Submit Your
2000s
List
The deadline for the Top Films of the 2000s list is days away! Submit your ballot now, or read about it here

Alec Baldwin accidentally kills crew member with prop gun

Tools    





タイムコップ Timecop
Seems like the basis of the argument is that Hollywood should know how to handle firearms. Pardon me if I'm at a loss but we are talking about the same Hollywood that gets most things about guns wrong? And vehemently paints them as WMDs. Yet never ceases to put them in movies.

This is the same Hollywood we're talking about, right? It is a wonder this thing doesn't happen more often.
On point!
__________________
変身 ~ Henshin



minds his own damn business
As you know, guns don't stop being guns just because they're on a movie set. The threat posed by guns is quite general.
A gun stops being a real gun when it has no access to real live ammunition. A gun without live ammo poses no threat, general or otherwise. The relevant negligence here involves those who introduced live ammunition to the movie set and those who ignored or dismissed the previous lapses of gun safety. I doubt Baldwin brought or allowed live ammo on the set, but he may not have taken the latter as seriously as he should have as a producer.

So, Corax, have you bought one of those Don Don T-shirts yet?
__________________



A gun without live ammo poses no threat, general or otherwise.
I donít think thatís true. From what Iíve read this month, a gun with fake ammo can also cause injury if not properly used.
__________________
Iím here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. Thatís why Iím here now.



Registered User
I donít think thatís true. From what Iíve read this month, a gun with fake ammo can also cause injury if not properly used.
A blank can kill within 20 feet. There is propellant and wadding that is ejected at high speed.

Also, the contempt for deadly weapons here is a bit concerning. A real gun is always a real gun until it is mechanically deactivated (unable to fire at all) by an expert. The first rule of gun safety is "all guns are loaded," because the most dangerous gun you will handle is the one you mistakenly think is unloaded. And this is why you always check.

Alec Baldwin just killed someone with an "empty gun" and we're still talking about how empty guns are not real guns? For shame.

The epistemic risk (i.e., not really knowing) of an "unloaded gun" absolutely overwhelms the mere ontological category of "unloaded." The casual categorical assertion without epistemic vigilance was the cause of death in this case. Consequently, while it is trivially and tautologically true that an empty gun poses no risk, it as practically true that an "unloaded gun" always does (hence the very first rule of safe handling).



minds his own damn business
I donít think thatís true. From what Iíve read this month, a gun with fake ammo can also cause injury if not properly used.
Baldwin was handed a "cold gun" which is supposed to be an unloaded gun, not a gun with blanks. Two people before Baldwin had the responsibility to assure that the gun was actually unloaded.


Alec Baldwin just killed someone with an "empty gun" and we're still talking about how empty guns are not real guns? For shame.
The gun wasn't empty though. An empty gun cannot spontaneously regenerate ammo. Someone is responsible for allowing a loaded gun on set. Another person is responsible for not checking the gun before handing it to an actor unqualified in weapons with the claim that it was unloaded.


For some reason, there's an interested focus to blame Baldwin here above and beyond those other professionally responsible (as in their explicit job descriptions) crew members. This also has been the common reaction among certain right-wing elements with long-standing axes to grind against Baldwin based on his outspoken political opinions.


Baldwin will likely be held, along with the entire production staff, liable in a civil settlement for Hutchins' family. Two other people are likely to receive manslaughter charges.



Baldwin was handed a "cold gun" which is supposed to be an unloaded gun, not a gun with blanks. Two people before Baldwin had the responsibility to assure that the gun was actually unloaded.
But you said earlier that a gun without live ammo does no harm. Youíre very confusing.



minds his own damn business
Here's the latest, btw.


Dave Halls, the assistant director on the film ďRust,Ē told an investigator that he had not checked all of the rounds in the gun he handed to Alec Baldwin, as he should have, according to an affidavit released Wednesday.

He said that the filmís armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, had opened the gun for him to inspect, according to the affidavit.


ďHe advised he should have checked all of them, but didnít, and couldnít recall if she spun the drum,Ē according to the affidavit. He said he remembered seeing only three rounds.



Registered User
The gun wasn't empty though.
Hence my use of quotation marks.

An empty gun cannot spontaneously regenerate ammo.
No, it cannot. And yet the first rule of gun safety is to check anyway, that you personally must check as the handler. Why do you think that is?

