Alec Baldwin's Gun Proposals Will Not Make Hollywood Sets Safer
Despite a tragic on-set death, there is no need to involve police officers in still more aspects of people's lives.
In October, a tragedy occurred on the set of Rust, a Western film in production in New Mexico, when star Alec Baldwin discharged a prop gun that he did not realize was loaded with live ammunition. Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed and director Joel Souza was wounded by the projectile.
Since then, Baldwin, who is also a producer on the film, has been cooperating with the police investigation of the incident, and production has shut down. However, in public statements regarding his role in the incident and what he feels could be done differently in the future, Baldwin's ideas skew in the wrong direction.
Writing on his social media accounts Monday, Baldwin stated: "Every film/TV set that uses guns, fake or otherwise, should have a police officer on set, hired by the production, to specifically monitor weapons safety." While some actors have committed to certain changes—Dwayne Johnson, for example, said he will only use rubber guns on film sets from now on—Baldwin's suggestion is different: It is both unlikely to make a difference, and it could also set a poor precedent.
Logistically, the task is daunting: In 2019 (the last fully pre-pandemic year), there were at least 220 films released in the U.S. just by the major studios; the number of scripted original television series was over 500. Assuming that guns are involved in half of all films and television shows (likely a large underestimate, as some studies put the rate of movie violence of any kind at over 90 percent among top-grossing films), then full implementation of Baldwin's plan would require police departments to give up more than 350 officers each year to studio sets, just to supervise the handling of weapons. While Baldwin did specify that the studios should pay, the process would require police departments to either make do with fewer officers, or hire more to replace the on-set monitors.
Further, it is not clear what an on-set police officer could accomplish, above and beyond the system currently in place. The current industry safety protocols dictate that all weapons are the responsibility of the weapons master, or armorer, who is required to be on set whenever weapons are to be used. The armorer is solely responsible for loading and handling any weapons, and he is expected to test-fire every weapon, off set but in full view of the actor who will be using it, before filming the scene in which it will be used.
Given these existing parameters, the addition of a uniformed police officer to movie sets might not change much. By all accounts, the Rust set was already chaotic: The day of the accident began when several crew members walked off set to protest poor safety controls. The fatal mistake occurred when an assistant director—not the armorer, as required—handed Baldwin a gun that he said was safe to use, but was instead inexplicably loaded with live ammunition. It is entirely possible that an officer could have prevented this tragedy, though given the lax safety controls already at play on the set, the incident could also have occurred if the officer was running late, or on a meal break, or producers simply cut corners as they did in this case.
The closest existing parallel to what Baldwin is requesting are school resource officers (SROs), police officers assigned specifically to individual public schools. If the track record of these officers is at all informative for Baldwin's proposed on-set police presence, then it could actually decrease general safety. Nominally intended to decrease violence and school shootings, in practice, SROs are much more likely simply to criminalize everyday activity, turning general misbehavior and disagreements among children into matters for police involvement. Besides, in the statistically rare event of a school shooting, it is no guarantee that a resource officer would actually be of any help.
Despite Baldwin's long history as a pugnacious liberal, his plea seems to have nothing to do with politics: While Baldwin is unlikely to be held personally liable for the accident, he is almost certainly struggling to cope with unimaginable grief over the incident. At the same time, however, the facts simply do not support his proposition. Baldwin himself described the accident as "a one in a trillion episode." Indeed, given that the existing on-set safety protocols, if followed, could have avoided the incident altogether, this shooting does not justify welcoming armed agents of the state into yet another area of our lives.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Alex Baldwin was personally responsible for what happened when that gun was in his hand. Chaff and redirect won’t change this.
How about we keep Alec Baldwin away from starring or producing movies?
Alec killed more people than all of the 1/6 protesters combined.
True. I will say that I dislike his politics. Have not seen anything recent but liked Beetlejuice and The Hunt for Red October. Also still find the older SNL Christmas skit with him as Pete Schwetty hilarious.
If an actor with libertarian political views had done this, I would say the same thing: you had the gun, you pulled the trigger and you are responsible.
If an actor with libertarian political views had done this, I would say the same thing:
A libertarian actor wouldn’t be calling for police regulation. An actual libertarian would’ve taken responsibility for checking the chamber and ensuring the gun wasn’t loaded with real bullets himself. Even if they despised guns, they’d check the chamber out of professional courtesy, the same way they’d thumb the blade of a prop knife before putting it to someone’s throat or having it put to theirs.
But there’s a bit of an oxymoron to the term ‘libertarian actor’ WRT personal responsibility. They can’t take personal responsibility, they’re (playing the part of) someone else.
