Alec Baldwin shooting

[Grandpa]

What do you do if it's a child actor?
There needs to be a system and it can't be all on the actor.

And what about the kangaroo in Crocodile Dundee!

At least the chimp is aiming at the ground...

[Blake]

I just don't understand why live ammunition was on or indeed anywhere near the set at all, what possible purpose?

Yeah, I'm the same. Just highlights the yanks attitude to firearms. There is not a cat in hells chance a real firearm is getting used on a film set in the UK, or Europe I would imagine.

There are reports that the armorer and crew were shooting cans with live ammo during off-times between scenes.
So yeah, not inconceivable that a live round was accidentally left in the chamber.

But utterly negligent if that was indeed what ended up happening here. Firstly by the armourer allowing this (but that's what happens when you hire a 24-year old), but also for not clearing the weapon properly when it was returned...again...if these reports are true.

[NeilOJism]

I read on *looks over shoulder and lowers his dulcets to a conspiratorial burr* t’other place that film sets are the unique exception to the “doesn’t matter what you’ve been told, you’re the one currently in possession of a lethal machine, so check everything for yourself” rule.

According to a poster from that vituperative VIth Form whining pit, if an actor were to check a weapon they’d been handed, filming would stop as s/he’d be farking with well-established and industry-wide SOP. Armourers (reporting to the AD) are (usually) highly-trained weapons specialists whose word on a firearm’s status is gospel - and this obviously works well 99.yadda % of the time.

The fact that they were fannying about doing live round target practice between filming sessions - as well as the fact that some poor lass got slotted by an unsuspecting actor suggests the armourer was dangerously not up to the job.

Ergo, AB the actor is innocent; AB the producer is probably in a bit of merde. And the armourer is unlikely to work again in that role on a film set.

I can’t remember which boredie unearthed that factule, but it defo wasn’t Doh-xi, bimbles or M Maniac, so might be summat in it.

Then again, it might well have been Electricité de France. Spose I could check!

[Slick]

I read on *looks over shoulder and lowers his dulcets to a conspiratorial burr* t’other place that film sets are the unique exception to the “doesn’t matter what you’ve been told, you’re the one currently in possession of a lethal machine, so check everything for yourself” rule.

According to a poster from that vituperative VIth Form whining pit, if an actor were to check a weapon they’d been handed, filming would stop as s/he’d be farking with well-established and industry-wide SOP. Armourers (reporting to the AD) are (usually) highly-trained weapons specialists whose word on a firearm’s status is gospel - and this obviously works well 99.yadda % of the time.

The fact that they were fannying about doing live round target practice between filming sessions - as well as the fact that some poor lass got slotted by an unsuspecting actor suggests the armourer was dangerously not up to the job.

Ergo, AB the actor is innocent; AB the producer is probably in a bit of merde. And the armourer is unlikely to work again in that role on a film set.

I can’t remember which boredie unearthed that factule, but it defo wasn’t Doh-xi, bimbles or M Maniac, so might be summat in it.

Then again, it might well have been Electricité de France. Spose I could check!

Hello Benthos, been a while

[TB63]

I read on *looks over shoulder and lowers his dulcets to a conspiratorial burr* t’other place that film sets are the unique exception to the “doesn’t matter what you’ve been told, you’re the one currently in possession of a lethal machine, so check everything for yourself” rule.

According to a poster from that vituperative VIth Form whining pit, if an actor were to check a weapon they’d been handed, filming would stop as s/he’d be farking with well-established and industry-wide SOP. Armourers (reporting to the AD) are (usually) highly-trained weapons specialists whose word on a firearm’s status is gospel - and this obviously works well 99.yadda % of the time.

The fact that they were fannying about doing live round target practice between filming sessions - as well as the fact that some poor lass got slotted by an unsuspecting actor suggests the armourer was dangerously not up to the job.

Ergo, AB the actor is innocent; AB the producer is probably in a bit of merde. And the armourer is unlikely to work again in that role on a film set.

I can’t remember which boredie unearthed that factule, but it defo wasn’t Doh-xi, bimbles or M Maniac, so might be summat in it.

Then again, it might well have been Electricité de France. Spose I could check!

Hello Benthos, been a while

^^^^This..

