Firearms Safety In The Entertainment Industry

SilicdyneTRF
eggtimer rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Saw a very experienced (decades in the industry) professional armorer being interviewed about this (On CNN I think). He showed how a REAL pistol (6 shooter in this case) can have washers welded inside of the Cylinder chambers the bullets are loaded into, so that only blanks with no bullets could fit all the way in. If a real bullet was attempted to be loaded, the bullet part up front would hit the washer and not allow the whole casing to fit inside the chamber, so the opened-up 6 bullet cylinder could never be pivoted back into place for a bullet to be aligned with the firing pin, and also not the barrel. He actually showed that on camera, easy to understand. A least, that is the kind of precaution that a good professional armorer would do.

As to the movie set, I recall that there were TWO live rounds that accidentally got shot the weekend before (as in, days before this fatal accident). Some of those who left , left for safety concerns from those two earlier incidents. There were fundamental safety problems on that movie long before Alec Baldwin was handed a “cold gun” that wasn’t.
 
Last edited:
NateB said:
What life choices are you speaking about?
Click to expand...

I was saying that the person in the video of post #52 is not someone I would want to trust with my life. Seems like the weird video/twitter posting implies various life choices that would not make them someone to trust in critical technical situations without verification.

I guess I'm being prejudiced, but at least in this case I'm only sexist and ageist, not racist too.

Sandy.
 
David Schwantz said:
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????
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if you think that example bears any relationship to what happened in this case. In your example you are the only possible person who can be held responsible - none of your coworkers had any control over your firearm or ammo. (And I hope you are joking about what I assume you meant to be a .9lb trigger pull - that's negligence in and of itself.) In the case of the movie set shooting, the actor was instructed by the script and presumably the DP to aim the gun at the camera and shoot. He was given a firearm that was supposed to be under the control and supervision of the armorer and AD. The actor was literally doing what his job required. The fact that the gun he was provided by the AD had a live round in it is no way the same as your example of you shooting one of your co-workers where you had sole responsibility of your firearm.

If you think your example settles it once and for all, you clearly missed your mark.


Tony
 
Justin, not to argue, but killing does not require intent. Murder does.
Guns have the same standards, EVERYWHERE!!!
Again sorry people were hurt.
 
David Schwantz said:
Maxi you finally got it right. I was the ONLY person that should have been responsible for the gun. Just like Baldwin!!

Not trying to ruffle your feathers.
Nuff said.
Click to expand...
No, do not take my post out of context. I am not agreeing with you. In your example you are the only possible responsible party. In the actual, tragic real-world shooting, there are many responsible parties. How you fail to see that is honestly hard to understand. You are basically ignoring the entire chain of events and the rules of 'engagement' on a movie set. No matter how much people in this thread want them to be the same, they are not. Not in a practical sense, and not in a legal sense. In the example you provided, you would be the only person physically responsible for the discharge, your employer may have have some liability if they allowed you to bring your firearm onto the premises. The .9lb trigger pull would likely seal your fate though.

In the case of the movie set shooting, there is no way from a legal, or even a moral standpoint, that the actor bears sole responsibility, and likely, even the majority responsibility. Give the two situations to any of your lawyer buddies and see what they say. The fact that the movie crew was using the gun for target practice with live rounds (as I linked to earlier) spreads the responsibility even further.

Since you are so sure of your stance, please review the bold portion in this post:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...rtainment-industry.169016/page-2#post-2194455Based on everything you've posted, the officer who pulled the trigger would bear sole responsibility for what happened. The training company that provided him the defective ammo would be blameless. And if the rules are the same for everyone, why is it OK for police officers to shoot at each other with their service weapons? Are you going to tell the company that makes that training system and all the LE and military groups that use it they are breaking the rules of firearms safety and should cease and desist immediately?

I just don't understand why folks have a hard time understanding that when making movies, (and apparently for police training) normally accepted safety practices are modified so action scenes can be more realistic looking. This goes far beyond firearms. To continue to argue otherwise is just being willfully ignorant.

Tony

PS: I'll assume your misspelling of my name was an honest mistake, and not a purposeful attempt at trying to insult me. It's not hard to hit the edit button to fix it.
 
Last edited:
When I'mdealing with something dangerous I use a similar philosophy: I assume whatever it can do to cause damage will happen at the worst possible moment. like:
gun will fire,rocket engine chemicals will burn, gas containers will catch on fire, etc.
 
manixFan said:
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
Click to expand...

