Rust armorer found guilty

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Tobra

My understanding is a disbelief that basic gun safety is the same everywhere but on a movie set.

That is where I am at with it anyway, and it does not make a bit of sense to me.

I am anal retentive about checking a firearm when it's handed to me (even if I see the person check it), and always know where the muzzle is pointed. But I understand the difference. No way would a "quick draw" ... a quick cross draw (the muzzle would arc .... what ... at least 120 degrees), and fanning the spoon ... of course the trigger is held, ever enter my world .... my real world. Checking .... I wouldn't know a revolver loaded with live rounds, blanks, dummy rounds... the gun is loaded .... just like I treat every gun.

Movie sets aren't the "real world" .... they just aren't imo.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by masraum

This is what many of us think, but Jeff differs in that he believes that every actor should be responsible for treating every gun on a set like a real gun and being responsible for verifying the situation.

Originally Posted by MMARSH

I know he does. Now, I'm sure we are gonna see at least seven paragraphs on why he feels that way.

No, just a few words. I see a clear division regarding the two different camps on this - one camp are "gun guys", the other camp are not. "Gun guys" will absolutely never accept, under any circumstances, the "Hollywood approach" to gun safety that the non-gun guys appear comfortable with. You know, the approach that resulted in this woman's needless death.

Originally Posted by Tobra

My understanding is a disbelief that basic gun safety is the same everywhere but on a movie set.

That is where I am at with it anyway, and it does not make a bit of sense to me.

Me neither. Seconds, mere seconds to check that gun. It just boggles the mind the lengths to which some will go to justify not spending those several seconds. Several seconds that would have saved that woman's life. Incredible.

[KFC911]

I'm a gun guy, MMarsh is a gun guy, Craigster is a gun guy .... we disagree with you

[Jeff Higgins]

I disagree that they are "gun guys". Not even close.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I disagree that they are "gun guys". Not even close.

So we disagree on that too

How many guns, and for how many decades does it take to be a "gun guy"

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

No, just a few words. I see a clear division regarding the two different camps on this - one camp are "gun guys", the other camp are not. "Gun guys" will absolutely never accept, under any circumstances, the "Hollywood approach" to gun safety that the non-gun guys appear comfortable with. You know, the approach that resulted in this woman's needless death.



Me neither. Seconds, mere seconds to check that gun. It just boggles the mind the lengths to which some will go to justify not spending those several seconds. Several seconds that would have saved that woman's life. Incredible.

Follow procedures and either system works perfectly. Don't follow procedure and either method will fail.

The movie set wants to limit the number of people loading and unloading the weapon. I can understand that reasoning. If Craigsters count of 3 deaths on movie sets is accurate I would say that their safety performance has been outstanding. I am sure there have been many deaths due to people not following public gun safety...always check the gun...and that policy also has an outstanding safety record, though, like the movie set, not a perfect record.

No policy is foolproof. Humans make mistakes.

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I disagree that they are "gun guys". Not even close.

It sounds like based on your definition. Most armorers on movie sets aren't gun guys either.

[Jeff Higgins]

Lots of folks handle guns as a part of their jobs. LEO are obvious examples. Pretty much every one of them I know personally, or have ever met, however, have no abiding interest in guns. They are just a tool, like their baton, RADAR gun, cruiser, motorcycle, whatever. They have no personal guns, don't spend any time at the range beyond that required for qualification, etc. Which is fine - I'm not sure we would want a "gun nut" like me to be an LEO...

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by MMARSH

It sounds like based on your definition. Most armorers on movie sets aren't gun guys either.

I find that surprising. I don't think there is any way to actually verify such a claim. Where did you get this information?

In this case, Hanna Guiterez-Reed is absolutely a "gun girl". She grew up around them, under the tutelage of her father, Thell Reed. Mr. Reed is one of the most accomplished and respected shooters of our time. He was a part of Jeff Cooper's original So Cal bunch who pretty much introduced and got off the ground "practical" handgun shooting competitions as we know them today. Interestingly, while everyone else was using M1911's, Mr. Reed was kicking their asses with, of all things, Colt Peacemakers. He carried two, so he wouldn't have to reload in the middle of a stage. The only way the rest could beat him was by making a rule that they could only use one gun.

[Sooner or later]

Safety procedures on set appear to have been lax, at best. Dangerous at worst.

What makes you think that the policy you propose would be 100% effective on the Rust set? They failed to follow other safety procedures that would have prevented the shooting. Why follow the new one on set?

The flaw in your logic is that your method, due to human error, is also not 100% effective.

[KFC911]

My cousin's husband ('nam vet), long haired, hippie looking motorcycle narc, (later ran for sheriff) was shot on the courthouse steps by his deputy "friend" fooling around... he was lucky to survive. My two former LEO tennants (one a trained sniper) and a "gun nut" had the poorest gun protocols I've ever seen....

Hollywood movie sets are different imo .... they just are.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Safety procedures on set appear to have been lax, at best. Dangerous at worst.

What makes you think that the policy you propose would be 100% effective on the Rust set? They failed to follow other safety procedures that would have prevented the shooting. Why follow the new one on set?

The flaw in your logic is that your method, due to human error, is also not 100% effective.

And this is what I don't get either ... on a movie set, an actor would open the revolver and see rounds in the chamber (live, dummies, blanks) .... what does he do?

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Lots of folks handle guns as a part of their jobs. LEO are obvious examples. Pretty much every one of them I know personally, or have ever met, however, have no abiding interest in guns. They are just a tool, like their baton, RADAR gun, cruiser, motorcycle, whatever. They have no personal guns, don't spend any time at the range beyond that required for qualification, etc. Which is fine - I'm not sure we would want a "gun nut" like me to be an LEO...

