Maybe it'll change because of this incident. Hopefully it will.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Let's explore this racing car driver analogy a little bit. We've heard it a number of times.

We are told that our racing car driver need not "jump out, double check the fluid levels, make sure lug nuts are torqued to proper spec" when he pulls in for a pit stop. Of course not. Asking him to do so would be unnecessary.

We do, however, ask certain things of him as he drives that racing car. We expect him to monitor engine rpm's and keep them in a suitable range. We expect him to monitor the oil pressure, engine temperature, and other vital information. We expect him to know how hard he can mash the throttle under differing circumstances, as well as how hard he can apply the brakes. We expect him to know all of these things about the car he is driving. We expect him to have received instruction regarding these characteristics of the racing car that he will be driving, and to have become proficient at these things before taking the wheel for a race. We expect him to have practiced in that car long before he arrives at the race track to drive it.

No one is asking the actor to know how to disassemble and service the firearm they are handling. No one would expect Alec Baldwin to be able to replace the hammer and trigger on a Colt Single Action, properly setting its sear engagement so that it functions safely and reliably. No one would even expect him to know how to adjust the sights on a gun that has adjustable sights (the Colt he killed this young lady with does not). That is what the "pit crew" are for, that is their job.

We do, however, expect Alec Baldwin to know how to "drive" it, just as we expect that from our racing car driver. We expect him to be knowledgeable in the processes needed for monitoring its "vital signs", just as we expect that from the racing car driver. We expect him to notice when there is something wrong, or not quite right, and to take appropriate measures when he does so. Our racing car driver "sweeps" the gauges on his way out of the pits, looking for any indication there might be anything wrong. This "sweep", for Alec Baldwin, would have been a quick check as he was walking to to the set, a quick check to determine if the gun was indeed "cold". While our racing car driver trusts that his pit crew gave him a fully "ready" car, he still sweeps those gauges on his way out.

This is a far better racing car driver analogy than the one he have so far been presented. There are similarities, there are parallels, we have simply been presented with invalid ones in efforts to excuse Alec Baldwin's malfeasance. Presented with what is now a better, more closely matched analogy, we see even more so how thoroughly he botched this, and just how clearly responsible he really is for this young lady's death.

Craigster,

I don't know if you are trying to gas light us, maybe some maskrovka, or what.

Your analogies of being on a tight schedule are disingenuous as it takes seconds to check a firearm. I cannot think of any firearm that takes more than five seconds to check it's status, it literally takes longer to confirm the correct serial number when drawing a firearm.

You have tried to compare using a firearm at your (industry) level with flying. The short version you cannot be trained to do pre-start checks, start, do pre-taxi checks, and safely taxi in less than a day unless you have previous experience.

In contrast I can teach 5-12 year old kids basic firearm safety and demonstrate the negative results of trusting blanks (tomato soup can works well). Using 16 penny nails, pieces of 2X4, framing hammer(s), a full soda can and a .22LR let the kids drive the nails through the wood and have them attempt to crush the full can then put the 2X4 and can down range and shoot them to let them observe the ease of putting a hole in the wood and damage to the can. This is easily accomplished in less than a hour.

Your argument is that thespians cannot be trained to the standard of a five year old child and held to those minimums. Then you try and compare it that standard to others take many months if not years of training. The cost in time, money and effort are magnitudes apart.

S/F, FOG

The firearms safety rules that have been beaten to death in this thread are designed to make the use/user of the firearm as safe as practical when using the firearm for it's intended purpose of sending projectiles downrange. It takes two components to perform the designed intention. The firearm AND the correct, live ammunition. When both are (or are likely to be) present, assuming a weapon is always loaded is undoubtedly the correct procedure. Yet, accidents can (and still do) happen, even with highly trained personnel.

Without ammunition, a hand gun is about as lethal as a brick. Either one could crush a skull with the proper application of force. Without ammunition, a long gun is more equivalent in lethality to a baseball bat, or 2 X 4. Neither type of firearm is capable of discharging a bullet when no ammunition is available.

A movie set is a dedicated and controlled area intended to be used for very specific activities. One where live ammunition is strictly prohibited. As such, rules about handing firearms AND the corresponding live ammunition are superfluous to the task being performed. On many occasions, the firearm its self, is not even the most dangerous aspect of a scene. Shooter hanging out of moving car, shooter working from dangerous height, other pyrotechnics in the scene......dozens of possibilities.

The fault here (and primary responsibility) clearly lies with whomever brought the live ammunition on set. Accidental shootings/deaths require both the ammunition and the weapon designed to fire it.

Baldwin said at Hutchins’ direction he pulled the hammer back.

