I understand the impulse, but this is simply not possible. Would all weapons be banned? What if someone who legally had a gun filmed themselves for 3 minutes? Etc.
A gun shouldn’t be allowed to be used with all these safety protocols in place if people are allowed to also screw around with it recreationally at the same time.
I’m aware of a situation where a man’s friend was taking a look at his new gun and shot off the first man’s penis–not intending to discharge the weapon, not aiming, accidentally. This explanation was upheld legally.
What I hope to see happen is that this will spur Hollywood to make a few fewer films that feature gunplay. The popularity of guns is already trending down with younger generations; this could resonate with that and result in a steady decrease in the presence (and glorification) of guns in popular media and a further decrease in ownership among younger generations.
Ya know: a slippery slope.
I don’t think catching the hammer is likely, but if Baldwin was practicing a draw he likely also had to practice drawing while thumbing the hammer. So either he thumbed the hammer and re-holstered the gun, and the second time he discharged it while drawing, or possibly he was practicing drawing while thumbing the hammer and the hammer slipped off his thumb.
I’ve used the Colt SAA. It’s actually a pretty unsafe gun that requires a lot of care. For example, it can’t be fired until cocked, but once it’s cocked it can’t be made safe again without manually lowering the hammer while holding the trigger. Very easy to have thr hammer slip and discharge that way.
Inspecting it is also a lot harder than in other revolvers and automatics. With most automatics, you just drop the magazine and rack the slide and it will lock open for easy inspection. On most revolvers, the entire cylinder will swing out so you can inspect every chamber and the barrel. On the Single Action Army, the cylinder doesn’t swing out, so there’s a ‘loading port’ with a door on the side of the gun, and that’s how you feed cartridges in. If you want to inspect every cartridge or unload the gun, you have to half-cock the hammer, which allows the cylinder to turn freely, then you rotate it to each cylinder position, use the ejector rod to push out the bullet, then repeat. Time consuming and fiddly, and someone who doesn’t know what they are doing might just open the port, note that there’s no cartridge in that position and decide the gun is ‘cold’ even though there could be other bullets in the gun.
Also, there is no drawbar safety in front of the hammer, so if you let the hammer down on a live bullet the firing pin is resting on the primer and a good whack to the hammer can discharge the gun - say, if it’s dropped. On modern guns this can’t happen.
And yeah, with the hammer back thd trigger is very light. That’s common on most revolvers, but at least on the SAA I’ve used it was really light.
Incidentally, my first exposure to that model of gun was from my mother’s boyfriend. I was probably ten, and he brought his Colt over to show me, probably to try to win me over about dating Mom. Anyway, the first thing he did was set up a piece of plywood, then put a blank round in the gun and fire it at the plywood from maybe 2 feet away. It blew a big hole right through the plywood. The lesson: Guns are always dangerous - even with blanks, even if you think they are empty. I never forgot it. Mom eventually kicked him to the curb anywsy.
“…list of people who should have looked at the weapon.”
What makes you think that not one of them looked at the weapon, let alone all three of them?
If you start with the assumption that there are no real bullets on site, so that the only cartridges that exist are either dummy rounds (which look exactly like real bullets, especially when loaded in the cylinder) or blank rounds (which look similar to real bullets, but instead of a lead projectile in the end, it is either crimped or has paper or plastic wadding in the end). If the armorer and the AD had no knowledge that the guns had been used recreationally the night before, then when they inspected the gun, it would look like it did the day before, a gun loaded with dummy rounds. Being dummy rounds instead of blanks, it would be a cold gun (would not fire). Alec Baldwin, if he examined it, would have seen the same.
Now, we don’t know if the armorer and/or AD had any knowledge on whether or not the guns had been used recreationally. If they had, one would think they might have done a more thorough inspection.
If they had been used the night before, they would have had to have been cleaned before being returned to the set, as a revolver that has been fired and not cleaned is definitely noticeable. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of pistols would be able to smell it. Without a doubt, the armorer would have known, and would very likely insisted that it be cleaned before using, even for rehearsal. The only thing that makes sense is the people who went shooting had the gun cleaned after having their fun and the person who cleaned it put the real bullets back in. This suggests that the armorer was not involved, although I guess she could have made a mistake. Anyway, if the gun had been used to shoot real bullets the night before it would have had to been cleaned.
I would expect weapons used as props would be locked up and away from everybody until called upon and then the gun, barrel and blanks be demonstrated to the actor it’s handed to with the production staff in close view.
there is no way I would let a gun be pointed at me without a complete accounting of all of the above. If I’ve learned anything in life it’s that nobody is perfect regardless of how experienced they are in their profession.
Given that it appears David Halls is an overbearing arsehole, it’s possible that Alec Baldwin was intimidated by him and wasn’t willing to question his statement about the gun being cold. Just because you’re the big name actor, that doesn’t necessarily mean you are a dominant personality.
All the cheap attacks from Republicans say otherwise.