"IF" Hollywood idiots vs trained professionals. I rest my case.

Mike
 
How many of you are old enough to remember "Gun Safety" in school?
Rule #1) Treat every gun as if it were loaded.
Look in the mirror. That person is responsible for anything that person touches.
Sure, certain people have other people handle things for them that is suppose to ensure safety.
But ultimately, if you touch it, you put all safety on yourself.
One should NEVER assume any deadly weapon is safe!
Hollywood or otherwise.
Why do you think pilots have such large check lists?
They don't rely on the mechanic word, it's ok.
Accidents rarely happen because of one little mistake.
It's several things that come together at once, where if any one of them didn't happen, the accident most likely wouldn't have happened.
Being self aware of your responsibility for which you hold in your own hands is one mistake that wouldn't have happened.
 
Do you guys get 'gun safety' in school?! (Asking as a non-US citizen)

My only 'gun safety' was at summer camp, only because one 'event' was shooting pellet guns, then graduated to .22 once we could recite 10 rules..
 
dr wogz said:
Do you guys get 'gun safety' in school?! (Asking as a non-US citizen)

My only 'gun safety' was at summer camp, only because one 'event' was shooting pellet guns, then graduated to .22 once we could recite 10 rules..
Click to expand...

No. "Gun" anything is verboten in today's uber liberal run public schools, at least here on the east coast. There are some regional variations in tolerance, however, to some degree, as some areas of the country still have gun ranges in the basements of schools and sponsor trap and skeet shooting teams. Get one state off the east or west coast in America and it's like you're in a completely different country.

In the 80s (when I was in high school), it wasn't uncommon to hunt the deer or turkey or duck blinds in the morning and have lever guns or shotguns in the car in the parking lot in High School for the remainder of the day. NEVER was a single problem. Today, that would land a kid in jail.
 
I had gun safety at the age of 10. My first gun was given to me by my Dad at 6. Likewise with my Son.
In 11th grade speech class I did a presentation on how to properly load, handle and unload a shotgun, with a real shotgun and shells in school.
 
dr wogz said:
Do you guys get 'gun safety' in school?! (Asking as a non-US citizen)

My only 'gun safety' was at summer camp, only because one 'event' was shooting pellet guns, then graduated to .22 once we could recite 10 rules..
Click to expand...
Completion of a firearm safety course is still required for any young person before getting a hunting license. As I’m sure you understand the whole concept of guns in schools has become very political. As I recall, when my daughters took firearms safety it was held at a county facility instead of a school.
 
Let's take guns out of the equation for a moment.

At work, I'm occasionally required to go up in a manbasket. I inspect my safety harness as you would expect, but I also clip in where the manbasket operator tells me to. While I have the skills and knowledge to run calculations to determine if the hard point is strong enough to catch my fall, should I run those calculations or trust that the manbasket operator knows what they're doing? Should I insist that we grind off the paint on the hard point so that I can check for hidden cracks?

Of course not. I trust that the manbasket operator knows their business and is telling me what I need to keep me (and them) safe. Sure, I'll look at the hard point for a second and make sure it's not obviously compromised, but I'm not going to delay the job by doing a detailed inspection.
 
manixFan said:
It was a simple question and you chose not answer it. So it appears you don’t like the obvious answer based on your past reasoning.


Tony
Click to expand...

It's pointless to even converse with you.
Go back to watching your movies. I'll continue on in real life and keep practicing safe firearms handling, something that your movie people need to learn.
Mike
 
Alec Baldwin violated 3 of the 5 firearm safety rules.

rfjustin said:
Its Hollywood dude, how would scenes like this be possible without pointing a gun at the intended targets? Interesting to note that the tactics applied in this very short scene took months for Tom Cruise to master. Outside of Hollywood I am with you all the way. Someone screwed the pooch on this one and it was not Alec IMO.

Warning, F-Bomb at end of short clip:
Click to expand...


How is it possible to get video of the Space Shuttle taking off without camera men growing wings?

You don't have to be Lucas ILM to set up a remote camera. Even B movie weapons training films have Go-Pro's setup on target to get the uprange point of view.

