Anonymous wrote:

I’m not an expert, but I’ve read comments by several different people who claim to know the process say that the armorer (or assistant director responsible for safety) is supposed to show the actor that the gun is unloaded, not just say it is.

This would indeed confirm that the gun was safe. But did it happen in THIS case?

Reportedly the armorer was not on set when this happened and was not the one to hand AB the gun, both breaches of safety protocols. An AD grabbed the gun from a cart with three guns and told him it was a cold gun. I doubt the AD even had the knowledge or ability to show AB it was unloaded.

Which is why the armorer is supposed to do it. The armorer is in charge of the guns on set— making sure they are cleaned, prepared, and functioning properly. There should never be a *cart of guns* sitting around for anyone, including an AD, to grab for any reason. No one should announce a gun is cold unless they know it is, because they are trained to know and inspected the gun themself. This is the whole point of both the armorer and the weapon safety protocol. It exists precisely to prevent an actor from handling a weapon that could harm someone, in a way that such harm might occur.

It is so telling that some of the Union members who quit cited improper gun safety on set. They were not armorers or props people or stunt people— the were camera people. Think about how lax gun safety on a set has to be for a cameraman, who has his own sh!t to worry about, to notice and become concerned. Carts of unattended guns lying around us the sort of thing a crew member would notice, and even if they were unfamiliar with weapon protocols, think “whoa that is not okay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ it wasn’t Baldwin at fault. It was the employee that gave him a loaded gun telling him it was a cold gun(clear of ammo). That’s the one negligent.

It’s the responsibility of the person holding the gun to make sure it is not loaded. Period.

+1 I wonder if Baldwin had taken any gun safety courses (I’m betting no)

He’s pretty anti gun, so I’d assume no. It’s a shame because if he had, he’d know the first rule is verify it’s not loaded.

Anti-gun people should fire a gun at least once in their lives in a safe environment. Gun safety is a useful skill to know. Know your enemy and all that.

All the more so someone who uses real guns for their job…

I’m not an expert, but I’ve read comments by several different people who claim to know the process say that the armorer (or assistant director responsible for safety) is supposed to show the actor that the gun is unloaded, not just say it is.

This would indeed confirm that the gun was safe. But did it happen in THIS case?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ETA my sentiment about checking a weapon is not to hold Baldwin culpable--just to say that in situations like this, gun safety should be everyone's priority, not just the armorer, because clearly mistakes are made.

By this logic, an actor about to drive a car on a movie set should also check the engine before starting the car.

Not the engine, but don’t you think they should check the brakes before driving it towards someone at speed?

If someone handed you a gun, and said it’s not loaded, would you put it to your head without checking? Would Alec Baldwin?

The brakes? No, this thread is getting to you. Take a breath, shake your fingers, buzz your lips a bit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ETA my sentiment about checking a weapon is not to hold Baldwin culpable--just to say that in situations like this, gun safety should be everyone's priority, not just the armorer, because clearly mistakes are made.

By this logic, an actor about to drive a car on a movie set should also check the engine before starting the car.

Not the engine, but don’t you think they should check the brakes before driving it towards someone at speed?

If someone handed you a gun, and said it’s not loaded, would you put it to your head without checking? Would Alec Baldwin?

Anonymous wrote:This is a good review of the legal issues:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/legal-analysis-does-alec-baldwin-have-criminal-exposure-after-shooting-woman-dead-in-apparent-mistake/

NP. That was super-interesting. Thank you!

Anonymous wrote:ETA my sentiment about checking a weapon is not to hold Baldwin culpable--just to say that in situations like this, gun safety should be everyone's priority, not just the armorer, because clearly mistakes are made.

By this logic, an actor about to drive a car on a movie set should also check the engine before starting the car.

Anonymous wrote:

"It’s the responsibility of the person holding the gun to make sure it is not loaded. Period."

Says who? In a normal situation when a person voluntarily shoots a gun without supervision, sure.

I'm not the PP, but I concur with the sentiment. I am sure actors and other staff assume and trust the armorers all the time. I just know that no one is ever going to be as concerned about my safety as I am.