[CM11]

I read on *looks over shoulder and lowers his dulcets to a conspiratorial burr* t’other place that film sets are the unique exception to the “doesn’t matter what you’ve been told, you’re the one currently in possession of a lethal machine, so check everything for yourself” rule.

According to a poster from that vituperative VIth Form whining pit, if an actor were to check a weapon they’d been handed, filming would stop as s/he’d be farking with well-established and industry-wide SOP. Armourers (reporting to the AD) are (usually) highly-trained weapons specialists whose word on a firearm’s status is gospel - and this obviously works well 99.yadda % of the time.

The fact that they were fannying about doing live round target practice between filming sessions - as well as the fact that some poor lass got slotted by an unsuspecting actor suggests the armourer was dangerously not up to the job.

Ergo, AB the actor is innocent; AB the producer is probably in a bit of merde. And the armourer is unlikely to work again in that role on a film set.

I can’t remember which boredie unearthed that factule, but it defo wasn’t Doh-xi, bimbles or M Maniac, so might be summat in it.

Then again, it might well have been Electricité de France. Spose I could check!

I think you're referring to my post which I grabbed from here!

[Jock42]

From what I've read the actor is specifically not allowed to manipulate the firearm before filming, so it would be against the rules and regulations for him to have checked the gun





Can't vouch for the veracity of this particular quote but I have seen several similar.

I'd not be happy with that. As soon as I pick up a weapon I'm in charge of it and want to know the state of that weapon for myself.

Are you an expert in every weapon every made? Somebody gives an actor a AK-47, then a glock, then a 1917 luger? And the actor is supposed to be the person responsible for checking each and everything? Impossible. There should be cast iron protocols to prevent the non-expert getting involved in the process.

Alec, if you're happy cutting about with a weapon you don't know the state of thats fine. I'm not.

[NeilOJism]

I read on *looks over shoulder and lowers his dulcets to a conspiratorial burr* t’other place that film sets are the unique exception to the “doesn’t matter what you’ve been told, you’re the one currently in possession of a lethal machine, so check everything for yourself” rule.

According to a poster from that vituperative VIth Form whining pit, if an actor were to check a weapon they’d been handed, filming would stop as s/he’d be farking with well-established and industry-wide SOP. Armourers (reporting to the AD) are (usually) highly-trained weapons specialists whose word on a firearm’s status is gospel - and this obviously works well 99.yadda % of the time.

The fact that they were fannying about doing live round target practice between filming sessions - as well as the fact that some poor lass got slotted by an unsuspecting actor suggests the armourer was dangerously not up to the job.

Ergo, AB the actor is innocent; AB the producer is probably in a bit of merde. And the armourer is unlikely to work again in that role on a film set.

I can’t remember which boredie unearthed that factule, but it defo wasn’t Doh-xi, bimbles or M Maniac, so might be summat in it.

Then again, it might well have been Electricité de France. Spose I could check!

I think you're referring to my post which I grabbed from here!

Sorry, mate. Is it obvious I’ve been up all night?

I’ll, er, get me pashmina...

[NeilOJism]

Oh, and my cunning disguise and nom de spite on this ere paragon of reasoned dialecticals fooled no fucker, then?

That eructated, thanks for the welcome, chaps *bats eyelashes and flashes a hint of minge*

[Flockwitt]

I'd not be happy with that. As soon as I pick up a weapon I'm in charge of it and want to know the state of that weapon for myself.

Are you an expert in every weapon every made? Somebody gives an actor a AK-47, then a glock, then a 1917 luger? And the actor is supposed to be the person responsible for checking each and everything? Impossible. There should be cast iron protocols to prevent the non-expert getting involved in the process.

Alec, if you're happy cutting about with a weapon you don't know the state of thats fine. I'm not.

If I'm working on a set and I know it's up to the actor to check the weapon... I'm not working on the set.

[Jock42]

Are you an expert in every weapon every made? Somebody gives an actor a AK-47, then a glock, then a 1917 luger? And the actor is supposed to be the person responsible for checking each and everything? Impossible. There should be cast iron protocols to prevent the non-expert getting involved in the process.

Alec, if you're happy cutting about with a weapon you don't know the state of thats fine. I'm not.