As for Cruise, and John Wick, there's fake plastic guns that require CGI in post. There's propane powered guns that flash and cycle only, sound has to be added in post. There's even CO2 and electric guns that cycle only. There's even real pistol chambered in 8mm for blanks. There is no readily available ammo that will fit in those. So no worries about a mixup.

The use of real guns with blanks, requires a different mindset, and a little bit of extra training. Maybe an hours worth of training tops.


boatgeek said:
I respect that #2 is the prime rules of firearms safety. On the other hand, it is flat impossible the way many screenplays are written. How many times does the gun fire directly at the camera? How many times do you have a scene where someone is aiming a gun at another person in the shot?

I'm not saying that there isn't a major safety violation here. I'm just saying that Rule #2 (while critical off set) is also somewhat impractical on set without a fairly major change in how screenplays are written. This fact makes the armorer's job even more critical. It may also argue for never having live ammunition on the set and dealing with muzzle flashes etc. in CGI.

[edit] I didn't really realize until I re-read the thread how much I plagiarized @manixFan here
Click to expand...

Shooting at the camera is no problem at all. Just don't sit behind the camera. Set it up and leave it, or operate it remotely. Baldwin should have witnessed the loading of the pistol. Should have kept it pointed in a safe direction. Should have fired only on a safe target. If Baldwin is too inept to follow the safety rules, then he should only be allowed to handle a blue plastic pistol. Fix it with CG later.

If you and I play Russian roulette, it wouldn't be fair if I loaded your revolver for you, would it?
 
MidOH said:
Alec Baldwin violated 3 of the 5 firearm safety rules.



How is it possible to get video of the Space Shuttle taking off without camera men growing wings?

You don't have to be Lucas ILM to set up a remote camera. Even B movie weapons training films have Go-Pro's setup on target to get the uprange point of view.

As for Cruise, and John Wick, there's fake plastic guns that require CGI in post. There's propane powered guns that flash and cycle only, sound has to be added in post. There's even CO2 and electric guns that cycle only.

The use of real guns with blanks, requires a different mindset, and a little bit of extra training. Maybe an hours worth of training tops.




Shooting at the camera is no problem at all. Just don't sit behind the camera. Set it up and leave it, or operate it remotely. Baldwin should have witnessed the loading of the pistol. Should have kept it pointed in a safe direction. Should have fired only on a safe target. If Baldwin is too inept to follow the safety rules, then he should only be allowed to handle a blue plastic pistol. Fix it with CG later.

If you and I play Russian roulette, it wouldn't be fair if I loaded your revolver for you, would it?
Click to expand...
Your argument is predicated on the theory that everyone on a film or theater set with any role whatsoever involving a firearm that's supposed to be a prop should be proficient on the process of clearing it and maintaining all safety rules. That's absolutely implausible on a set. For this reason there are trained staff given that responsibility. And that staff clearly failed in this situation.
 
More info on the case:
https://news.yahoo.com/warrant-baldwin-practicing-gun-052422920.htmlSo it was an accidental discharge while practicing, not during filming. While the details have changed, it does not change the fact that the armorer and AD should have cleared the gun before giving it to the actor. To put it into context, there are many recorded incidents of police officers shooting themselves or their partner through an AD, and sadly, while it should never happen, it does way too often, especially with guns like Glocks (used by the majority of police forces in this country) which do not have a manual safety. The Colt Single Action Army, which is reportedly the type of gun used here, also has no mechanical safety once the trigger is cocked.

The main reason I prefer manual safeties - they require a higher level of training and situational awareness than a gun that goes bang whenever you pull the trigger. I can't hand someone a 1911 without first giving them a short course on how to operate the safety. When I do it's easy to judge their level of interest in safety - if they are not interested, they aren't shooting.

Also a great example of how so many of us jumped to conclusions based on the incomplete initial reporting. I still stand by my opinion that the armorer and AD bear the brunt of the responsibility for allowing live ammo on set. And if you read through the accidental discharges linked below, unless the office did something willfully wrong (like bring an unauthorized firearm into a classroom), in the vast majority of cases the shootings were considered just that - accidents. I guess if police officers can't get it right 100% of the time, it should not a surprise it could happen with an actor.