It's not that guns load themselves, but that people make mistakes. That's why (please notice the quotation marks) an "empty gun" should always treated as a loaded gun until it is proved otherwise by personal inspection.

Someone is responsible for allowing a loaded gun on set. Another person is responsible for not checking the gun before handing it to an actor unqualified in weapons with the claim that it was unloaded.
We've already covered this ground. If you handle a gun, you have a personal responsibility. If you are unable or unwilling to perform a simple safety check and/or you are unable or unwilling to learn how to perform a safety check, you have absolutely no business holding a gun. Even if you're a babe-in-the-woods actor who only pretends for a living.

For some reason, there's an interested focus to blame Baldwin here above and beyond those other professionally responsible (as in their explicit job descriptions) crew members.
That is because, as you just put it, Baldwin appears to have no responsibility in this affair.

This also has been the common reaction among certain right-wing elements with long-standing axes to grind against Baldwin based on his outspoken political opinions.
Genetic fallacy, Jinnistan.

Baldwin will likely be held, along with the entire production staff, liable in a civil settlement for Hutchins' family. Two other people are likely to receive manslaughter charges.
Must be great to be an actor. You can negligently kill someone with a gun and count on underlings to take the rap.



But you said earlier that a gun without live ammo does no harm. Youíre very confusing.
I think the problem is the 'human factor', humans screw up and aren't always reliable as we've seen from the set of Rust. An empty gun isn't dangerous, BUT mistakes happen and an 'empty gun' might not be so empty. It's best to always treat a gun like it's loaded, even if one is sure it's empty.



minds his own damn business
No, it cannot. And yet the first rule of gun safety is to check anyway, that you personally must check as the handler. Why do you think that is?
Two gun fatalities on a movie set in 30 years. Actors who are untrained in firearms have had a consistently reasonable expectation for the professionals legally responsible for on-set gun safety to do their jobs properly. And in both cases of tragedy, the armorers on set when the accident happened were nonunion. Hm.


That is because, as you just put it, Baldwin appears to have no responsibility in this affair.
Sure, I didn't just mention Baldwin's liability in the very post you're quoting. Trolls can be dishonest like that.


Must be great to be an actor. You can negligently kill someone with a gun and count on underlings to take the rap.
Baldwin doesn't appear to be the one thirsting for blood here.



Per the above: I wrote out a full reply to the last time Jinnistan replied to me but got busy and then decided the discussion had moved on, and since I have legitimately close to zero ego about these things I was happy to let it go. But since the topic of gun safety has come around again, I might as well post the portion of that reply (I save stuff like this, because why not?) relating to that:

If all actors are responsible for the safety of the props they use, then why even hire people on the set whose sole responsibility is to be responsible for prop safety?
Now it's my turn to be "staggered" that something is being asked, I guess. Safety is all about redundancy. You might as well ask why anyone double-checks anything, or takes any precautions they were not explicitly hired to take.



minds his own damn business
Movie sets have standard safety protocols for firearms. In three decades, exactly two accidents have occurred, suggesting that these protocols are consistently effective when adhered to. These safety protocols do not require an actor to verify the safety of the firearm, and this has been confirmed by a number of professional armorers commenting on this incident. This film set was clearly not adhering to these safety protocols. The negligence of those who were professionally responsible for gun safety on this set has now been established not merely through anecdotal evidence from witnesses and collegues but now we're seeing it from their own testimony.


I don't really need to elaborate further.



I think the problem is the 'human factor', humans screw up and aren't always reliable as we've seen from the set of Rust. An empty gun isn't dangerous, BUT mistakes happen and an 'empty gun' might not be so empty. It's best to always treat a gun like it's loaded, even if one is sure it's empty.
Not to split hairs, but Jinnistan posted that a gun without live ammo is harmless. He didnít say an ďempty gunĒ is harmless.

I do think weíve bludgeoned this to death now so Iím gonna move along.



minds his own damn business
Another interesting tidbit from Hannah Gutierrez-Reed's comments:

Dadís been teaching me a little bit every now and then about guns since I was 16. But I think we really got into the stuff more just really in the last couple of years.
Doesn't sound like it's accurate to call Thell his daughter's "trainer", and makes it less reasonable to consider him her professional voucher or to add him to the list of those responsible for her negligence here.