Baldwin was negligent as the actor with the gun in his hand and as an executive producer. There is no way he avoids it. If New Mexico had any balls, I can’t imagine not getting a conviction for something. Baldwin is not going to prove self-defense.
To be clear, I won’t advocate a prosecution. But I would not for a second feel sorry for Baldwin if they do. Reap the whirlwind, authoritarian assholes.
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening… i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it…. . Visit Here
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…MJO And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it……..CASHAPP NOW
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.GJb Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site and visit tabs( Home, Media, Tech )
For more details…………..Pays24
Alex Baldwin is a murderer, and Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero.
Apparently Baldwin is not on the “defund the police” bandwagon. His prog buddies in la la land must be so pissed!
His career is over. Haha.
If he was, it’s because of his status of executive producer, and his failure to control his employees and subcontractors in maintaining reasonable firearms safety standards for a motion picture set. Not because of his status as the actor who pulled the trigger on what he reasonably thought was a “cold weapon.”
Not that anything substantial will happen to Baldwin for this, criminally. As John Landis could tell you. That dude better have thanked his lucky stars that he didn’t burn—unlike his helicopter—on a manslaughter conviction for that abortion of a Twilight Zone Movie set.
These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.GVr Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..
Just visit this website now………….PAYBUZZ
Basic gun safety requires the operator to check the weapon every time he picks it up.
Even minimum wage gun shop clerks know this.
++++
>++++
x 1000
I was taught this the first time I was allowed to fire a 10/22 when I was very young. And every time I was ever instructed how to handle firearms since. It was 30 years before I ever actually found a loaded gun (full magazine, nothing in the chamber though) while doing it, but still, I have always looked.
It’s so habitual it’s completely ingrained. Automatic, Chumly would say. I mean you still never point an empty gun anywhere you wouldn’t point a loaded gun, but geez. If you’re touching the thing at all, you should know all of this.
Amen. Even quail hunting we only use break shotguns and show someone the empty chambers before rescabbording and moving to the next point. Pick up a gun and you and only you are responsible.
No, it doesn’t on a Hollywood set. I’ll repeat that last: on a Hollywood set. Again, guns are simply another tool for actors to manipulate when filming a scene. Actors are not expected to follow the four rules when using a gun, because it’s not “a gun” in their working environment. They point them at each other in the course of their work, for crying out loud. And they don’t check to see if there’s a backstop behind their target. Why? Because though it looks like a firearm, (and in this case, shot like a firearm) on a properly run movie set, they aren’t firearms. The rules that are applicable when shooting or handling a firearm aren’t applicable here. It’s an unusual situation and environment, made safe by the professionalism and procedures of the armorer, her staff, and site security.
They’re also not checking lock out/tag out if their scene involves them working with, e.g., an industrial robot. Or following any of the other safety rules involved with using or working with a particular tool. Or, as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, they also aren’t double-checking the work of the tens of other technical professionals relied upon to perform their work responsibly and safely.
But keep going on with the four rules, and thinking you understand this particular situation.
If it wasn’t a real gun, it wouldn’t have fired a bullet.
Baldwin is totally at fault.
They do use real guns on movies a lot. But there should be an armorer checking all of these things. Should probably be some kind of checklist and defined procedure before handing any actor a gun.
And don’t do stupid shit like take the powder out of a round but leave a live primer in it. That’s how Brandon Lee died. A bullet got lodged in the barrel from a round with just a primer and then a blank round pushed it out and killed him.
Because though it looks like a firearm, (and in this case, shot like a firearm) on a properly run movie set, they aren’t firearms.
Except that it absolutely WAS a firearm, no different from any other. Carrying it onto a film making set doesn’t magically transform it into something else.
and thinking you understand this particular situation
The only one displaying abject ignorance here is you, by arguing that a fully functional firearm is somehow magically not a firearm anymore because it’s in the hands of an actor. Would you also assert that an automobile being used to film a chase scene for a movie isn’t actually an automobile?
They point them at each other in the course of their work, for crying out loud. And they don’t check to see if there’s a backstop behind their target.
No they don’t point them at other actors or at crew or other bystanders. Not on any well-run stage or set. For scenes where someone takes a hostage or threatens suicide or jams a gun against back or belly or especially, pistol whips another actor it isn’t actually a firearm at all. They have dummy guns for thosekind of scenes. The one exception to pointing a functional firearm at someone else is the classic “bullet catching trick” in stage magic. That’s almost never performed anymore and certainly not like it once was. IIRC, the death toll stands at 8 magicians.