Well surely you won't argue with me about who knows more LEO. I would say it's about 50/50. I have personal LEO friends that are total gun fanatics and some that it's just a tool.

Personally. I have guns, I occasionally shoot them to stay proficient. I've shown and instructed my wife and kids how to safely handle and use them. But I'm definitely not a "gun nut" I don't keep them stashed in different cubbies around the house and I don't feel naked if I leave the house without one strapped in a holster.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Safety procedures on set appear to have been lax, at best. Dangerous at worst.

What makes you think that the policy you propose would be 100% effective on the Rust set? They failed to follow other safety procedures that would have prevented the shooting. Why follow the new one on set?

The flaw in your logic is that your method, due to human error, is also not 100% effective.

Of course the very best, most robust safety protocols, if not followed, will fail. That's a given. We all know that. It is for that reason that basic gun safety protocols are "layered". If one fails, or if one failed to be heeded, there are several more between there and disaster.

I've been a member of the same gun club for going on 40 years. Its establishment predates my membership by at least that. Over the years, tens of thousands of members have come and gone. It's the biggest outdoor shooting facility in all of Western Washington. We currently have several thousand active members who enjoy two outdoor rifle ranges, one outdoor pistol, trap, skeet, five stand, traditional archery, walk through archery, and indoor rimfire ranges. It would be fair to say that several million rounds have been expended there. Hell, maybe even every year.

We have an absolutely perfect safety record. No one has ever been hurt, much less killed. We have had accidental (more appropriately called "negligent" in my book) discharges. Yet, because of this "layered safety", no one has ever been hurt.

Our record speaks for itself, as well as for traditional gun safety protocols.

[L8Brakr]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Follow procedures and either system works perfectly. Don't follow procedure and either method will fail.

The movie set wants to limit the number of people loading and unloading the weapon. I can understand that reasoning. If Craigsters count of 3 deaths on movie sets is accurate I would say that their safety performance has been outstanding. I am sure there have been many deaths due to people not following public gun safety...always check the gun...and that policy also has an outstanding safety record, though, like the movie set, not a perfect record.

No policy is foolproof. Humans make mistakes.

Well said. 100%

How many gun range safety procedures were violated in making great movie moments like below? Rhetorical question.......

No live rounds on the set......no one gets shot. It's that simple.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by MMARSH

Well surely you won't argue with me about who knows more LEO. I would say it's about 50/50. I have personal LEO friends that are total gun fanatics and some that it's just a tool.

Of course I'm gonna argue with you, Michael. It's what we do around here...

My early "shooting mentors" who took me under their wings after my father died (I was 18) were both cops. Two of the most devoted shooters I've ever known. They taught me to really shoot, to reload ammunition, to cast bullets, and other necessary skills. I met many of their partners on the Seattle PD who accompanied us on our shooting forays up to the gravel pit. Treasured memories.

Originally Posted by MMARSH

Personally. I have guns, I occasionally shoot them to stay proficient. I've shown and instructed my wife and kids how to safely handle and use them. But I'm definitely not a "gun nut" I don't keep them stashed in different cubbies around the house and I don't feel naked if I leave the house without one strapped in a holster.

Yeah, but I bet you feel naked if you're not on a motorcycle...

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I find that surprising. I don't think there is any way to actually verify such a claim. Where did you get this information?

In this case, Hanna Guiterez-Reed is absolutely a "gun girl". She grew up around them, under the tutelage of her father, Thell Reed. Mr. Reed is one of the most accomplished and respected shooters of our time. He was a part of Jeff Cooper's original So Cal bunch who pretty much introduced and got off the ground "practical" handgun shooting competitions as we know them today. Interestingly, while everyone else was using M1911's, Mr. Reed was kicking their asses with, of all things, Colt Peacemakers. He carried two, so he wouldn't have to reload in the middle of a stage. The only way the rest could beat him was by making a rule that they could only use one gun.

Ok. And if Mr Reed was the Armorer on the set, what do you think his rules would be regarding an actor handling guns, after he or another Armorer gave it to them.

[L8Brakr]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Follow procedures and either system works perfectly. Don't follow procedure and either method will fail.

The movie set wants to limit the number of people loading and unloading the weapon. I can understand that reasoning. If Craigsters count of 3 deaths on movie sets is accurate I would say that their safety performance has been outstanding. I am sure there have been many deaths due to people not following public gun safety...always check the gun...and that policy also has an outstanding safety record, though, like the movie set, not a perfect record.

No policy is foolproof. Humans make mistakes.

Well said. 100%

How many gun range safety procedures were violated in making great movie moments like below? Rhetorical question.......

No live rounds on the set......no one gets shot. It's that simple.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by MMARSH

Ok. And if Mr Reed was the Armorer on the set, what do you think his rules would be regarding an actor handling guns, after he or another Armorer gave it to them.

Or handed it back to Mr. Reed because it had rounds in it?

[MMARSH]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Of course I'm gonna argue with you, Michael. It's what we do around here...

My early "shooting mentors" who took me under their wings after my father died (I was 18) were both cops. Two of the most devoted shooters I've ever known. They taught me to really shoot, to reload ammunition, to cast bullets, and other necessary skills. I met many of their partners on the Seattle PD who accompanied us on our shooting forays up to the gravel pit. Treasured memories.



Yeah, but I bet you feel naked if you're not on a motorcycle...

This we definitely agree on.