“I let go of the hammer and ‘bang’ the gun goes off,” he said.

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/nation-world/alec-baldwin-says-not-responsible-for-rust-shooting/507-a4700898-442c-411b-8788-042f73c6aea7?fbclid=IwAR3rNny7R2uyuYMcp53Sz8z30hy3 HGxkVqdJvCOpkEXY1SsWZfJ6-G2fNj4

Is it possible that the gun had a mechanical fault?

Regardless he should just STFU... Imagine being the lawyer representing this idiot.

Bet he had the trigger pressed when he dropped the hammer

Not sure what we are questioning, because it happened.. it’s sad for everyone, the failure was everyone’s and someone died, own it!

AB "someone is responsible but it ain't me"

He can't own that he killed someone. Not my fault. Someone else. I didn't kill her. Someone else did.

I’ve been next to camera on a lot of sets with a lot of guns over almost 30 years and Craig speaks for my experience too ( that being the received British, the Hollywood and the Australian ways ) for what that’s worth.

It isn’t difficult to appreciate the monsters of budgeting, time constraints, scheduling, costs, etc. of moviemaking. However, in my extremely limited experience in it, there is tons and tons of down time when it appears that nothing is happening. Lots of standing around while somebody fixes the lighting, chases down some piece of equipment, etc. where people get impatient, lose focus and become lax with safety. IMO, that’s exactly what happened.

I was watching a news show this morning that had on for interview a long time movie set armorer . In his opinion the firing of the pistol can only happen two ways .

1.Cock the hammer , aim and pull the trigger .
2.Have the trigger pressed , attempt to cock the hammer and let go and the pistol fires .

He politely disagreed with AB that he didn't pull the trigger . Hopefully the investigation is well run and all facts will be known and the law/s will be applied as needed/proven .

Thank you for explaining it better than I could and sorry for the half assed analogies I presented. The bottom line as I've said before is that there is NEVER supposed to be live ammo anywhere near studio or set. And "muzzle awareness" is usually practiced (for that AB was guilty) but you would never, on a film set, expect a gun to have a live round. It just does not happen. For that someone is guilty and liable.

During setup, lighting changes, etc the weapon is in possession of the Armorer. It should only be in the actors possession when filming. And a rubber or non working replica should be used for rehearsals. All of those protocols were broken.

As I have lurked and watched this thread ramble on, that was all that needed t be said.

Discussions such as this seldom, if ever, need nearly 20 pages.

And, not to be critical, unnecessary also is your post. No one here is under the delusion that our ‘ramblings‘ will change the world. If anything, it helps us firm up or revise our own opinions one way or the other.

Touché.

I've seen 757 posts in this thread and a huge portion of them are due to those that are applying regular gun handling protocols to a Hollywood set situation, which is not valid. Obviously, the Hollywood protocols were almost entirely ignored on the set of Rust, and it's hard to believe this is a one-off failure. It's likely the worst failure ever, but I have to assume there's been many failures along the way that didn't result in an individual's death. Didn't the armorer discharge a weapon herself on her one previous job as armorer.

The Hollywood protocols (in my opinion) are far superior to the standard protocols if followed correctly. It puts experts in charge of safety vs thousands of inexperienced actors over the years getting tutored on the spot while distracted with their acting job.

I think the armorer's job should require increased training, certification, and bonding, and movie/TV productions as well to successfully interface and obey the armorer's guidance. Probably the presence of firearms capable of firing live rounds should be discontinued except for rare situations when actually needed.

As I’ve stated before, Actors/Extras aren’t allowed to fiddle with the gun. Imagine a battle scene with many actors/extras with weapons that will be firing blanks. Extras will do stupid things like pointing them at each other, sticking the barrel in the dirt, etc.

The Armorer SHOULD have the necessary assistants to monitor what is going on. You don’t want the actor/extra looking down the barrel, opening the guns in anyway. He/she shouldn’t “checking” anything. What if they open it or decide it would be “funny” to stick a pebble or dirt in the barrel? You can’t do real vetting or background checks on extras (hundreds of extras who show up at their call time, often staggered crew calls due to the number of extras, and union rules on hours worked). You can, and must do, some basic firearms safety training.


I agree with Craigster, irrespective of what AB says, he is perhaps responsible for hiring the Armorer, IF he was a Producer who was involved in hiring decisions. Many Producers are in name only.

And I don’t like AB’s politics one single bit. He’s an arrogant SOB.

Right, but isn't the point of guns to point them at people. And there is pretty much NEVER a time when you're supposed to point a car at a person. Although, that happens in movies too.