If I'm working on a set and I know it's up to the actor to check the weapon... I'm not working on the set.

OK

[JM2K6]

To be fair, Jock, you're military trained and in the military it makes perfect sense to check for yourself. Whereas on set they're supposed to have an armourer whose job it is to provide the weapons as and when they're needed, only when they're needed, and to be the only person other than the actor who touches the things, and to basically factor in that actors are not trained for this. If they were all at the level of skill and knowledge of the armourer, then sure, have it just be personal responsibility.

Here's an excellent thread on this.



Edit: To put it a different way, when I did a bungee jump, I didn't check the ropes myself, you know?

[Blackmac]

Real firearms are sometimes used on film sets on the continent, and I suspect the UK as well, for cost reasons. Real ammunition not so much.

Sorry, I struggle to believe that in the UK. Real weapons that have been properly deactivated maybe, but other than shotguns or small caliber rifles, other firearms are too strictly controlled and mostly unobtainable. Even having a shotgun or rifle on set with ammunition would never be held as acceptable.

[Blackmac]

To be fair, Jock, you're military trained and in the military it makes perfect sense to check for yourself. Whereas on set they're supposed to have an armourer whose job it is to provide the weapons as and when they're needed, only when they're needed, and to be the only person other than the actor who touches the things, and to basically factor in that actors are not trained for this. If they were all at the level of skill and knowledge of the armourer, then sure, have it just be personal responsibility.

Here's an excellent thread on this.



Edit: To put it a different way, when I did a bungee jump, I didn't check the ropes myself, you know?

Spot on.

[Calculon]

Real firearms are sometimes used on film sets on the continent, and I suspect the UK as well, for cost reasons. Real ammunition not so much.

Sorry, I struggle to believe that in the UK. Real weapons that have been properly deactivated maybe, but other than shotguns or small caliber rifles, other firearms are too strictly controlled and mostly unobtainable. Even having a shotgun or rifle on set with ammunition would never be held as acceptable.

I was specifically thinking of shotguns and other hunting firearms, but you will have a better idea of this than me.

this is the situation in Germany that I was referring to:

Who is responsible for weapons on a film set?

In Germany, if it is a real weapon, the person bringing the weapon must be a professional. He or she must have a firearms trade or manufacturing license, otherwise commercial handling of firearms would not be authorized. Hunters, sport shooters and police officers would be allowed to supervise their own weapons. Unfortunately, people who are not supposed to be there are found time and again on set.

A weapon is interesting; people want to have a look at it. That's why you can't leave something like that lying around. When I bring a gun to a set, it's already locked.

Why bring a real gun at all — they could just as well bring a fake gun that just looks real?

We often shoot pictures that show high society — with hunting weapons. A hunting weapon easily costs a six-figure sum. If you multiply five hunters with a six-figure weapon sum, that results in a shot with props that cost €500,000 ($582,000). If you're not using real guns, you would have to convert €500,000 worth of weapons to props that can't be loaded. I think that would blast the production costs of almost all films in Germany.

https://www.dw.com/en/alec-baldwin-shoo ... a-59589368

[Jock42]

To be fair, Jock, you're military trained and in the military it makes perfect sense to check for yourself. Whereas on set they're supposed to have an armourer whose job it is to provide the weapons as and when they're needed, only when they're needed, and to be the only person other than the actor who touches the things, and to basically factor in that actors are not trained for this. If they were all at the level of skill and knowledge of the armourer, then sure, have it just be personal responsibility.

I haven't commented on what the dos and don'ts should be

[ScarfaceClaw]

Are you an expert in every weapon every made? Somebody gives an actor a AK-47, then a glock, then a 1917 luger? And the actor is supposed to be the person responsible for checking each and everything? Impossible. There should be cast iron protocols to prevent the non-expert getting involved in the process.

Alec, if you're happy cutting about with a weapon you don't know the state of thats fine. I'm not.

If I'm working on a set and I know it's up to the actor to check the weapon... I'm not working on the set.

It’s not an either or situation. There, to me at least, should be a clear demonstrable hand over where the armourer steps through the checks of the weapon with the actor involved. That gives a clear demonstration to all concerned that the weapon is in the appropriate state. It can’t (shouldn’t) be a situation where the actor just picks up a gun, someone shouts “you’re grand” and everyone is happy.

