Firearms Safety In The Entertainment Industry

[manixFan]

Simulated ammo misuse is not a solid example for your position - every participant in any firearms training activity is still, regardless of the situation, responsible for their actions. And the fact that their leadership allows misuse of simulated ammo doesn’t relieve the person pulling the trigger of that responsibility - though it’s reasonable to conclude they (folks in charge) may have a greater degree of the blame if something does goes wrong. Mr. Baldwin accidentally shot someone and killed them and he shares, perhaps the majority of, the responsibility for that outcome. That it happened on a stage in a workplace environment is a mitigating circumstance but not a carte blanche release from basic firearm safety practices.

For me, I don’t care if John Moses Browning himself rose from the dead and handed me a single shot 6mm Flobert parlor pistol with the action open, I’m looking in the chamber to ensure there’s no live round present before I do anything else…

It was given to show that the mantra offered by some here that you never point a firearm at another person is literally being ignored every time a training system like this is used. They are using their own service weapons to shoot at other trainees. They have to rely on the representations made by the makers of the ammo that it is in fact safe to shoot at others. There is no way for a user of these systems to know that every round is manufactured correctly and free from a lethal defect.

If an officer purposefully aims at and shoots another during a training exercise, as directed by that exercise, and an officer is killed because of a defect in training ammo, is that officer responsible? Or is it an accident that occurred under circumstances in which normal firearms handling rules are set aside for the sake of realism?


Tony

(not arguing the politics of the thread, just trying to clarify my earlier point)

 

[David Schwantz]

I'm not saying that the actor doesn't have responsibility

That is EXACTLY what you said in this post!

The armorer loaded the gun (or has final responsibility on checking it after it was loaded).

 

[manixFan]

That is EXACTLY what you said in this post!

Two quotes taken out of context. The second quote was answering the question who loaded the gun. Literally, on a movie set, the armorer has final responsibility for the safety of the firearms. Just like the stunt coordinator is responsible for the safety of fight scenes, etc. But me saying the armorer has final responsibility for the safety of the firearm is not me saying that the person who discharged it has no responsibility. He relied on that person to make sure it was safe, and they failed. He aimed the gun towards the camera operator and pulled the trigger. He is responsible for that action. But in a movie setting actors can not, and should not be responsible for the safety of stunts. That is simply not their job. They act out the scene as directed and rely on others to ensure the safety of everyone on the set.

Movies are not real life.


Tony

 

[Scott_650]

(not arguing the politics of the thread, just trying to clarify my earlier point)

As far as the politics go I have zero sympathy for Mr. Baldwin in that regard - words have consequences and if he has a moment’s discomfort from the words of those opposed to his stated viewpoints it’s a minor incidence of karma. But that has no bearing on the outcome - Mr. Baldwin, the armorer, the AD, the director, the producers (whose, from the hearsay I’ve read here in this thread, apparent cheese paring led to a dangerous workplace environment) all share responsibility for the death and injury of others. The police, prosecutor, judge and maybe jury will decide where the majority of that responsibility lies.

 

[David Schwantz]

So to say that the actor should have checked and made sure the gun was empty does not apply here.

Pretty sure that is exactly what you said in your first post.

And I guess this movie WAS real life.

Again, sorry people were hurt.

 

[Bravo52]

For those of you saying the actor should have checked the firearm and made sure it was empty, I think you are misunderstanding the issue. From the reporting I've read, the gun in question was a Colt Single Action revolver. The big issue with revolvers is you can see into the cylinder and tell whether the gun is loaded or not. It's one of the first things I look for in any scene that has a revolver that faces the camera - if the cylinders are empty the scene loses all credibility. So unlike a firearm that uses a magazine where the cartridges are not visible, revolvers require dummy rounds to look realistic. In revolvers wax bullets (or some similar material) are often used if the open cylinder will be visible during firing. Oftentimes the cartridges will be loaded with just a primer, which is enough to fire the wax bullet. The wax can still dangerous but under the vast majority of circumstances not lethal. But they can be made to look identical to normal cartridges, which is the point.