I am curious to hear from people who know more about movie sets than I do why they still use weapons that can shoot anything.

I’m not an expert, but I’ve read comments by several different people who claim to know the process say that the armorer (or assistant director responsible for safety) is supposed to show the actor that the gun is unloaded, not just say it is.

Anonymous wrote:

"It’s the responsibility of the person holding the gun to make sure it is not loaded. Period."

Says who? In a normal situation when a person voluntarily shoots a gun without supervision, sure.

I'm not the PP, but I concur with the sentiment. I am sure actors and other staff assume and trust the armorers all the time. I just know that no one is ever going to be as concerned about my safety as I am.

I am curious to hear from people who know more about movie sets than I do why they still use weapons that can shoot anything.

It has been explained many times in this thread that added gunfire in post-production is much more expensive than using a gun on set. Also that many directors prefer the authenticity of real guns, and then many actors like to use real guns to help them get in the moment.

There are extensive safety procedures around the use of weapons on set that were clearly not followed here.

ETA my sentiment about checking a weapon is not to hold Baldwin culpable--just to say that in situations like this, gun safety should be everyone's priority, not just the armorer, because clearly mistakes are made.

"It’s the responsibility of the person holding the gun to make sure it is not loaded. Period."

Says who? In a normal situation when a person voluntarily shoots a gun without supervision, sure.

I'm not the PP, but I concur with the sentiment. I am sure actors and other staff assume and trust the armorers all the time. I just know that no one is ever going to be as concerned about my safety as I am.

I am curious to hear from people who know more about movie sets than I do why they still use weapons that can shoot anything.

This is a good review of the legal issues:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/10/legal-analysis-does-alec-baldwin-have-criminal-exposure-after-shooting-woman-dead-in-apparent-mistake/

"It’s the responsibility of the person holding the gun to make sure it is not loaded. Period."

Says who? In a normal situation when a person voluntarily shoots a gun without supervision, sure.

But lets say I am an actor with little or no knowledge of guns. I attend the required gun safety meeting.(Union was still there for that.) It's explained that the armorer will check the weapon. After that, the assistant director will check it to make sure it isn't loaded, and then hand it to me.

Here the gun was one of 3 guns on a cart outside the building. The armorer had checked them. The AD grabbed one off the cart. He was supposed to check it--despite several comments above that that wasn't his job, it sure sounds from reported protocols that it was. He probably should have attempted to fire it outside. We don't know it he did. Then he came into the building where AB was and handed it to AB saying "cold gun." Cold gun means there are NO blanks in the gun.

I don't think it's all that awful if the actor, who is not familiar with guns, assumes that the armorer and AD have checked the gun and there's nothing in it. AB might have thought the AD tested it outside the building where it was safer to do it. And he probably assumed that both the armorer and the AD were far more capable of checking the gun than he is.

Now there are reports that there were previous misfiring incidents. Company's release says there were no written complaints of any.

There is absolutely NO substantiated reports of ANY claim that the misfirings involved the same gun BaLdwin was using. Nor is there anything to indicate AB was aware of the misfirings. Please don't give me the "he was the producer" line. There were 3 other producers and an execurive producer.

Some of the claims that the union's complaints included gun safety were made AFTER the killing.

Neither the armorer nor the AD started working on the film after the union members quit. I have not seen ANY evidence that the presence of "scabs" was causually related in any way to the killing.

Personally, I think the union behaved badly by putting out the report that the gun had a live bullet, knowing full well that readers would think this means regular bullets.

Why don't we wait and see what the police investigation shows.

Was DCUM around when VP Dick Cheney shot the friend while hunting? Would love to read that thread vis a vis this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ it wasn’t Baldwin at fault. It was the employee that gave him a loaded gun telling him it was a cold gun(clear of ammo). That’s the one negligent.

It’s the responsibility of the person holding the gun to make sure it is not loaded. Period.

That makes the sheriff's job easy.

Why doesn't he know that?

It’s only been a few days. Alec Baldwin will 100% face manslaughter charges at some point.

You're ghoulish.