I suppose. Maybe all movies will eventually be fully CGI so there is zero risk of injury or death in making films. The worst of it will be carpel tunnel for the effects artists, and horse voices for the voice actors.
Truly, there are no other options. 
8 Likes
Maybe they already do, and you just think they use CGI.
3 Likes
Which is why I put right in italics.
The process failed – if the process was replaced with one that a viable weapon cannot be on a set then this accident could not happen.
1 Like
5 Likes
Don’t design a process before an investigation is complete. After all
- “LIVE AMMUNITION” will not be kept on the set for any longer than is necessary to complete the scene in which it is being used. “LIVE AMMUNITION” shall be secured in a locked box and clearly marked in a manner to differentiate it from blank ammunition.
And yet…
1 Like
Not convinced that a film set needs live ammunition EVER.
If only there were visually aware and creative people making movies who could develop techniques and visual languages such that could do away with any requirement for a viable weapon. /S
1 Like
And yet someone didn’t follow the process and someone died. Just like any other safety procedure that is ignore/done incorrectly.
While I agree that having live ammo on set is a needless risk, this document shows that if there was, there were protocols in place which, if followed, makes it 100% safe. I guess I could see a handful of scenes where it makes sense to use live ammo - but this document makes it sound like it is a very rare occurrence in very special circumstances.
There are four kinds of occupational deaths:
-
Complete freak accidents, act of God sort of things one could never reasonably foresee.
-
Accidents where a process or tool being used is dangerous and done/used in such a way that resulted in death. These are the sort of accidents that often lead to new safety protocols in the future.
-
Accident where established safety protocols are not followed.
-
Equipment failure. This could be because of any reason above. Some equipment failure is from lack of maintenance, some from best practices not established (e.g. there needs to be a rule about checking equipment for fatigue every 6mo, etc.), some from a manufacturing defect, and some from just a random failure no one could foresee.
The main cause of this accident is number 3. There is not a problem with the process - there is a problem with the established process not being followed. I am not sure why the inclination for some is the need to completely restructure the process - the process works when followed. There were failures to adhere to it, probably on multiple levels. Plus a possibility of equipment failure contributing to WHEN the accident occurred.
This is just like if someone isn’t strapped into a harness properly and falls. Or uses a ladder in a dangerous way and falls, Or is going too fast in a vehicle and crashes. Or isn’t using the proper safety equipment and gets hurt (helmet, seat belts/harness, etc)
Though I will reiterate, that having live ammo on set is maybe a rule that should be change - it doesn’t appear this production followed any of the rules set forth in that document. And I will reiterate that movie makers should use what ever tools that they want to use. I am not saying they have to or should use prop firearms, just that there is no reason not too if the protocols are properly followed.
Ok, I just watched the news and it had a new clip from the interview. He says he was rehearsing the scene, and he was working with Halyna Hutchins setting up the scene.
“I draw the gun out and I find a mark. So, I take the gun and I start to cock the gun, I’m not going to pull the trigger. And I said, ‘Do you see-’ (this part makes it sound like she is talking) ‘well just cheat it down and tilt it down a little bit like that.’ And then I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the gun goes off.”
Ok - well now we have a clear account of the steps that happened to lead to this accident. IF he had his finger on the trigger, a single action gun in proper working order will fire if you pull back the hammer and let it go. You might see in a western people “fanning” the hammer, but holding the trigger down and just slapping the hammer back repeatedly, firing with each hammer blow. So if he had unconsciously had his finger on the trigger, letting the hammer go will cause it to fire.
It is still possible that it went off with his finger off of the trigger. If he was not quite at the half cock notch on the hammer, then letting the hammer go will strike the primer, lightly, but will probably go off. You are supposed to ease down the hammer (and this, in general, is a hazardous thing to do and one has to be careful doing it, especially if you don’t have a transfer safety bar. (Older semiautomatic guns with hammers are the same way, like the 1911.)
If it was cocked back past the half cock notch, but not fully cocked, it could have enough force to slip over the half cock notch and fire.
So he should not have let go of the hammer. That is a bad practice. If no one ever trained him, he wouldn’t know not to do that. But it is possible he never pulled the trigger.
The main issue, IMO, is there were live rounds on set that never should have been. The actor could also have had better handling training.
1 Like
And here it is. This is the problem.
Alec Baldwin “KNEW” the gun was cold because someone yelled out “Cold Gun” before handing it to him. He said that’s the process.
And if it is the process, that’s why the process is wrong.
There’s only ONE way to know if a gun is “hot” or “cold”, period, and that is that the person taking possession of the weapon that can kill people verifies themselves if it is capable of firing.