So to say that the actor should have checked and made sure the gun was empty does not apply here. Actors and everyone else on the set rely on the armorer to make sure guns, whether prop or real, are safe for the scene in which they are to be used. Discharging a firearm directly at the camera is very common in movies. And think of the thousands of movie scenes that show an actor loading rounds into a magazine and then into a firearm and cocking it to make sure it is loaded. By the logic of making sure the gun should be unloaded such scenes could never have been filmed.

It's been stated in the press that the scene being filmed had the actor shooting directly at the camera. So the actor did exactly what he was supposed to do. If you are blaming the actor you might as well blame the screen writer for writing that action.

In my mind, the real fault lies with the armorer and the AD who picked up the firearm and handed it to the actor. The armorer's primary responsibility is safety. The AD should have verified with the armorer that the gun was in fact a 'cold gun' before passing it along.

There have been deadly firearms accidents on movies set before, and there will likely be again. I don't mean to sound cavalier but the same is true regarding car stunts - no matter how many stunt actors have been killed or seriously injured filming car chases and crashes, they continue to be filmed as 'practical' effects. (Real cars and drivers, not CGI.) No matter how good CGI is, for some shots practical effects are just easier, faster, more realistic, etc. Unless firearms are specifically banned from sets, they will continue to be used.


Tony

PS: After reading through the Wikipedia list of film and TV accidents, a much more obvious conclusion would be to ban helicopters from being used to film movies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_and_television_accidents

You must have watched Dan Millican's Taking Off video on this very subject. He is a director that almost verbatim commented on the same issues you address and how he dealt with them on his movie sets. As they say, there were many links in the chain that caused this shooting and if anyone one of them were broken, it wouldn't have happened. Clearly Baldwin was the last link.

 

[tsmith1315]

actors can not, and should not be responsible for the safety of stunts. That is simply not their job.

That's because they're not qualified. Does it take special training to tell the difference between a live round and a blank by looking at it?

Is pointing a gun at the camera and pulling the trigger considered a stunt?

If it were part of my job to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, I'd damn sure look every single time a gun was handed to me.

 

[dhbarr]

All of these things appear to be true:
- the set had leadership problems
- the set had a poor safety culture
- the armorer messed up
- the AD messed up
- the actor messed up
- at least one is dead; they also messed up
- at least one is physically injured; they also messed up
- many are likely traumatized

Failures of this magnitude ultimately are collective in nature. Physical and process controls were circumvented too many times, and this was the result.

 

[dr wogz]

A lot of us are saying that AB should have checked it, as that is what a lot of would have done.

1. Does AB have the gun handling know-how? [is he a gun guy?] I know some of you are gun guys, and this is your 1st instinct. Just like a car guy knows how to shift standard. But a non gun guy would would make the assumption based on what his expert says.
2. How do you check if the gun is loaded with a blank or an actual live round? Can you really tell by looking at the backend of the round? without actually pulling the round out & inspecting it? Should AB be that knowledgeable to know the difference? Should he (or anyone) be pulling the rounds each & every time he's handed a firearm?
3. I'm sure, on most sets he's been on, the armorer has done their job correctly. This clearly wasn't case.. Why should he have assumed differently? And was this the first shot fired of the movie / production?!

I just feel bad for him, and for the others on the set (especially teh families..) I do wonder what happens now.. Does he get charged & incarcerated? or does he have / get some special immunity (because he is a top-tier movie star?!)

 

[Lord Rory Gin]

It gets worse. Apparently this was the THIRD live round incident on set. The first two were fired by Baldwin's stand-in. You would think that after the first incident that the producers would have had a safety stand down and review of procedures. Like I said before, there is lots of blame to go around and I suspect charges will eventually be laid and likely the production company fined / sued.

 

[Steven]

Accidents will happen:

 

[manixFan]

Here is an very good overview from a prop master on how revolvers are handled on a set during filming in response to what happened:



Nowhere does he say the actor has any responsibility for making sure the gun is safe. It's the armorer and AD. I'll say it again - movies are not real life.


Tony

PS: I had not watched any other videos until just before I made this post. But I have been around firearms my entire life and have a lot of practical knowledge of how movies are made based on my career of working with film editors for the past 25 years. I have also worked with actual firearms consultants for movies.

