Doesn’t the fact that he shot two people suggest that he did “aim it at someone?”
I don’t know anything about guns so that sounds like a fair question to me.
I could hypothesize that he was practicing, as reported. Maybe on his first practice draw, he cocked the hammer, and then it was just cocked the entire time. Then the third (or whichever) time he tried it, maybe it slipped in his hand and his finger knocked into the trigger.
Again, I know nothing about guns. Is that theoretically possible?
Let me pose you a question, are you familiar with any common rules of gun safety promulgated by various groups like the NRA, handgun instructors, police departments, or etc, that would ever say it is okay to point a gun at another person for any reason other than a legal defense use or some legal police/military use? I’m not. So since we know that theatrical gun use often violates this core principle of regular gun use, I can safely say I am pretty fucking sure that regular gun safety and theatrical gun safety are not the same.
I saw a lot of people saying the same stuff in this thread. Other things I saw stated in this thread:
- Firearms capable of being loaded with real ammo aren’t kept on set
- Real ammo is never on set
- The actor never does a safety check because if they manipulate the firearm at all, it has to be rechecked by the armorer
- You never point a gun at anyone on set
For all these “nevers and always” as more information has come out it is quite clear to me that:
- Real firearms are used on sets, not just Rust
- Real ammo is probably almost never on set, so that is a major exception to the norm
- Whether or not the actor does a safety check appears to be highly variable
- There are plenty of situations on set where you do point a gun at people for specific scenes
My guess is some of this is communication breakdown, we’re getting scattered comments from industry professionals that get taken out of context. Even a careful review of films shows there are many obvious instances in which a gun was pointed direct at a camera or direct at a person. Most likely when some people have stated “you never point a gun at someone on set”, they were saying it in the context of something like “you don’t horse around with your prop gun, play around with it, point it at people as a game etc”, i.e. the prop gun isn’t a toy. But it’s still not treated like a real gun.
No?
Not everyone hits everything they aim at 100% of the time. Put another way, hitting something is not evidence of aiming at that thing. Well, I’m not a lawyer; maybe it’s circumstantial evidence. But it’s not direct evidence, no.
That’s why you have to call your shots in pool.
Of couse not. Unaimed fire is a thing. A real thing, a dangerous thing, and sometimes a deadly thing.
If the gun discharged accidentally during repeated attempts at a “cross draw” it’s possible he wasn’t aiming at all, other than vaguely towards the camera since that’s where his scene was. While we are still not getting the full details, what’s come out in the last 24 hours suggest he was practicing (on camera) a seated cross draw and that likely they were going to film the take once he had the motion down comfortably, I assume there were people near the camera giving him feedback on how the draw looked.
Once cocked a single action revolver is very dangerous because it only requires like 1/8th of a full trigger pull to fire, if the hammer was accidentally cocked, or intentionally cocked for some reason, or intentionally cocked but then he forgot to uncock it etc, it’d be very easy for him to fumble around and accidentally discharge doing something like that with a single action revolver. If the gun had dummy rounds (inert, no powder) all that would have happened is he’d have dry-fired the gun, no big deal. That is what should have been the case.
That’s completely false because this is nothing at all like a death with a regular firearm. If these were all new actors no one had ever heard of on their first film, this would still be newsworthy, because the last time something like this happened was 28 years ago! That shows how incredibly rare and unusual this is.
Yeah, agreed. Any death on a movie set is big news.
The bullet went through one into the other. Unless you think he was trying to, “one-shot, two-kills” them I don’t think that follows.
Which is why I said you follow all safety rules PLUS additional protocols for the riskier use of the gun.
Did you see me say any of them? I’m not responsible for what other people say in this thread. It is true that real ammo should never be on set - that’s the first failure here. And you are assuming that ‘performing a safety check’ means the actor is handling the gun. As has been explained numerous times, this is almost always done by the armorer for the actor, but it IS done.
I’d really like to know some specific details of the revolvers they were using, if they were historically accurate Colt .45 single action revolvers then they are significantly more dangerous than guns most people are familiar with. They likely are more dangerous than any guns Baldwin has ever worked with, since I don’t see any Westerns on his filmography. Accidental discharges were considered a serious safety flaw of old model single action revolvers–again, to the point “safe carry” was considered the hammer over an empty chamber, these guns were not nearly as trustworthy as modern guns. The reason is the design of the revolver meant the hammer rested right against the primer, so if the hammer was struck hard enough, that force would be imparted directly through the hammer into the primer triggering the primer detonating and causing the bullet to fire. That’s why these guns were not “drop safe.”
Modern single action revolvers the hammer cannot touch the primer without a trigger pull, so they are far safer.
Although even a modern single action revolver is a good bit more dangerous for many users than most other gun types–because the trigger is still functionally a “hair trigger” on a cocked single action–because again, the mechanics of the hammer / trigger is that when the hammer is cocked, you only need about 1/8th of a trigger press to complete the trigger pull and cause the gun to fire.
The fact there had been multiple accidental discharges on set, suggests to me actors who were unfamiliar with the weapons they were using. I would assume, without knowing, that in Westerns that use guns like this, a professional armorer probably makes sure the actors are very specifically educated on the single action revolver, and understand that it is different from a semiautomatic pistol or a double action revolver, and needs to be understood as such.
At the end of the day, you’ve presented no firm evidence Baldwin wasn’t following safety rules actors are commonly expected to follow. Sans some sort of meaningful point I don’t really know that what you’re saying has any real meaning. We have no idea if Baldwin broke any rules, and there is at least some evidence to suggest a number of people who THINK they know “rules” actors are supposed to follow on set, don’t actually know them. In that environment I’ll wait to hear from the actual experts and the investigation before I conclude Baldwin broke any rules actors are supposed to follow.
Not only no, but hell fucking no. Blanks are also dangerous as was discussed earlier regarding a death of an actor.
The term “prop gun” does not mean it’s a rubber toy gun. It just means something that is used as a prop. It can be anything, loaded with anything.
Whether Baldwin intended it or not, the gun was aimed at the woman who was killed. I don’t see how that fact can be argued.
So you think the standard gun safety rules should apply even on a movie set? Isn’t one of those rules “never point a gun at a person”? If so, that’s going to limit many, many productions, as that’s commonly done when portraying gun violence.
You could be right and It might be rare but you’re going to have to cite the statistics between number of guns handled in the entertainment business and other gun users. That includes, private owners, police, and military.
Keep in mind there are people paid to oversee actors vs the other groups I mentioned.
Yes, a thousand times yes.
Yes, and that is why there are people specifically overseeing actors.
So even with “people specifically overseeing actors” you think no one should ever point a gun at a person on a movie set?
Again, this has not been established. Aiming implies intent. An accidental discharge is pointed at something, not aimed at something.
10 years ago Plaxico Burress brought a loaded gun into a nightclub in New York City tucked into the waistband of his sweatpants. The gun of course slipped out, hit the ground, and fired. He was immediately off the team and went to jail. F****** dumbass.
In the Plaxico Burress case, would you also say that the gun was aimed? If so, you’re consistent, but you’re using the word aim incorrectly.
If live ammo is not allowed on set, or is very rarely on set, and live ammo was involved in this shooting, has anyone posed the possibility that someone put live ammo in the gun with malicious intent? Not likely, I suppose, but movie people aren’t immune to homicidal ideation.