For whatever it's worth, I'm reading Corax' comments mostly to be that the
individual holding the weapon has a level of responsibility. It just happens to be Baldwin in this example. I would believe the arguments would be the same with any other actor. I'm not seeing direct attack on him personally, just that whoever is holding a firearm should by some standard assume some level of responsibility.
If I'm reading that correctly, I think it's reasonable but not ...hm. Defining? Some gigs require firearms safety training to even be eligible for the job. Other industries, I mean. I don't think it's out of line to at least ask if something like that should be regulated here or even argue for it. That said, it seems on-set deaths like this are few and far between and perhaps the legality of it all is already defined, placing responsibility on the weapons master, the producers, the actors, or a combination. I would guess that a minimal level of experience and certification (and insurance!) would be required for the weapons master position, and perhaps production contracts already define who is to be held liable in this situation. That would make most of this thread moot. Probably more so in that none of us know anyway and are probably, in one degree or another, using this instance to wedge in our own individual biases on politics and gun control. I type that lightly btw.
To the heart of what I'm reading though, I truly believe the arguments would have been the same regardless of what actor held the weapon, I guess is my point.
Back to the broader topic, I'm curious what laws, regulations, or contracting exists that should define roles and responsibilities in all of this. surely that already exists.
To gun safety in general, I think I agree with Corax (at least as a broad brush stroke here) that anyone handling a firearm should be the last line of defense in safety protocols. I personally would expect a basic level of weapons safety training during pre-production for any cast that will need to handle a firearm. I have no idea if that happens or not. Maybe it does. I've read that members of production were using this (or other?) firearms with live ammunition outside of production. That would be the ideal time that such training could have made a difference. Knowing what's right and wrong (as defined by some binding contractual obligation upon receiving safety training) then anyone at that point could have, and should have, thrown a red flag.
I also get an argument that if you have a weapons master whose role it is to make this safety check, then the cast member holds no responsibility. Fair argument too, as what experience does the actor have to make that judgment? This goes back to what I have to assume should already have been defined (and likely is) within contracting or whatever production laws may exist that define specific instances through which that responsibility is transferred. Maybe it is all on the weapons master? Past that, it's probably on the producers to confirm the qualifications of any contracted weapons master. All just guessing, of course.
Has anyone seen any articles yet digging into that side of things? Of contracting and law? Else we're all just spinning our wheels of opinion. Which is cool too.
Alright. Back to work for me. Just wanted to jump in before this gets locked