 

[Rex R]

If the object of scene was to aim at the camera then...offhand i'ld say that he missed.

 

[Scott_650]

Here is an very good overview from a prop master on how revolvers are handled on a set during filming in response to what happened:



Nowhere does he say the actor has any responsibility for making sure the gun is safe. It's the armorer and AD. I'll say it again - movies are not real life.


Tony

PS: I had not watched any other videos until just before I made this post. But I have been around firearms my entire life and have a lot of practical knowledge of how movies are made based on my career of working with film editors for the past 25 years. I have also worked with actual firearms consultants for movies.

Again, this doesn’t reinforce your position - the rules of weapon handling don’t change because it’s a workplace where a movie is being made. Movie sets aren’t “magical” - all the ways that the physical universe exists are still present on a movie set. If what you’ve outlined is the way things are done because “movies aren’t real life” then they’re being done incorrectly - evident because people have been killed by guns that an armorer or AD have declared “cold”. Being done a certain way for years is not a valid reason to continue to do it wrong.

 

[tsmith1315]

I'll say it again - movies are not real life.

Of course not. But the making of movies, unquestionably, is real life. As illustrated by this real death.

If this part of movies wasn't real life, this camera operator would have stood up and walked away unscathed after the cut.

 

[MikeT]

You are aware the police and military often do 'live fire' training where they use marker bullets or other low power rounds and literally SHOOT AT EACH OTHER using real firearms?

https://simunition.com/en/products/fx_marking_cartridges
The marking rounds are designed to be fired from actual service weapons (with a conversion kit installed) and include a washable dye to 'indicate lethality'

"The patented, reduced-energy, non-lethal cartridges leave a detergent-based, water-soluble color-marking compound. The visible impacts allow accurate assessment of simulated lethality."

"This is the only system that allows officers to use their own service weapons in safe, force-on-force exercises against living, breathing, motivated human beings who can actually shoot back!"

So literally, police officers and military teams are pointing their own service weapons at other trainees and shooting them. The guns are supposed to be fitted with a conversion kit but still, it appears these folks aren't following your rules.

I'm not saying that the actor doesn't have responsibility, or that we should absolve anyone of responsibility. It's a horrible, tragic, senseless, needless death and injury. But to jump on a bandwagon and start throwing out accusations and 'truthisms' without taking into account the circumstances that it was literally a movie about gun fighters, is just ridiculous.

Again, I'm not trying to be flippant nor deflect blame. But at some point, you do have to trust the folks you hired for a job to do it correctly. Shooting a movie scene involving guns is a special circumstance where the normal rules of gun handling are set aside for the sake of realism. There is no way every actor handling a gun can be an expert or even know how to check some weapons or rounds to see if they are safe. They rely on the folks hired to do that job to make sure things are safe, just as you do for any of the myriad things that we trust others to do properly on our behalf.
Ok, there it is. You are making this a political issue rather than one regarding the actual facts and circumstances at hand. Based on that, I have to bow out. But to say you've only ever seen two scenes where someone is pointing a gun at someone else in the shot is more an indication of the types of movies you watch than the reality of movies and TV shows.


Tony

PS: To expand your horizons, watch at least one of the John Wick movies

Bowing out:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/hobbies-and-politics.168964/

LOl " watch a John Wick movie" You belong in Hollywood with the rest of the clueless crowd. "You are aware the police and military often do 'live fire' training where they use marker bullets or other low power rounds and literally SHOOT AT EACH OTHER using real firearms?" Are you serious? That's not even remotely close to what occurred on that set.

Mike

 

[Scott_650]

Well, it looks like this topic has been beaten into Elmer’s (maybe even School Glue at that). Not that there’s even the remotest connection between the origin of the topics but I can’t help but recall the level of indignation expressed by the members of TRF when movie/TV folks don’t have to follow rocketry safety codes or certification procedures when using commercial hobby rocketry motors…rules for thee but not for me - it’s only entertainment!

 

[manixFan]

LOl " watch a John Wick movie" You belong in Hollywood with the rest of the clueless crowd. "You are aware the police and military often do 'live fire' training where they use marker bullets or other low power rounds and literally SHOOT AT EACH OTHER using real firearms?" Are you serious? That's not even remotely close to what occurred on that set.