“Basic gun safety requires the operator to check the weapon every time he picks it up.”
While this is true, what happens when you check the gun and see the back of a cartridge- with the primer cap and anything? Because, you know, that is what you will see if you are firing blanks.
This isn’t as simple as checking to make sure the gun doesn’t have anything chambered- you have to confirm that the “bullet” currently chambered is not a real bullet. And by the way, that is how Brandon Lee was killed on the set of The Crow. The gun had a piece of bullet lodged in the barrel, so that when the blank fired, gasses propelled the bullet into Lee, killing him.
The appropriate thing for people like Baldwin to do is either take responsibility for properly managing firearms on the set, or ban them from the set and make do with replicas and post-production special effects.
It was an 1873 Colt Single-Action Army revolver, the “Peacemaker”. It requires some familarity to safely handle and check for loaded. One would lower the loading gate on the right cylinder plate at the loading port, put the hammer in the “half-cock” position, then rotate the cylinder and check each chamber as it becomes visible at the loading port. Check for no rounds or no primers to ensure no live rounds only “dummy” rounds. It requires learning. Everyone on that set who would handle the firearm should have been trained in advance in proper procedure.
No. Every firearm is always loaded. Always. There is no “reasonably thought.” It must be verified by the possessor.
I agree that he likely won’t be convicted of anything criminal.
That’s a shame. If anyone richly deserves some prison time, it’s Baldwin.
Cigarette adds were banished in 1970 by legislation. Subsequent industry pressure has greatly reduced depiction of tobacco on most video media.
Maybe best way for Baldwin to stop shooting people is to seek to ban weapon depiction on his movies. And then the rest of the industry would surely fall in line.
I wouldn’t go that far. But at least asshole Hollywood would not be spreading their usual ignorant, unsafe, dangerous firearms handling practices.
Police officers have no particular expertise in prop guns, blank rounds, or how movie sets work.
Baldwin’s problem was he hired an armorer who didn’t do the job correctly. Now, he’s trying to deflect from his culpability in this incident.
I’m pretty sure he put a real bullet in because he thought it was cool.
Or, he just wanted to murder the person he shot.
Haven’t you heard? It was some nefarious MAGA supporter that snuck on set and sabotaged the gun.
“Baldwin’s problem was he hired an armorer who didn’t do the job correctly. Now, he’s trying to deflect from his culpability in this incident.”
Alec pulled the trigger and murdered killed somebody.
Any gun safety course drills into your head that YOU (you ALONE) are responsible for whatever comes out of that gun when you pull the trigger.
And everything Baldwin has said has reinforced the notion that he clearly has never had proper introduction to firearms, knows next to nothing about them. I would be skeptical about any firearm placed in my hands until I personally checked it out and was sure of its safety.
No knowledge, no discipline, no personal responsibility. Classic infantile mind set of a prog.
“…I would be skeptical about any firearm placed in my hands until I personally checked it out and was sure of its safety.”
Not how it works in Hollywood. You also, as an actor, double-checking the demolition guy’s work? Or the animal wrangler’s? Or the vehicle stunt coordinator’s?
On a movie set, per principal directors and A.D.s of photography I’ve listened to, guns are just another tool for the actors to use. Which is why the armorer’s job is so important. Along with the electricians, carpenters, pilots, and other technical staff.
The armorer fucked up here. And so did Alec Baldwin, because he didn’t stop production upon learning—through the multiple previous negligent discharges on set—that his armorer had a problem fulfilling her professional responsibilities in a safe manner.
“You also, as an actor, double-checking the demolition guy’s work?”
You, PERSONALLY, did not set up the charges nor did you detonate them. Alec DID pull the trigger on the gun. He is responsible.
“Or the animal wrangler’s?”
You, PERSONALLY, did not gather the animals nor are you charged with their care. Alec DID pull the trigger on the gun. He is responsible.
“Or the vehicle stunt coordinator’s?”
You, PERSONALLY, are not driving the cars (if you did and somebody died, unless the car malfunctioned, it is your responsibility). Alec DID pull the trigger on the gun. He is responsible.
“On a movie set, per principal directors and A.D.s of photography I’ve listened to, guns are just another tool for the actors to use. Which is why the armorer’s job is so important. Along with the electricians, carpenters, pilots, and other technical staff.”
Again, if YOU pick up the gun, YOU aim the gun, YOU fire the gun—you are responsible. Try using that logic in the real world. It won’t go well.
