That wasn’t Bruce Willis, that wasn’t a real office.
It’s not dangerous either now or then because it is not real. It is fantasy. It is a made-up story. There is a big difference. Do not confuse actors and the roles the roles they play. Wow.
Where did you see this? Do you have a cite?
I think you’ve missed the point, or perhaps you haven’t read the many examples posted here by people in the industry.
The problem is most certainly NOT boredom and familiarity with safety checks. The problem is the people at the top not willing to spend enough money to allow a safe production.
In this case they refused to hire enough crew to do the job without excessive pressure, and ended up with an unqualified and inexperienced armorer doing the job on the cheap. They were not willing to allow sufficient days to shoot the movie properly, so everyone was under considerable time pressure. They broke their prior agreement to put the camera crew in hotel rooms in Santa Fe, and expected them to work 13-14 hour days, and then in addition drive an hour each way to get to the set. They didn’t pay them on time either. That was why the camera crew walked out.
They ignored complaints about safety, and disregarded prior incidents, because they couldn’t care less about safety, and dealing with the issues would have cost time and money.
Read the article by the professional armorer who was offered the job, but turned it down because the producers were skimping on costs to the extent that he saw it as ‘an accident waiting to happen’.
The problem is exactly what I and several others have said, valuing money more than safely and treating people like shit to save a few bucks.
I’m pretty sure the poster realizes this. The OP is not wrong in thinking blanks were used in the film, though I don’t know for certain if they were used in the scene in the linked video. Bruce Willis suffered permanent hearing loss because the blanks in one scene were so loud.) If blanks were used in that scene, was that a dangerous move? Surely you’re not saying blanks are never dangerous when used in movies? They can certainly hurt or kill people, on a movie set or anywhere else.
That will work SOME of the time, but you’re living in a fantasy world if you think it will prevent all such incidents. My cite? The number of people who commit murder, even though a murderer has far more to lose than a chunk of money. There will always be people who think, “Nothing bad will happen this time” or “I can get away with it” (whatever “it” might be).
And that doesn’t even begin to account for the number of people who fall into the trap of thinking, “We’ve gone for so long without an accident, THEREFORE we can loosen up a little. We don’t need all these tiresome safety rules.”
But there were prior accidents on this set, only days before. And the AD, the person ultimately in charge of safety, was fired from another movie in 2019 due to safety incidents.
It was in the article in GreenWyvern’s post above.
It’s just a claim from the writer of the opinion piece, though, and hasn’t been reported as fact anywhere else.
Can a young person of that age be called a true professional, when they don’t have enough experience?
This sentiment has popped up a couple of times and it is utter bullshit. A 24 year old women or man can absolutely be a professional in their field. They are all around us, in the armed forces, airlines, hospitals, running businesses, etc. There is nothing about being 24 that makes someone unprofessional.
Ah, but what about the second part of the sentence? “…when they don’t have enough experience?” That is the ONLY part of the sentence that has some validity. Training, experience, personality, and corporate/group/team culture all come together to make someone act professionally. Age has nothing to do with it and training can make up for lack of experience and vice versa (for the right person).
Yet I’ve seen quite a few Canadian TV productions that involved guns and pointing them at other people and/or the camera. Lately I’ve been indulging in Wynonna Earp, as an example of that sort of thing. Not sure how they handled gun safety on their set, but they managed to shoot four seasons involving lots and lots of firearms of all sorts without anyone getting shot for real. Although watching some of the episodes this week I’m more aware of how they use camera angles to make it look like firearms are being pointed at/shooting people but not really, and use of cuts during firefights where pointing guns at people is implied but not directly shown, there are scenes of shooting people in the head, or holding a barrel of a gun to someone’s body. In that sense “because it looks good” is why it’s done, but behind that I assume (I sure hope) were an array of procedures and protocols to make those actions as safe as possible, and equally presumably it was legally done.
The safety protocols work when they’re used and used properly do work. But they have to be used. Every time.
Sure, but that’s the point. If it will work some of the time, that’s a reason to do it. The fact that it won’t work 100% of the time is not a reason not to do something.
