actor have the gun when its time to shoot. After that scene has been shot, the armorer collects the gun from the actor. The actor's level of experience with firearms is unknown. The crew's level of experience with firearms is unknown. That's why you hire an armorer who knows their stuff. And they only kind-of handle the guns. If the scene doesn't call for the actor to open the firearm up, they don't do it and the armorer doesn't want them doing it.

Some good reading here:


https://lawofselfdefense.com/legal-...on-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-manslaughter/
In a nutshell, Me. Branca calls bull on all you apologists claiming that Alec Baldwin is "just an actor" and therefore shouldn't be expected to know how to handle firearms safely.

Some telling quotes:

"It is common knowledge that firearms are dangerous instruments, so the law presumes that we all possess such knowledge. In the case of Baldwin, he actually sits on the board of a gun-control organization whose existence is premised on the fact that guns are dangerous, so he can certainly be presumed to possess this knowledge."

"...anyone making use of an inherently dangerous instrument is strictly liable for any unnecessary harm that they cause, no excuses, period. The burden is placed on the person using the inherently dangerous instrument to ensure that they take whatever steps are required in order to not cause unnecessary harm—and if they do cause unnecessary harm, they bear absolute responsibility for that harm, no excuses."

"What this means in the context of firearms, a particular class of inherently dangerous instruments with a considerable potential for causing unnecessary death and serious harm to others, is that there exists a series of safety rules for their responsible operation....

[Explanation of the four rules]

...As the safety rules for safe gun handling, they define what is meant by the statutory element of 'caution and circumspection' in the context of handling firearms."

[According to NM case law,] "it doesn’t matter who loaded the gun—meaning, all this talk about whether the live round in the gun came from this source or that source or some other source is largely irrelevant for purposes of determining whether Baldwin’s shooting of Ms. Hutchins was involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law."

Because, you know, rule #1, rule #2 and rule #3.

CraigC said:

I don't know if this has been pointed out yet or not but there's been a lot of chatter pointing the finger solely at the armorer, Hanna Reed. Now I have no clue just how qualified she is but I know who her pappy is. Thell Reed was a legend decades before he was a Hollywood gun coach. Do you know who all is in the picture? Not exactly lightweights. Reed is the short feller in the center. I would assume that Reed's daughter grew up around guns and knows far more about them and their safe operation than the average "shooter" and that the fault lies more with production and some goofy COVID rules than the armorer alone. I'd like to know who brought the live ammo onto the set and who was going out plinking with prop guns.

View attachment 1035336

Ray Chapman, Elden Carl, Thell Reed, Jeff Cooper, Jack Weaver.

Click to expand...

If the armorer is supposed to be in control of the guns at all times, how were the guns taken off the set to go plinking with?

bdickens said:

Some good reading here:


https://lawofselfdefense.com/legal-...on-beginning-to-look-a-lot-like-manslaughter/
In a nutshell, Me. Branca calls bull on all you apologists claiming that Alec Baldwin is "just an actor" and therefore shouldn't be expected to know how to handle firearms safely.

Some telling quotes:

"It is common knowledge that firearms are dangerous instruments, so the law presumes that we all possess such knowledge. In the case of Baldwin, he actually sits on the board of a gun-control organization whose existence is premised on the fact that guns are dangerous, so he can certainly be presumed to possess this knowledge."

"...anyone making use of an inherently dangerous instrument is strictly liable for any unnecessary harm that they cause, no excuses, period. The burden is placed on the person using the inherently dangerous instrument to ensure that they take whatever steps are required in order to not cause unnecessary harm—and if they do cause unnecessary harm, they bear absolute responsibility for that harm, no excuses."

"What this means in the context of firearms, a particular class of inherently dangerous instruments with a considerable potential for causing unnecessary death and serious harm to others, is that there exists a series of safety rules for their responsible operation....

[Explanation of the four rules]

...As the safety rules for safe gun handling, they define what is meant by the statutory element of 'caution and circumspection' in the context of handling firearms."

[According to NM case law,] "it doesn’t matter who loaded the gun—meaning, all this talk about whether the live round in the gun came from this source or that source or some other source is largely irrelevant for purposes of determining whether Baldwin’s shooting of Ms. Hutchins was involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law."

Because, you know, rule #1, rule #2 and rule #3.

Click to expand...

Hmmm,
I tried to express this a couple times, and my posts were removed.
Being an actor does not exempt you from deadly Negligence. BS on the armorer having sole responsibility. AB pointed and Fired the gun.

old lady new shooter said:

If the armorer is supposed to be in control of the guns at all times, how were the guns taken off the set to go plinking with?

Click to expand...

Because it sounds like everything on that production set was FUBAR from start to finish. That apparently nobody took charge of the safety of the staff and cast on that set IMO borders on criminal in and of itself.

kneedtospeed said:

Hmmm,
I tried to express this a couple times, and my posts were removed.
Being an actor does not exempt you from deadly Negligence. BS on the armorer having sole responsibility. AB pointed and Fired the gun.

Click to expand...