[Ymx]

Police say they are in possession of the "lead projectile" fired from the gun used by actor Alec Baldwin when he shot and killed a cinematographer on the set of his new film, Rust.

Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said the projectile is suspected to be a live round but it cannot be confirmed until it undergoes further testing.

About 500 rounds of ammunition have been recovered from the set including blanks, dummy rounds and what investigators suspect are "live" rounds, the sheriff said.
He added that is is still too early to say if criminal charges will be filed.

District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies said a "complete and thorough investigation is critical" but "if the facts and evidence and law support charges then I will initiate prosecution at that time".

Asked about whether Baldwin could be charged, the district attorney said "all options are on the table at this point".

She added: "There is a bridge and it will take many more facts, corroborated facts, before we can get to that criminal negligent standard."

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, 42, was killed and director Joel Souza was hospitalised after a gun Baldwin was holding discharged on the set of Rust last Thursday.

The bullet which killed Ms Hutchins was recovered from Mr Souza's shoulder, Sheriff Mendoza said.

Mr Souza, who has now been released from hospital, was standing behind Ms Hutchins when she was struck in the chest after the firearm was discharged.

Sheriff Mendoza confirmed that Baldwin, assistant director Dave Halls, and the film's armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed have all been "co-operative" and spoken to detectives.

Halls had previously been fired from his role on the movie Freedom's Path in 2019 after a gun unexpectedly discharged on the set, injuring a crew member, a producer for the film has said.

Halls had shouted "cold gun" before handing Baldwin the weapon on the set of Rust, indicating incorrectly that it didn't have any live rounds, according to a search warrant.

Questions have also been raised about the experience level of 24-year-old Ms Gutierrez-Reed, the daughter of Hollywood stuntman Thell Reed, who was in charge of weapons and gun safety on the set.

Following the shooting, reports emerged that crew members had expressed concerns about gun safety and a Baldwin stunt double had accidentally fired two rounds after not knowing a firearm was loaded.

Asked what he thought about real weapons being used in the making of the film, Sheriff Mendoza said: "There was some complacency on this set and I think there are some safety issues that need to be addressed by the industry and possibly by the state of New Mexico."

The news conference comes after what is thought to have been the final image of Ms Hutchins was released yesterday.

It shows her standing in front of Baldwin before the actor accidentally shot her.

The cinematographer can be seen dressed in a beanie with headphones on and her back to the camera, while Baldwin can be seen in costume.

Court documents reveal Baldwin had been rehearsing when he drew the revolver across his body and pointed it at a camera.

Baldwin has said he is heartbroken by the incident and is fully cooperating with the investigation.

[fishfoodie]

About 500 rounds of ammunition have been recovered from the set including blanks, dummy rounds and what investigators suspect are "live" rounds, the sheriff said.

This bit really jars.

If nothing in the movie was going to call for live rounds; why even have them on set ?

If they weren't there; then your insurance costs are probably going to be lower; & the job of the armorer is more likely to go perfectly.

That they had them on set; & were plinking at cans on the set; between takes, says that they were mixing up the place being a work place; & somewhere for recreational shooting.

[JM2K6]

To be fair, Jock, you're military trained and in the military it makes perfect sense to check for yourself. Whereas on set they're supposed to have an armourer whose job it is to provide the weapons as and when they're needed, only when they're needed, and to be the only person other than the actor who touches the things, and to basically factor in that actors are not trained for this. If they were all at the level of skill and knowledge of the armourer, then sure, have it just be personal responsibility.

I haven't commented on what the dos and don'ts should be

OK! I didn't say you had - just that you're approaching this from the perspective of a guy who's been trained to always check for themselves as a core part of their role. It's fair to say that having someone else take on that load in filming is probably the right way to do it for that industry. And pretty much everything that's supposed to happen on set seems to have been completely ignored on this set...

[charltom]

Alec, if you're happy cutting about with a weapon you don't know the state of thats fine. I'm not.

If I'm working on a set and I know it's up to the actor to check the weapon... I'm not working on the set.