No regulation will prevent every stupid thing. But they can and often do help. In fact, I’d say most regulations regulate things that would be stupid to do—at least, in the long term.
“You can’t regulate stupidity” or “you can’t legislate morality” are more thought-stopping cliches than anything useful. You can, and we have.
As for the more general topic:
I get the idea that, if the firearm safety procedures were followed, this wouldn’t have happened. But I’m not so sure that means that nothing need be done. There could be regulation to further incentivize the people @Bootb describes to follow the safety procedures that already exist.
Apologies if it has been shared, but apparently Gutierrez-Reed has made other mistakes on films: https://www.thewrap.com/rust-armorer-inexperience-hannah-gutierrez-fired-nicolas-cage-film/
The armorer is blaming the producers and basically everyone else for the problems on the set.
Hannah made a statement through her lawyer.
I hope she CYA’d and has memos or emails to back up her claims. As for taking two jobs. Can you imagine being hired as a lifeguard and working the concession stand? Your selling Cokes while people are swimming in the pool.
I’m absolutely stunned that anyone would accept a job as part time Armorer on a Western movie that features a lot of guns. 'Rust' armorer has 'no idea' where live rounds came from, attorneys say
One thing to note about right-wing news sources is that they are generally rooting openly for Alec Baldwin to personally take a hard fall for Hutchins’ death. Baldwin being found guilty of a crime and, ideally, serving hard time would be considered a huge win for the political right wing.
Accordingly … any snippet of information that takes heat off of non-Alec-Baldwin set personnel will get heavily promoted on Fox, OANN, NewsMax, etc.
Statement:
I watched the whole press conference yesterday, but didn’t have time to post until now. Here are some details mentioned by Sheriff Mendoza that may either answer or correct some of the posts made here since the video was posted.
The three guns on set were described by the sheriff as:
The Pietta (#1) is the gun that fired the deadly round. I know nothing about guns, but it apparently is a working reproduction of the Colt Single-Action Army (SAA). Am I right in thinking that “long Colt” refers to the type of cartridges it can fire?
Since the sheriff only described #2 as a “Single Action Army .45,” with no reference to it being a reproduction, one might assume that it was a genuine antique Colt, but that is not completely clear.
He was also not completely clear about the rounds found in the Pietta. At one point (44:11 in the video above) he said that there was “other ammunition” in the Pietta. Later (52:14) asked if there were “other live rounds inside the chamber” of the Pietta, he said, “Not that we’re aware of.” These two statements aren’t necessarily contradictory, but it would have been nice if he had made clear whether the “other ammunition” was blanks or dummies or what.
The guns were always under her control and kept locked up, and there was no live ammo on the set… so I guess the fairies must have put that live round in the revolver.
Oh, and the accidental discharges were by other people, after she had handed them the guns, so it’s definitely not her fault. 
Speaking as a guy who’s done more inspections, audits and walk-throughs of small factories than I can count, I’ll add that safety never, ever slips all at once. It’s a very gradual process, day after day, as people become more complacent. You let one little thing slide, then another, and then another, and one day someone is really badly hurt and the idiots running the place are all surprised.
Holding two jobs would explain why Hannah wasn’t around when Halls gave Baldwin the hot gun.
That would shift responsibility to her supervisors and AD Halls.
But, there has to be a way she can prove that her supervisors gave conflicting assignments that conflicted with her armorer job.
Decisions are made every day, in companies across the US, that are quite likely to result in injury, harm, or even death.
I don’t mean that this is known only in hindsight, and by people with information that Senior Management did not have at the time. I mean that these decisions are sometimes/often made despite the strenuous objections of people within these organizations.
And it’s a proverbial line on a spreadsheet (NB: often, instructions are explicitly given not to put certain things in writing).
So far, does it look to me like the armorer and the AD were negligent ? So far … yeah. But can TPTB – in no end of circumstances – ramp up the treadmill speed so high that they ‘know or should have known’ that bad things – sometimes even catastrophic things – could happen as a result ?
Yeah. IME, yeah.
“Rhnot the fault of Hannah.” It’s never good news when your lawyers can’t even proofread your first public statement correctly.