Nobody is trying to say that Baldwin is exempt from his carelessness. What myself and a couple others is that handling a gun on a movie set follows other rules that go beyond the regular 4 Rules that we're all used to. In your home with your own guns, you act as armorer. If you take someone shooting with you, you are responsible for knowing the guns are in good repair, having the correct ammunition and providing safety information and guidance if required.
On a set, the armorer and the shooter are two different people. It is not unreasonable to think that when someone hands you a gun on set and tells you its safe, they are telling you the truth. It is not unreasonable to think that no bullet will come flying out of the barrel because real ammunition is strictly forbidden on set. It is not unreasonable to not inspect the condition of the gun, because this is how it usually works. The trained professional armorer is the one ensuring there is no live ammo on set and that the guns are in a specific condition. An actor is not supposed to open a firearm and check it and clear it and this is by design.

Now, the industry guidelines that have been posted are pretty clear about not pointing a firearm at another person. Any time that has to happen, chances are good the actor isn't pointing a real gun. Especially since the killing of Brandon Lee during The Crow, firearms are almost never pointed at another actor. It is exceedingly rare. CGI has gotten good enough to fool most people. For example, there is a scene in one of the Marvel movies, I think it's The Winter Soldier where someone is shooing an AR rapidly or in full auto and you see the cases and hear the shots and see muzzle flash...and the ejection port cover is closed. You wouldn't even notice unless you were looking for it, the scene looks so good. It's probable they were holding a fake AR and when they made the mold of the rifle, the ejection port was closed and nobody noticed.
So, Alec Baldwin does bear some responsibility in that he ignored industry practices, pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger. However, he had good reason to believe this would have done nothing, and certainly not have sent a real bullet downrange.

Ivy Mike said:

. It is not unreasonable to think that when someone hands you a gun on set and tells you its safe, they are telling you the truth. It is not unreasonable to think that no bullet will come flying out of the barrel because real ammunition is strictly forbidden on set. It is not unreasonable to not inspect the condition of the gun, because this is how it usually works.

Click to expand...

It is unreasonable. You do so at the range. You do so at the counter of your LGS. You should be doing it on set too.

The Four Rules are universal. There are no exceptions. No excuses. Despise what a couple of people over here seem to think. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/single-action-revolver-handling.896999/

Ivy Mike said:

An actor is not supposed to open a firearm and check it and clear it and this is by design.

Click to expand...

It should be quite obvious by now that needs to change.

bdickens said:

It is unreasonable. You do so at the range. You do so at the counter of your LGS. You should be doing it on set too.

The Four Rules are universal. There are no exceptions. No excuses. Despise what a couple of people over here seem to think. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/single-action-revolver-handling.896999/



It should be quite obvious by now that needs to change.

Click to expand...

You expect there to be real live ammo at a range and a gun shop. It is being done on set, just not by the actor. The armorer does the gun handling procedures and the armorer is the one who is supposed to be making sure no live ammo is present.

and no it does not need to change. Asking untrained and/or inexperienced actors to check firearms they've just been handed is asking for trouble. Hundreds and hundreds of gun scenes are filmed every year following industry guidelines and we don't have these kinds of incidents. I'd put that record of safety up against any police department in the country.
You're taking one outlier where just about every guideline and rule had to be broken in order to result in this tragic death and declaring we should change a practice which works exceptionally well 9.5 times out of 10. And how this would be accomplished is, according to you, by having a possibly inexperienced actor check the work of an experienced armorer and follow The 4 Rules. The 4 Rules, which are already in the industry guidelines.

As I pointed out in another post, you have to be negligent in multiple areas to get the result we see. You have to violate so many rules and guidelines that it's nearly impossible to do it by accident. You have to physically try to kill someone on a movie set.

Kleanbore said:

I have seen nothing to indicate that such caution is discouraged.

I think that prudent actors will do that in the future, if the guns are real. We know that some have done it for years.

Click to expand...

You don't see why having guys like Alec Baldwin with their seriously lax attitude on gun safety and inexperience with guns, checking their prop guns is a bad idea?

Baldwin does not know how to handle guns. This is why you hire someone who does. The prudent practice is not to expect individual actors to suddenly become practiced hands with firearms, the prudent practice is not giving them the opportunity to endanger others in the first place.
If a kid grabs a kitchen knife off the counter, you don't hope that they'll learn safe knife handling on their own, you take the knife away and put it up where they can't get it without your direct supervision.

Ivy Mike said:

You expect there to be real live ammo at a range and a gun shop.

Click to expand...

You should expect live ammo to be on set too. Because, well, rule #1.

And because Alec Baldwin and Rust

Ivy Mike said:

And how this would be accomplished is, according to you, by having a possibly inexperienced actor check the work of an experienced armorer and follow The 4 Rules.

Click to expand...

How long does it take to show someone how to do that? How long? Five minutes?

Ivy Mike said:

You don't see why having guys like Alec Baldwin with their seriously lax attitude on gun safety and inexperience with guns, checking their prop guns is a bad idea?

Click to expand...

What is so special about guns? Someone with that lax attitude about safety has that lax attitude about safety. Period. He probably shouldn't be using a chainsaw or driving a car either.