It’s not an either or situation. There, to me at least, should be a clear demonstrable hand over where the armourer steps through the checks of the weapon with the actor involved. That gives a clear demonstration to all concerned that the weapon is in the appropriate state. It can’t (shouldn’t) be a situation where the actor just picks up a gun, someone shouts “you’re grand” and everyone is happy.

Agreed.

[Brazil]

Alec, if you're happy cutting about with a weapon you don't know the state of thats fine. I'm not.

If I'm working on a set and I know it's up to the actor to check the weapon... I'm not working on the set.

It’s not an either or situation. There, to me at least, should be a clear demonstrable hand over where the armourer steps through the checks of the weapon with the actor involved. That gives a clear demonstration to all concerned that the weapon is in the appropriate state. It can’t (shouldn’t) be a situation where the actor just picks up a gun, someone shouts “you’re grand” and everyone is happy.

It isn't and it wasn't even in this case. It appears that the safety protocols and checks that have been sufficient for thousands and thousands of film shoots weren't properly followed and as a consequence an accident occurred.

[Hugo]

I am by no means an expert on guns but my son shoots clays and I used to some twenty odd years ago. I'm always instilling in him the importance of being vigilant, treating the gun with respect, never stand in front of it, never point it at someone, even inadvertently. All the basic safety protocols that I was taught on day one.

To just pick up a gun and point and fire it at someone without doing any checking first seems unbelievably cavalier. To do it in your job where in any case you should be paying attention to detail is unprofessional and incredibly careless.

[Calculon]

Not sure how it can be unprofessional if your job explicitly states that you are not suppose to "check" the weapon. In fact doing what you say the actor should have done would have been totally unprofessional on his part.

[Marylandolorian]

I can vouch for every person I've ever shot with being extremely safety conscious. It never goes away. It is so very easy not to be careless and to maintain safety that, to my kmowledge, nobody ever fails in that duty. The Americans I've shot with and against have also always demonstrated the right attitude to safety, and many are among the most prolific shots out there. They were competing on ranges though, not on a film set.

Every year in the US around 500 people are dying by miss handling a firearm

[Hugo]

Not sure how it can be unprofessional if your job explicitly states that you are not suppose to "check" the weapon. In fact doing what you say the actor should have done would have been totally unprofessional on his part.

Fair enough, the industry itself needs an overhaul then.

[Brazil]

Not sure how it can be unprofessional if your job explicitly states that you are not suppose to "check" the weapon. In fact doing what you say the actor should have done would have been totally unprofessional on his part.

Fair enough, the industry itself needs an overhaul then.

Or, alternatively, the person who fucked up the safety procedures needs sacking and, potentially, facing charges as appropriate.

[JM2K6]

Not sure how it can be unprofessional if your job explicitly states that you are not suppose to "check" the weapon. In fact doing what you say the actor should have done would have been totally unprofessional on his part.

Fair enough, the industry itself needs an overhaul then.

No, the system they have works really well. When people ignore it as badly as this, things go wrong.

[Rinkals]

Not sure how it can be unprofessional if your job explicitly states that you are not suppose to "check" the weapon. In fact doing what you say the actor should have done would have been totally unprofessional on his part.

Fair enough, the industry itself needs an overhaul then.

As far as I can see, the practice of calling "cold gun" when handing over an unloaded weapon is the first that needs to be overhauled: it gives the actor the impression that the gun has been checked and deemed safe, but also, if the actor disregards the claim and checks it again, the implication is that the AD cannot be trusted to examine the gun properly.

I was always taught that "the Devil loads an empty gun" as a way of stressing that, even if you know a firearm is not loaded, you should check it anyway.

SFC's suggestion that the armourer should examine the gun in the presence of the actor seems sensible to me.

[fishfoodie]

Not sure how it can be unprofessional if your job explicitly states that you are not suppose to "check" the weapon. In fact doing what you say the actor should have done would have been totally unprofessional on his part.

Fair enough, the industry itself needs an overhaul then.

As far as I can see, the practice of calling "cold gun" when handing over an unloaded weapon is the first that needs to be overhauled: it gives the actor the impression that the gun has been checked and deemed safe, but also, if the actor disregards the claim and checks it again, the implication is that the AD cannot be trusted to examine the gun properly.

I was always taught that "the Devil loads an empty gun" as a way of stressing that, even if you know a firearm is not loaded, you should check it anyway.