Tony

For an idea of how often this happens with police officers:
https://www.policemag.com/tags?tag=accidental+discharges
Article on increase in accidental discharges by police officers due to a new gun without a manual safety:
https://www.policemag.com/355588/ri...ts-by-l-a-county-deputies-follows-new-firearm
 
Last edited:
MikeT said:
It's pointless to even converse with you.
Go back to watching your movies. I'll continue on in real life and keep practicing safe firearms handling, something that your movie people need to learn.
Mike
Click to expand...
Hmm, whenever someone ends a discussion with an insult, it's not hard to tell how it went for them.


Tony
 
MidOH said:
Shooting at the camera is no problem at all. Just don't sit behind the camera. Set it up and leave it, or operate it remotely. Baldwin should have witnessed the loading of the pistol. Should have kept it pointed in a safe direction. Should have fired only on a safe target.
Click to expand...

OK, that's fair. I hadn't thought about remote cameras and I should have. What about scenes where people are pointing guns at one another? There are some tricks of perspective available, but they may not work for all scenes.
 
CalebJ said:
Your argument is predicated on the theory that everyone on a film or theater set with any role whatsoever involving a firearm that's supposed to be a prop should be proficient on the process of clearing it and maintaining all safety rules. That's absolutely implausible on a set. For this reason there are trained staff given that responsibility. And that staff clearly failed in this situation.
Click to expand...

Untrained people operating dangerous equipment, is completely unacceptable. If the actors can only handle fake plastic blue guns because they're inept morons, so be it. Just use plastic fake guns.

Only the people handling the pistol have to be trained for it. Not all of the random people on set. The person handling the real pistol is 100% liable for it's safe use. The prop master is at fault, but so is the shooter.

I can train you in about an hour. It's no harder than forklift training.

There are obvious, safe solutions to this problem.
 
I've been to this guys studio and while not a close friend I think that his experience base and judgement is useful to the conversation. He made a follow-up video that I haven't watched yet.

 
MidOH said:
Untrained people operating dangerous equipment, is completely unacceptable. If the actors can only handle fake plastic blue guns because they're inept morons, so be it. Just use plastic fake guns.



Only the people handling the pistol have to be trained for it. Not all of the random people on set. The person handling the real pistol is 100% liable for it's safe use. The prop master is at fault, but so is the shooter.



I can train you in about an hour. It's no harder than forklift training.



There are obvious, safe solutions to this problem.
Click to expand...
It's hard to comprehend why you can't grasp the concept here....

In many shows, numerous actors are handling weapons on screen. Professionals are hired to be responsible for weapons. Actors are hired to be responsible to act. Just because you have a (thoroughly incorrect) belief that you can train absolutely anyone to be proficient at all weapons in an hour doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
 
If the weapon misfired or was loaded incorrectly and the actor was killed or injured in the scenes below, is the shooter responsible? And if she isn't because of her age, who then should be held responsible?

Note: in the first clip you can see what look like projectiles in the cylinder - this is exactly why during filming dummy rounds are used. It would be very obvious if the cylinder was empty.




Tony
 
If I hop n a cab, drunk, and the we get into an accident... I would assume the driver is fully coherent, and is the responsible person in this case, not I..

As for 'remote cameras' sometimes / most times (all teh time!!) you want to be behind the camera to ensure you get the shot you want. And the "remote" part can then likely include a trolley, and a 3-axis gimbal to allow you to follow & pan & such.. the shot.. So, again, just have the cinematographer manipulate the camera to get their intended shot.. (and don't forget the set up, the programming, the.... of the 'remote equipment')
 
MidOH said:
Untrained people operating dangerous equipment, is completely unacceptable. If the actors can only handle fake plastic blue guns because they're inept morons, so be it. Just use plastic fake guns.

Only the people handling the pistol have to be trained for it. Not all of the random people on set. The person handling the real pistol is 100% liable for it's safe use. The prop master is at fault, but so is the shooter.

I can train you in about an hour. It's no harder than forklift training.

There are obvious, safe solutions to this problem.
Click to expand...
Check out post #84. Presumably at least some of those officers involved in an accidental discharge that struck another person, sometimes with deadly results, had more than 1 hour of training. And if the prop master is also at fault, how can the shooter be 100% liable? Can you have more than 100% liability?

To recap, it's now being reported that the actor was practicing and it was an accidental discharge - it did not happen during filming. From the links in post #84, that appears to happen to police officers more often than it should, and we would expect they are highly trained in firearm safety. According to your argument, we should not let the police handle firearms. They probably don't appreciate being called 'inept morons' either.


Tony
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top