Should be illegal for an actor without certified training to handle a non prop gun. This was not a prop gun, it was a real gun used as a prop.
Should be illegal for an actor without certified training to handle a non prop gun. This was not a prop gun, it was a real gun used as a prop.Plus why should we assume that and actor would know ow to check if a gun is safe?
It's quite possible that an actor may have never handled a gun off a set. And it's possible even if they have that it wasn't a "real" gun, other countries don't always use real guns even on sets.
It's not. Brandon Lee, son of Bruce Lee, was shot and killed by a live round in a gun on the set of The Crow.Alec Baldwin is not a spring chicken in the acting profession. To my knowledge, this is the first time a live round found it's way into a a gun on a movie set. That is totally unacceptable. There is always a hard ass gun armorer who is a stickler for safety. I would think Baldwin would have run into one of those and learned to check any guns they give him. Why was his hand anywhere near a trigger during a rehearsal? I get that he points a gun at the camera. Obviously the gun was loaded and shouldn't have been loaded. Why was the gun pointed at another living person where his hand was on or even close to the trigger? You would think they would have toy guns for rehearsals and not a real firearm.
I disagree with the actor clearing the gun. Anyone of moderate intelligence can be trained to clear a weapon. Anyone holding a gun should understand basic firearms safety and know how to clear it. Once a gun is in your hand you're responsible for the safety of those around you.
Even without any training, why not have a simple test before using the gun, point it at the ground and pull the trigger six times.That's straightforward but I'm not sure it's realistic. I'm not familiar with the norms of the film industry in actors clearing weapons, I don't know Baldwin's familiarity with those norms, and it seems more likely the job of the armorer, prop master, and directors to organize the weapons training and safety meetings for the actors who will be handling the firearms.
How much liability in a human sense lies on any individual involved requires a knowledge of the reasonable expectations for the judgment of the individuals involved, and while we have clear reports of serious deficiencies in some areas here, Baldwin in particular is really hard to assess with all these unknowns.
Criminally, things would have to be pretty direct that someone's negligence or willful disregard produced the outcome, and I'm skeptical of that being the case.
By "clearing" do you mean checking for a live round? Is there a round in there that is blank/non live?I disagree with the actor clearing the gun. Anyone of moderate intelligence can be trained to clear a weapon. Anyone holding a gun should understand basic firearms safety and know how to clear it. Once a gun is in your hand you're responsible for the safety of those around you.
I wouldn't trust such a test. A bullet might fail to fire on the first try but may go off on the second. Best way is to inspect the gun chamber and ensure that it is empty.Even without any training, why not have a simple test before using the gun, point it at the ground and pull the trigger six times.
LOL, the idea of firing a gun to check to see if it's loaded...Even without any training, why not have a simple test before using the gun, point it at the ground and pull the trigger six times.
I agree with you that there should be one person in charge of, and responsible for, any gun on the set. But the system clearly failed in this case. The "final test" takes six seconds and would have saved a life.
Quick, simple, safe, and nearly foolproof.
Not unusual with people that use guns as tools of the trade. In conflict zones, we have clearing barrels and test fire areas marked off. One to make sure the weapon is safe, and the other to make sure it's not safe. You can fire a burst or two into the target area when leaving the wire, and when you return, you clear, then "click" then "feel" and "look" into the chamber.LOL, the idea of firing a gun to check to see if it's loaded...
Grief and the realization that it was an easily avoidable death, are two reasons I can think of.Other people in this thread, as I agree with ReggieDunlap, just seem to want to blame Alec Baldwin for whatever reason. It makes no sense.
Even without any training, why not have a simple test before using the gun, point it at the ground and pull the trigger six times.
So when you were in a conflict zone and handed a revolver loaded with blanks that retained the slug so it looked realistic how did you verify the armorer was correct in announcing the revolver was safe?Not unusual with people that use guns as tools of the trade. In conflict zones, we have clearing barrels and test fire areas marked off. One to make sure the weapon is safe, and the other to make sure it's not safe. You can fire a burst or two into the target area when leaving the wire, and when you return, you clear, then "click" then "feel" and "look" into the chamber.
It happened a few times that it wasn't a clear and "click" but a clear and "bang!" into a clearing barrel. Shit happens....and when it goes wrong with a firearm of any size, it can get "real" very quickly.
Training actors to know how to make a firearm safe should be common sense (apparently it's not). Even blanks can cause serious injuries if misused. I'm appalled that firearm safety on the part of the actor isn't part of regular practice.
NEVER trust that a gun handed to you isn't "live". First thing is for YOU to verify the status of the weapon (empty/loaded/racked/safe or anything in-between). It's been drilled into my head since I was old enough to walk, that all firearms are "live" until you can prove otherwise.