1 Like
IMO - that should be delegated to the person who is in charge of the props.
I don’t know how accurate the dummy rounds they use are. It might be very difficult to tell at a glance between them and a live round, and not something one could tell easily from opening the load gate and spinning the cylinder.
Different handling - lowering the hammer with your thumb - may have prevented the round from going off at that time, but if there was a time that the script called for the trigger to be pulled, it could have shot someone.
As I said above, I don’t think Baldwin the actor shares much of the culpability.
Baldwin the producer might, if he was the one who allowed such lax protocols, hiring of armorers/prop wranglers, and the general chaos on set that cause a lot of the crew to leave earlier.
Who ever introduced the live ammo on the set shares the most culpability, followed by the person(s) who are i charge of properly loading and keeping the props, and perhaps others who contributed to the event.
2 Likes
No, it should be on whoever is handling the gun at the time.
We have very good rules for gun safety, and inventing new ones because it’s inconvenient for rich movie stars is why we’re at where we’re at now. In this case, the person responsible for knowing whether Alec Baldwin’s gun was hot or not IS ALEC BALDWIN. Period. That’s what gun safety classes teach. That’s what gun handling classes teach. It’s not something that can be put onto someone else. It’s on the person handling the gun to determine whether or not the gun is loaded, period. No compromising that rule. No transferring it’s responsibility to someone else. And if he can’t discern the difference between live rounds or dummy rounds or weighted non fireable rounds, he shouldn’t handle the gun period. And that’s on HIM. 100%, totally, completely, on him.
We need to stop treating negligent gun crimes like “accidents” based on who the shooter was.
1 Like
How much industry experience do you have? Have you ever handled a gun with dummy rounds?
I think there is a huge difference between general use gun safety, and on set prop safety that includes the use of dummy rounds and blanks. They are two different uses with two different sets of safety protocols. Some of them over lap yes.
Having a single person or team in charge of prop weapons and safety is generally how it is done in the movies, and these specialized safety personnel should have the experience to properly handle the props and train the actors.
Just like for an action scene with stunt men or actors you have people doing the rigging and what not. The people doing the rigging are the experts expected to keep the scene safe.
Let me ask you - who was responsible for Brandon Lee’s death?
3 Likes
7 Likes
Given that gun manufacturers are insulated from certain kinds of product liability, there’s a political impetus to believe a legal fiction is actually fictional.
I don’t believe that’s one kind of liability they are insulated from. Considering I own a revolver which was recalled for a safety upgrade to fix this specific fault. The cost of doing that is quite signifigant, so their motivation to perform the fix must have been motivated by an equally signifigant concern of liability.
The fix looks like it would take a few hours by a skilled gunsmith and that’s not doesn’t come cheap. It probably amounted to a good fraction of the original cost of the firearm.
I don’t know the specific liability they are shileded from, but I bet it’s more in terms of people doing things with their products and not what the products may do to their users.
FWIW, the design defect was that there was nothing to keep the firing pin from impinging on the primer before the hammer was fully cocked. They added a block to the firing pin so that it cannot move unless the trigger has reached the fully cocked position. Apparently, they had some modes of failure for pistols in the half cocked position–which is support to be the ‘safe’ transport state. Then again, these are firearms, safety is a very relative term.
1 Like
I grew up in the south. I’ve handled a gun with blanks, with live rounds, with weighted rounds (for practice/feel), with expensive bullets, with cheap bullets, with homemade bullets. I’ve handled shotguns, and handguns, and rifles of all types. I’ve handled homemade “zip” guns, illegally made / converted full auto guns, and the whole lineup of bullshit that are guns.
My point is “industry” experience is bullshit. Stepping onto a movie set doesn’t change how guns operate.
Ultimately, the person who fired the gun without checking the gun before firing it. Yes, there are a lineup of mistakes made along the way, but there’s only one person pulling the trigger.
I don’t get why this is an issue. A gun doesn’t change because it’s called a “prop.” It doesn’t become somehow magically different because it’s on a movie set. IN this thread here, we’re finding every reason NOT to train movie actors on proper gun safety whereas three threads over there, we’re talking about how parents should be blamed for giving a loaded gun to someone who wasn’t mentally okay to have one. (Michigan school shooter’s parents giving someone mentally untrained and unprepared to safely handle a gun, vs prop master giving someone untrained and unprepared to safely handle a gun)
The guns are the same things between each of these threads. They operate exactly the same ways. There’s zero difference between the gun safety in “the real world” and the gun safety “on set.” We’ve compromised gun safety on set because “there are timelines and costs and don’tcha know.” My argument is that we need to NOT compromise those standards of safety.
1 Like