Is it possible this is the same thing that happened on The Crow? A fake cartridge (bullet, brass, no powder) was used to get a shot down the cylinders and when they were removed for the blanks no one realized a bullet had dislodged and was stuck in the barrel. So they in effect made a real cartridge out of the to fakes.
I think an empty gun is called cold. Any ammunition inserted at all, including blanks, makes it a hot weapon.
I am pretty sure a cold gun is one that will not fire. A hot one will fire, even if it is blanks.
ETA
On second reading, a dummy round is not a blank. A blank has powder and goes “BANG” when fired. A dummy round is just that, a dummy round that looks like a bullet, but has no powder.
The only person crapping on Baldwin doesn’t fit your description and was banned. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about Baldwin as a person. He was the last of 3 who should have checked the gun with the greater error focused on the other 2. IMO, he assumed, they screwed up.
this is not really the place.
I didn’t say Republicans on this board.
The armorer is supposed to maintain positive control of the weapons at all times. The guns should leave the set in a locked case with her, and be brought back on set when needed in a locked case, and they should never be ut of the armorer’s possession and control at any time. When not being used they should be in a locked safe.
And every time the armorer hands over a gun to an actor, it should be checked to make sure it is safe, and when the armorer gets it back from the actor it should be checked again before being put back in the case.
Testimony. The guns were on a cart outside of the room they were filming in. The armorer was not around, so the AD walked out, grabbed a gun off the unattended cart, declared ‘Cold Gun!’ (because it was on the cold gun cart, not because he checked it), and handed it Baldwin who took it also without checking.
What he didn’t know was that the guns had earlier been used for target practice with real bullets and then put back on the cart. That should never have happened, and the armorer is on the hook for that, IMO.
Gonna stop you there. You just violated then basic tenet of firearms safety: Assuming that the gun is safe because it’s supposed to be. You know what they say about assuming - it makes an ass out of you, and a bullet-ridden corpose out of someone else. In fact, that assumption is exactly what got the woman killed. There shouldn’t have been live rounds anywhere near that set - but there were.
Anyone who shoots guns regularly understands the drill: Any time someone hands you a gun, they should first check that it’s clear, and ideally leave it open so you can see for yourself. Any time you accept a gun, no matter what assurances you get that the gun is safe you check it yourself. If you are at the range and are done shooting for the moment (say to get the target), you open the gun, make sure it is empty, and set it down pointing downrange with the action open. If you EVER sweep the barrel past anyone you didn’t intend to, that’s a major safety violation that should make you feel shame.
These rules apply to all guns capable of firing a projectile, whether on a movie set or not, loaded or unloaded, even if Lord God Almighty came down to promise you that the gun is safe.
Three questions:
-
Didn’t the armorer screw up by allowing anyone to use her guns for off-set hijinx? And they are her guns–either from her collection, or guns she rented.
-
Given that some actors may be, like the general population, not too bright, or impaired by drugs/alcohol, or concentrating on other aspects of the production, isn’t it the armorer’s and not the actor’s responsibility to ensure gun safety? So if Baldwin, for instance, was supposed to ask to be shown the chamber was empty and forgot or just assumed it was based on Hill’s “Cold gun!” announcement, wouldn’t it have been the armorer’s job to see that this was demonstrated to Baldwin?
-
Why did Gutierrez-Reed remove the shell casing from the gun immediately after the incident and before giving the gun to law enforcement? Is there a legitimate reason for doing this?
Possibly hundreds of posts later, I’d still like to know more about the previous two gun accidents. Have we heard what happened at those times?
It would have probably made the New Mexico and LA papers top line and would have made the national news not-lede, only the headline would have been “Cinematographer Killed in On-Set Gun Mishap”.
Yeah, that’s what it’s sounding more to me like, what with the cross-draw – he practices doing the sweep while cocking the hammer and fails to lock it back so it drops on the cartridge just as it’s pointed in the general direction of the camera (which has people standing around where they wouldn’t be when action’s called)
Fully agreed on that. As someone said upthread, “want to go shooting for fun? bring your own gun.”
If this is indeed the case it means the armorer either was completely out in space WRT securing the equipment, or was willingly allowing that conduct, meaning letting live lethals be around the set guns.
Well, yeah, it was pointed out at some point earlier howfolks out in the Webspace are keeping it classy just as much as expected…
Are we sure that happened? I can’t find an original source for the claim.
I think it’s on the props and safety people. Actors aren’t experts and can’t be expected to know what kind of round this is or that is or even be able to distinguish a dummy from a live bullet.
That, I’ve been wondering about, too.
I read an LA Times story just in the last minute that said it was… wait for it… Alec Baldwin….'s double. Alec Baldwin’s stunt double fired two rounds (reported as blanks, but in light of the later shooting, can we be certain of that even?) on what was supposed to be a “cold” gun.
(Discourse software informs me that news article was shared upthread, but re-linking it as a source of relevant information for the question posed.)