SFC's suggestion that the armourer should examine the gun in the presence of the actor seems sensible to me.

Exactly.

There should be a chain of custody for any weapon in use on the set; & maybe something like a LOTO, so that any weapon that's loaded, has the likes of a trigger lock, so that even if someone inserts themselves into the process; like this AD; it's not possible to make the final fatal mistake

[JM2K6]

Fair enough, the industry itself needs an overhaul then.

As far as I can see, the practice of calling "cold gun" when handing over an unloaded weapon is the first that needs to be overhauled: it gives the actor the impression that the gun has been checked and deemed safe, but also, if the actor disregards the claim and checks it again, the implication is that the AD cannot be trusted to examine the gun properly.

I was always taught that "the Devil loads an empty gun" as a way of stressing that, even if you know a firearm is not loaded, you should check it anyway.

SFC's suggestion that the armourer should examine the gun in the presence of the actor seems sensible to me.

Exactly.

There should be a chain of custody for any weapon in use on the set; & maybe something like a LOTO, so that any weapon that's loaded, has the likes of a trigger lock, so that even if someone inserts themselves into the process; like this AD; it's not possible to make the final fatal mistake

All this kinda ignores the fact that you can have all the rules and processes you like, but if people ignore them and take shortcuts, shit like this will happen. And that's what happened on this set.

[fishfoodie]

As far as I can see, the practice of calling "cold gun" when handing over an unloaded weapon is the first that needs to be overhauled: it gives the actor the impression that the gun has been checked and deemed safe, but also, if the actor disregards the claim and checks it again, the implication is that the AD cannot be trusted to examine the gun properly.

I was always taught that "the Devil loads an empty gun" as a way of stressing that, even if you know a firearm is not loaded, you should check it anyway.

SFC's suggestion that the armourer should examine the gun in the presence of the actor seems sensible to me.

Exactly.

There should be a chain of custody for any weapon in use on the set; & maybe something like a LOTO, so that any weapon that's loaded, has the likes of a trigger lock, so that even if someone inserts themselves into the process; like this AD; it's not possible to make the final fatal mistake

All this kinda ignores the fact that you can have all the rules and processes you like, but if people ignore them and take shortcuts, shit like this will happen. And that's what happened on this set.

I agree with you to an extent; but if you see a trigger lock on a weapon; & know he shouldn't be handing it to you; & only the person with the key can unlock it.

But as you say; this all depends on people treating the weapons with the respect they deserve; & maybe not having them on the set at all.

[Grandpa]

As far as I can see, the practice of calling "cold gun" when handing over an unloaded weapon is the first that needs to be overhauled: it gives the actor the impression that the gun has been checked and deemed safe, but also, if the actor disregards the claim and checks it again, the implication is that the AD cannot be trusted to examine the gun properly.

I was always taught that "the Devil loads an empty gun" as a way of stressing that, even if you know a firearm is not loaded, you should check it anyway.

SFC's suggestion that the armourer should examine the gun in the presence of the actor seems sensible to me.

Exactly.

There should be a chain of custody for any weapon in use on the set; & maybe something like a LOTO, so that any weapon that's loaded, has the likes of a trigger lock, so that even if someone inserts themselves into the process; like this AD; it's not possible to make the final fatal mistake

All this kinda ignores the fact that you can have all the rules and processes you like, but if people ignore them and take shortcuts, shit like this will happen. And that's what happened on this set.

Your twitter link to the film armorer reinforced this. Follow protocol and everyone stays safe... and the way he described it, the armorer is responsible full-stop... so he or she monitors everything every time a gun is used... so you would imagine the armorer on Rust is going to take the brunt of the blame... maybe along with whoever hired her...

[Rinkals]

As far as I can see, the practice of calling "cold gun" when handing over an unloaded weapon is the first that needs to be overhauled: it gives the actor the impression that the gun has been checked and deemed safe, but also, if the actor disregards the claim and checks it again, the implication is that the AD cannot be trusted to examine the gun properly.

I was always taught that "the Devil loads an empty gun" as a way of stressing that, even if you know a firearm is not loaded, you should check it anyway.

SFC's suggestion that the armourer should examine the gun in the presence of the actor seems sensible to me.