Not to split hairs, but Jinnistan posted that a gun without live ammo is harmless. He didnít say an ďempty gunĒ is harmless.

I do think weíve bludgeoned this to death now so Iím gonna move along.
I wasn't defending Jinnistan (or anyone) I was just trying to make a general statement to the board that maybe we all could agree on so that, like you just said, we could move on as we've bludgeoned this one to pieces. (not you, just the the thread in general)



Registered User
Two gun fatalities on a movie set in 30 years.
Overconfidence leads to tragedy. Familiarity leads to contempt. When standards get lax, a model with a single point of failure is exposed.

If Baldwin would have personally inspected the weapon (which does NOT prevent other people from doing their own jobs, but adds and additional check - more safety), Halyna Hutchins would be alive.

Actors who are untrained in firearms have had a consistently reasonable expectation for the professionals legally responsible for on-set gun safety to do their jobs properly. And in both cases of tragedy, the armorers on set when the accident happened were nonunion. Hm.
Do we really know everything that happens on all sets? Do almost all films proceed by way of a single-point of failure (and by extension "sin-eater" or "fall-guy" if something goes wrong) model? Keanu Reeves became a highly proficient three-gun shooter to train for John Wick. I am willing to bet part of the safety success rate reflects professional training in gun handling for actors on some sets.

Sure, I didn't just mention Baldwin's liability in the very post you're quoting. Trolls can be dishonest like that.
You're equivocating here. The central stasis is his responsibility as an actor, where you have only copped to his responsibility as a producer.

Shall I just call you a troll in every post going forward? Because this sort of blatant equivocation coupled with your repeated ad hominems can themselves be regarded as something a troll would do.

Baldwin doesn't appear to be the one thirsting for blood here.
But he is in need of redemption. Just as I would be if, through my negligence, I took a life while driving.



What do we think about a 11 year old actress being given a real gun to use in filming a movie? Should kids in movies ever handle a real gun, even if it's been declared safe by a weapons master?

Thoughts???

https://meaww.com/armorer-hannah-gut...thout-checking




minds his own damn business
When standards get lax, a model with a single point of failure is exposed.
It seems that the point of failure lies with those who allowed the standards to lax. The standards for an actor is in some amount of gun-training and to not point the gun at a person (and Baldwin appears to have been lax in this last instance, although I'm curious why the director designed a **** that involved this angle). Actors are not required to verify the safety of the weapon' ammunition.

Do we really know everything that happens on all sets?
We certainly hear when people get shot. It happens a decimal of a percent of movie shhots.

You're equivocating here. The central stasis is his responsibility as an actor, where you have only copped to his responsibility as a producer.
No, I've pointed out some of his issues with handling the weapon. You're dissastisfied that I'm not willing to place his blame above those with more conspicuous responsibility here.

Shall I just call you a troll in every post going forward?
When I start misattributing your posts with blatant falsehoods immediately after you've written them, sure, go for it.

Just as I would be if, through my negligence, I took a life while driving.
I'm starting to think you may have.



Registered User
What do we think about a 11 year old actress being given a real gun to use in filming a movie? Should kids in movies ever handle a real gun, even if it's been declared safe by a weapons master?

Thoughts???

https://meaww.com/armorer-hannah-gut...thout-checking

I think the objection raised in this case was not that the gun was "real" but that she did not check for a possible barrel obstruction before handing it off.

Another in this thread, of course, has maintained that guns cease to be real once they're unloaded, so that poster might offer an interesting answer to your question. We could, apparently, spread unloaded guns around a playroom with kids (as actors appear to have greater expectancy of competency than a child).

Before we get to carried away, we should note that Hailee Steinfeld appears to have handled a real weapon in True Grit.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/True_Grit_(2010)#Colt_Dragoon



minds his own damn business
It's hard to say in most circumstances, because Hannah Gutierrez-Reed appears to be an exceptionally irresponsible prop master. I haven't seen any evidence that she's received anyy of the necessary professional licenses to do the job.


Is it a coincidence that both films she's worked on were productions run by LLC capital funds? Such productions have taken advantage of the pandemic to make movies while most studio productions were scaling back. The cheapness of these productions are evident, and by most accounts this cheapness has directly led to cutting corners on maintaining safety protocols. Like with Zuckerberg, "safety" generally means "more costly".