Mike

I’ll ignore the ad hominem attack for now.

You said only someone with half a brain would point a gun at another person, to paraphrase a bit. I provided an example where supposedly highly trained individuals are doing exactly that, which contravenes your rule.

So, in your opinion, if during such authorized training, a police officer is killed because a trainee was given a magazine loaded with the wrong ammunition, is the person who pulled the trigger at fault? Or the person who provided them with the wrong ammo?

Pretty simple question based on your reasoning so far.


Tony

 

[manixFan]

Again, this doesn’t reinforce your position - the rules of weapon handling don’t change because it’s a workplace where a movie is being made. Movie sets aren’t “magical” - all the ways that the physical universe exists are still present on a movie set. If what you’ve outlined is the way things are done because “movies aren’t real life” then they’re being done incorrectly - evident because people have been killed by guns that an armorer or AD have declared “cold”. Being done a certain way for years is not a valid reason to continue to do it wrong.

I’ll let you take that up with Hollywood. You can tell them they have to stop making realistic movies. But of course the same would have to apply to stunt falls, car crashes, using helicopters, etc., all things that are done with no regard to how things are done outside a movie set. In ‘real life’, folks don’t jump off buildings intentionally, crash cars at high speed intentionally, or fly helicopters in ways that would lose a regular pilot his license.

So yes, to shoot realistic scenes normal rules of safety are suspended, sometimes with tragic results. Should it be that way? Should any activity that carries risk be allowed? Beyond my pay grade. If this had been an auto stunt that went wrong with the same results, would we be having this discussion?


Tony

 

[manixFan]

LOl " watch a John Wick movie" You belong in Hollywood with the rest of the clueless crowd. "You are aware the police and military often do 'live fire' training where they use marker bullets or other low power rounds and literally SHOOT AT EACH OTHER using real firearms?" Are you serious? That's not even remotely close to what occurred on that set.

Mike

I'll take your statement 'you belong in Hollywood' as a compliment with regards to my recommendation on watching a John Wick movie. Keanu Reeves is highly regarded in the tactical shooting world because he takes that role very serisouly and has done extensive training for it. Here's an example:



And, as an example of why the movies and Reeves are highly regarded, here's breakdown by a tactical firearms trainer:



I'm sure you meant it as some sort of insult, but anyone who knows Keanu Reeves/John Wick would love to be told to go join him. I've done a fair amount of tactical shooting and it is far harder than he makes it look. Plus he is using live ammo during his training, so he runs a real risk of injury if something goes wrong. Even everybody's favorite liberal rag, the Washington Post, called out Reeves' abilities:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-keanu-reeves-knows-how-to-handle-a-firearm/
The point I was trying to make with the John Wick reference is that at least some in Hollywood take depicting firearms in an authentic manner very seriously, even if the actual action sequences are completely over the top. And Keanu Reeves is extremely familiar with the rules of firearms safety on the range, and knows that those rules are impossible to comply with while filming an action movie filled with realistic depictions of tactical shooting.

But, since you've only ever seen two scenes where a gun as been pointed at someone, I should have guessed you would not be familiar with the John Wick series and their reputation among viewers who shoot and train for a living.


Tony

 

[Woody's Workshop]

I've always been skeptical of the accidental shootings on movie sets.
I believe it's somehow not just an accident, and things happen because someone (or group of someones) have designed it that way.
You have to look at the history of guns and shooting being filmed from the very beginning and realize when these things happen.
You would have to think of all them Western movies, where hundreds of people are making a shooting scene.
There were no shooting accidents, but people did get hurt falling from horse back.
When I hear of something like this, I immediately think of Bruce Lee.
I am probably wrong, but wasn't he the first causality on a movie set with a firearm?
The first one I remember of anyway.
What bothers me the most is why there is anything but blanks on site?
I know if I was an actor and was involved with a scene that involved with a firearm...
I would check the gun and the ammo in it as soon as it was handed to me to make sure live ammo wasn't "Mistakenly" loaded!
But then again, who knows if that isn't the case an the gun handling actor didn't load the real ammo in?