Even without any training, why not have a simple test before using the gun, point it at the ground and pull the trigger six times.
I agree with you that there should be one person in charge of, and responsible for, any gun on the set. But the system clearly failed in this case. The "final test" takes six seconds and would have saved a life.
Quick, simple, safe, and nearly foolproof.
Blanks don't have a bullet in the cartridge. it's obvious to an observer, so no difficulty there.So when you were in a conflict zone and handed a revolver loaded with blanks that retained the slug so it looked realistic how did you verify the armorer was correct in announcing the revolver was safe?
From what I've read for blanks in revolvers they load them with slugs but no primer or charge so the 5 that are visible look accurate but can't be fired. The chambered round is missing the slug but has the charge to make it go boom.Blanks don't have a bullet in the cartridge. it's obvious to an observer, so no difficulty there.
In your scenario, you assume that the weapon's live, and fire one into the test fire area....and it would go..."click". Problem solved. Reload with real ammo and be on your way.
Good point about revolvers versus semi-automatic. So.......From what I've read for blanks in revolvers they load them with slugs but no primer or charge so the 5 that are visible look accurate but can't be fired. The chambered round is missing the slug but has the charge to make it go boom.
As i said earlier a mistake with a blank that had a slug and a primer on the set of the Crow was what led to Lee's death. When they fired it the primer pushed the bullet into the barrel of the revolver. They didn't check the barrel. Later they used a regular blank and it shot the lodged slug killing Lee.
For handguns with magazines that's obviously not an issue since none of the rounds are visible they can all be without slugs.
Assuming this rumor is correct ... Anyone with authority who knew “crewmembers” were putting real bullets in the prop guns for recreational shooting is at fault. The first time that happened, everyone involved should have been fired, as in “escorted off the set”. That is a big red flag, not that all the other things weren’t pretty terrible but that is the one thing that should never happen. Of course that's moral responsibility, it doesn’t necessarily mean legal responsibility. There are rumors and there are rumors. Not to mention ... Part of the blame rests on the people who tried to cut costs at the expense of safety, by hiring someone who wasn’t up to job.
Even if that were the case, would he not have a responsibility to at least learn the basics of prop guns vs real guns and how to determine the gun he was using is safe? I mean come on, the guy has acted in movies and TV for years and years, and made millions of dollars at it. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect him to learn the basics of firearm safety as applied to a movie set. There was just now a news conference on TV about the investigation. It seems the gun was a functional revolver loaded with live ammunition. Shouldn't be that hard to tell this was a dangerous weapon, in contrast to a prop gun which somehow malfunctioned.Plus why should we assume that and actor would know ow to check if a gun is safe?
It's quite possible that an actor may have never handled a gun off a set. And it's possible even if they have that it wasn't a "real" gun, other countries don't always use real guns even on sets.
That doesn't match what I've read, but obviously I know very little about movie production, so only going on random articles about this event.
Again, it doesn't seem that those are legal requirements, and if the idea is to introduce such requirements, I don't see why they shouldn't also require everyone on set who is not on camera to have some sort of ballistic protection (as, according to an earlier comment, the 'expensive camera equipment' already gets)
Weapons must be tightly managed by an armorer, sometimes credited on films as a “weapons master,” who holds various government-issued permits. Some states, for instance, require an entertainment firearms license in addition to standard gun licenses. Cast members should be trained in gun safety in advance. Guns should never be pointed directly at anyone, especially in rehearsals but even during actual filming, since camera trickery can be used to compensate for the angle. If necessary, plexiglass is used to protect the camera operator and surrounding crew members.
And no live ammunition, ever.
Are we doing that with everything else that actors pretend to do in films?Even if that were the case, would he not have a responsibility to at least learn the basics of prop guns vs real guns and how to determine the gun he was using is safe? I mean come on, the guy has acted in movies and TV for years and years, and made millions of dollars at it. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to expect him to learn the basics of firearm safety as applied to a movie set. There was just now a news conference on TV about the investigation. It seems the gun was a functional revolver loaded with live ammunition. Shouldn't be that hard to tell this was a dangerous weapon, in contrast to a prop gun which somehow malfunctioned.
Maybe you can send a letter to your Congressman asking .........oh wait. Never mind.Should be illegal for an actor without certified training to handle a non prop gun. This was not a prop gun, it was a real gun used as a prop.
It was a single action Pietta 1873 Colt reproduction.Good point about revolvers versus semi-automatic. So.......
My take is that you're the last stop between the firearm and your target, and should always assume ANY ammo is real until proven otherwise. Once you swing it open, you can look at the front of the chambers in a wheel-gun and easily see that there are bullets on the cartridge. It's harder in a semi because you'd have to check ALL the rounds in the magazine by removing all but the last one.