Exactly.

There should be a chain of custody for any weapon in use on the set; & maybe something like a LOTO, so that any weapon that's loaded, has the likes of a trigger lock, so that even if someone inserts themselves into the process; like this AD; it's not possible to make the final fatal mistake

All this kinda ignores the fact that you can have all the rules and processes you like, but if people ignore them and take shortcuts, shit like this will happen. And that's what happened on this set.

Agreed, but if there are two entities involved, the actor and the armourer, then it's less likely that it would be disregarded for fear that one or the other would raise an objection.

[Rinkals]

Exactly.

There should be a chain of custody for any weapon in use on the set; & maybe something like a LOTO, so that any weapon that's loaded, has the likes of a trigger lock, so that even if someone inserts themselves into the process; like this AD; it's not possible to make the final fatal mistake

All this kinda ignores the fact that you can have all the rules and processes you like, but if people ignore them and take shortcuts, shit like this will happen. And that's what happened on this set.

Your twitter link to the film armorer reinforced this. Follow protocol and everyone stays safe... and the way he described it, the armorer is responsible full-stop... so he or she monitors everything every time a gun is used... so you would imagine the armorer on Rust is going to take the brunt of the blame... maybe along with whoever hired her...

Yes, but my contention is that the protocol contributed to the mistake; by calling out "cold gun", the actor was led to believe that the gun was unloaded. Of course, he should have checked it himself, but I feel the protocol is flawed.

Indeed, it would have been far better for the AD to call out "hot gun", because that would have caused Baldwin to be more aware of the danger.

Or even just "Gun!".

[Grandpa]

All this kinda ignores the fact that you can have all the rules and processes you like, but if people ignore them and take shortcuts, shit like this will happen. And that's what happened on this set.

Your twitter link to the film armorer reinforced this. Follow protocol and everyone stays safe... and the way he described it, the armorer is responsible full-stop... so he or she monitors everything every time a gun is used... so you would imagine the armorer on Rust is going to take the brunt of the blame... maybe along with whoever hired her...

Yes, but my contention is that the protocol contributed to the mistake; by calling out "cold gun", the actor was led to believe that the gun was unloaded. Of course, he should have checked it himself, but I feel the protocol is flawed.

Indeed, it would have been far better for the AD to call out "hot gun", because that would have caused Baldwin to be more aware of the danger.

Or even just "Gun!".

There must be a reason for the protocol to be the way it is though... else why not make every actor check the gun before using? There must be a reason for that not being the case?

[JM2K6]

Your twitter link to the film armorer reinforced this. Follow protocol and everyone stays safe... and the way he described it, the armorer is responsible full-stop... so he or she monitors everything every time a gun is used... so you would imagine the armorer on Rust is going to take the brunt of the blame... maybe along with whoever hired her...

Yes, but my contention is that the protocol contributed to the mistake; by calling out "cold gun", the actor was led to believe that the gun was unloaded. Of course, he should have checked it himself, but I feel the protocol is flawed.

Indeed, it would have been far better for the AD to call out "hot gun", because that would have caused Baldwin to be more aware of the danger.

Or even just "Gun!".

There must be a reason for the protocol to be the way it is though... else why not make every actor check the gun before using? There must be a reason for that not being the case?

Because they're there to act, and they're not professional gun handlers.

[Kawazaki]

Thousands of hours of TV and film are shot in the UK and much of that will feature actors shooting other actors. I'm willing to bet that a live round of ammunition never makes it onto a UK-based set let alone into the chamber of a gun.

[average joe]

A lot of assumptions made here about people living in a country with nearly a 400 mil population size.

I cant help feeling a statement like " Americans are lax with guns" are similar to "Africans are con artist"

[Ymx]

Actor Alec Baldwin has spoken publicly for the first time since the accidental fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Western film Rust, calling it a "one in a trillion episode".

The actor and his wife, Hilaria, stopped to speak to reporters on a roadside in Vermont, and while Baldwin said he could not comment on the ongoing investigation, he revealed Ms Hutchins was "my friend".
"We were a very, very well-oiled crew shooting a film together and then this horrible event happened," Baldwin said.

"A woman died. She was my friend... When I arrived in Santa Fe to start shooting, I took her to dinner."