 

[MClark]

This is the person who was in charge on the gun.
Not being judgmental……yeah I am.

 

[Banzai88]

This is the person who was in charge on the gun.
Not being judgmental……yeah I am.

The 'judgemental' part should actually come from a podcast that she did recently where she wrapped as being the head armorer for a Nick Cage western where she said that she felt that she wasn't ready for the responsibility, but that nothing happened so she guessed taht she was good to go.....and there were reports from that one that she was very lax with firearms safety protocols there........and then she's the head armorer for this Alec Baldwin movie......and it appears from the quantity of reports of 'lax firearms safety and outright violations' from cast and crew that have been reported in various news sources for THIS one, she's established a pattern of misconduct..... and it seems that she was right, she wasn't ready and someone paid with their life.

 

[Sandy H.]

If either of post by MClark or or Banzai88 prove to be real, then whoever hired and trained the person on this set are completely to blame, IMO. Not saying MClark or Banzai88 are mistaken, but I trust little media now-a-days.

I would never trust that person with my life, even though we all do every time we get in a car and drive down the road.

Not judging on age, race, gender, just the life choices this person appears to be making. By life choices, this person is not going to make it through the first interview process, much less to a critical job, I hope.

Sandy.

 

[NateB]

What life choices are you speaking about?

 

[manixFan]

It gets worse:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-prop-gun-crew-member-safety-complaint
The complaint was against the AD, not the armorer.

But wait, there's even more:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...-death-halyna-hutchins-fired-crew-off-set-fun
So the crew was using the gun for target practice with live rounds!? If true, that spreads the culpability even further out among the cast and crew. Just unbelievable they would use a prop gun* with live ammo for target practice. As almost always with these types of cases, it's a negligence chain that led to catastrophic results.


Tony

*that refers to any gun used in filming, real or a non-working fake

 

[Dan Griffing]

There is NOTHING farther from the truth.
When ever you have a firearm in your hand, that is ALL that should be on your mind.
The ONLY person responsible for that firearm is the person holding it.
He was 100% at fault.

There have been hundreds of action movies made with real or realistic firearms used. Its not exactly rocket science.

Of necessity there is a strong division of labor in movie making. Actors have never been expected to be experts in safety, firearms, stunts or special effects. They’re hired for their audience appeal and not for their brains, off-camera personality or their ability to be responsible.

Instead of looking for people to pin blame on, investigators need to first find what happened and where the safety precautions broke down, if they were actually present to begin with.

From first blush it looks like this movie making operation was low budget and had an amateurish armorer whose primary qualification was being trained by her dad.

Not necessarily any crime but I didn’t see anything that cried out for knowledgeable safety measures that were being carried out.

 

[David Schwantz]

This has become funny scary, glad some of you do not go to the range I shoot at.
I will settle this once and for all:
I go to work with my new hand gun to show everyone. I tell them "look it has a .9 trigger pull" and then I show them and it goes off killing someone. What do you think the Judge is going to do when I tell him that "I didn't know they were real bullets" ?
Football players can beat their wives and kids and still get out of jail to go play that Sundays game. Now actors get to kill people because they were in character????

 

[rfjustin]

This has become funny scary, glad some of you do not go to the range I shoot at.
I will settle this once and for all:
I go to work with my new hand gun to show everyone. I tell them "look it has a .9 trigger pull" and then I show them and it goes off killing someone. What do you think the Judge is going to do when I tell him that "I didn't know they were real bullets" ?
Football players can beat their wives and kids and still get out of jail to go play that Sundays game. Now actors get to kill people because they were in character????

Again, when an assumed to be competent armorer/prop-master are on set in Hollywood, your comparison is moot. You are comparing taking a firearm to your place of employment to that of a Hollywood set, not even remotely the same thing with entirely different standards. I said it before and I'll reiterate, outside of Hollywood, I'm with you 100%.

FYI "killing" requires intent, there was none here. Culpability lies with the armorer/prop-master in this case only.

 

[NateB]

Honestly, charges for accidental shootings aren't guaranteed, especially serious charges. A local EMT I knew was shot and killed a few years ago supposedly while his friend was cleaning a gun and no charges were filed.