Ivy Mike said:

Baldwin does not know how to handle guns.

Click to expand...

Then he needs to learn. Period.

If you're going to be handling potentially deadly things, then you need to learn how to do so safely. Period.

There's a thousand other actors out there who can play the role without endangering people's lives with their careless, negligent attitude.

Kleanbore said:

No.

I see that having them handle guns is a bad idea.

His reliance on the assurance of someone else that the gun was "cold" cannot meet the legal requirements of exercising reasonable care while using a dangerous instrument.

Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet that it will when the circumstances are considered. That's why I've pointed out that movie and TV sets are different places than your home and shooting ranges and gun stores.

You can reasonably expect those places to have real live ammunition in the vicinity of the firearm. You cannot make the same pronouncement for a movie set where actual live ammo is strictly prohibited and is never brought on set under any circumstance.

They are working. They should be trained and qualified on every tool they use, particularly with those having the potential to be dangerous. No passing the buck, or excuses. I’ve had potentially dangerous jobs my entire working career, and with proper training and recurrent training, i have never placed a life in danger.
YOU are responsible for your actions.

Alec Baldwin is not an example of why actors should not be allowed to handle firearms. Alec Baldwin is an example of why Alec Baldwin
should not be allowed to handle firearms.

Ivy Mike said:

actual live ammo is strictly prohibited and is never brought on set under any circumstance.

Click to expand...

I think we have seen that is not really the truth.

bdickens said:

You should expect live ammo to be on set too. Because, well, rule #1.

And because Alec Baldwin and Rust

Click to expand...

Why would you ever expect live ammo to be on set when it is strictly forbidden by multiple industry guidelines and rules? Nobody brings live ammo to a set.

How long does it take to show someone how to do that? How long? Five minutes?

Click to expand...

Zero minutes because its not their job. We don't rely on actors whose business is not firearms to adequately understand all the ins and outs of safe gun handling. We hire professional armorers in the business. There are concerns other than just checking the gun to make sure it is "safe" and I'm not about to leave that to an actor to work through, and I have worked in this industry.

What is so special about guns? Someone with that lax attitude about safety has that lax attitude about safety. Period. He probably shouldn't be using a chainsaw or driving a car either.

Click to expand...

Was Alec Baldwin driving a car? Was he running a chainsaw? And if we want to go with that bit of logic, lets run it the other way. Should you have to test for and receive a license for carrying and operating a firearm? You have to for a car, so whats so special about that? How about registration and insurance on your guns?
Or instead of resorting to red herrings, we accept that movie and TV productions are different and the additional concerns can't be dismissed nor simply covered by 4 Rules. It's more complex than that.

Then he needs to learn. Period.

If you're going to be handling potentially deadly things, then you need to learn how to do so safely. Period.

There's a thousand other actors out there who can play the role without endangering people's lives with their careless, negligent attitude.

Click to expand...

Yes, Alec Baldwin should have absolutely known better than to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. This practice is also expressly forbidden in industry rules and guidelines (which I've posted in this thread already)
but Baldwin isn't the only one who bears blame in this situation. You cannot simply ignore standard practices like not bringing live ammo to a set, and hope everything turns out OK. You can't leave guns out unattended and let other people handle them when they have no business doing so. Safe storage requirements exist for a reason. While not expressly prohibited, I would probably not allow anyone to take a movie gun off the set to go shooting. All things not quite covered in the 4 Rules. In trying to reduce this whole thing to the barest bones, you miss a lot of important details.

bdickens said:

Alec Baldwin is not an example of why actors should not be allowed to handle firearms. Alec Baldwin is an example of why Alec Baldwin
should not be allowed to handle firearms.


I think we have seen that is not really the truth.

Click to expand...

We get it. You don't like Alec Baldwin. But he is not the only actor in Hollywood. We can't just write rules for him.

I'm not saying live ammo can't be brought on set. I am saying that as a general rule, it is simply not done. Nobody in their right mind brings real live ammo to a set and there are decades of safe gun handling on sets to show that this particular rule is very effective when followed. While this doesn't preclude the possibility of it happening, there are other practices in place which cover this.
You just don't seem to want to read them. I'm done going back and forth with you.

Schrödinger's Gun: loaded until YOU confirm its actual state.

Every time it comes into your hand.

No matter who you are.

theotherwaldo said:

Schrödinger's Gun: loaded until YOU confirm its actual state.

Every time it comes into your hand.

No matter who you are.

Click to expand...

You pop open the cylinder on a revolver the armorer just handed you and decide to check it yourself after he/she declared Hot Gun, you are going to have an upset armorer and director on your hands only to discover the gun is indeed loaded and everyone knows its loaded because that's the entire point of the armorer prepping the gun for the scene.
You know it was loaded because the armorer told everyone in earshot when they said "HOT GUN". Now they have to cut and the armorer has check the gun and possibly reset it.

That may be true for "hot gun".
That should never be true for "cold gun".

A "hot gun" can always be treated as if it is loaded.
An "cold gun" should always be treated as a loaded gun that should get unloaded.