“The armorer fucked up here. And so did Alec Baldwin, because he didn’t stop production upon learning—through the multiple previous negligent discharges on set—that his armorer had a problem fulfilling her professional responsibilities in a safe manner.”
He also pulled the trigger. He, again, is responsible.
I’m not calling for jail time for him. Any more than I am calling for jail time for Rittenhouse who is responsible for shooting three people in Kenosha, justified as it may be.
Alec failed to provide the necessary standard of care when holding a firearm.
Rittenhouse was assaulted, had reasonable belief he was going to receive grievous bodily harm and was defending his life.
These are not the same.
But you’re working with those items, and you are also trusting that those professionals who were involved in making those items safe for you to use a prop in your acting, did their jobs. Baldwin, the actor, is just as blameless here, as he would be if he was given the wrong prop explosives detonator, and blew up the first team action coordinator with her own charge.
On a properly functioning set, “cold weapon” means, cold weapon. It’s not loaded. No ammunition is on set. No loaded weapons are on set, unless in the exclusive control of the armorer, her staff, or site security. (Who isn’t comingling whatever weapons they require to assure security with whatever is required by the movie production.) The pistol is incapable of firing normal ammunition (Which is not the case, AIUI with revolvers used in Hollywood. And makes their not maintaining a sterile set even more inexcusable.). The pistol has been under the positive, exclusive control of the armorer and her staff who have assured the above, including re-checking the chamber and magazine/cylinder, until immediately before transferring the pistol to the actor. All of which is to ensure that this tool is safe for the actor to use.
Are you insisting the actor operating, e.g., a Mk-19, or a tank main gun, open the breech on those too, and verify empty? The only reason most of you are autistically screeching, “You always check a gun!” is because you are gunowners, you have some special knowledge about this particular tool, and you aren’t on a movie set, with it’s own special rules.
Most actors, AIUI, aren’t gunowners. Should they acquire a safe understanding of how to use those tools? Sure. Adam Baldwin, might have checked the chamber. Is it negligent for an actor to not do so, then point a stated cold weapon at the camera or another actor, if required by the scene, and pull the trigger? No. It’s not unreasonable, on a Hollywood set, for the actor to do that. The actor. The actor doesn’t know any better and isn’t expected to.
The executive producer though? After the armorer has already shit the bed on maintaining a safe set with respect to firearms use a few times? Yeah, the executive producer hasn’t acted reasonably.
Though you all are providing a great lesson in how important jury selection and education is going to be in this case.
“But you’re working with those items, and you are also trusting that those professionals who were involved in making those items safe for you to use a prop in your acting, did their jobs.”
While nice, it does not absolve responsibility. You know who is supposed to check the gun? The shooter. Every single time. If they do not know HOW to, they should not hold a gun in the first place.
“Baldwin, the actor, is just as blameless here, as he would be if he was given the wrong prop explosives detonator, and blew up the first team action coordinator with her own charge.”
In what movie has an actor ever been given the detonator? You’d think that’d ruin insurance coverage for the production at the bare minimum.
“Are you insisting the actor operating, e.g., a Mk-19, or a tank main gun, open the breech on those too, and verify empty? ”
If you are firing it…yes. Absolutely. It’s being responsible. If somebody says “This gun is safe” and I shoot somebody and kill them, rest assured, I will not be protected by “Well, that person said it was OK”
I’m not calling for jail time. I am saying, in the end, he is responsible. He was the one who pulled the trigger.
…and, technically. he also hired the staff as the executive producer.
“Most actors, AIUI, aren’t gunowners. Should they acquire a safe understanding of how to use those tools? Sure. Adam Baldwin, might have checked the chamber. Is it negligent for an actor to not do so, then point a stated cold weapon at the camera or another actor, if required by the scene, and pull the trigger? No.”
Thoroughly disagree.
First off, why is he aiming at ANYBODY? That certainly is not necessary in the first place. You should ALWAYS assume it is loaded. Period.
Again, how can Alec know that this gun is safe? These guns have blanks in them, and depending on the type of gun, they can look strikingly like a real cartridge so that they properly actuate the semi-automatic mechanisms in the gun.
This is not as simple as checking a gun to verify it is empty. It is checking a gun, verifying that it is loaded with a very special type of ammunition designed to do everything a real cartridge does except propel a bullet.
Then, perhaps, they should not use guns in movies. I expect the same level of responsibility of an actor I do of a drunken hunter.
I tend to agree with this. I do not believe there is really any need for films to have live firearms on set, except in very controlled cases (such as filming someone shooting “into the distance”). It is better to use replicas and special effects.
This was a western. The firearm used is being reported as a Colt single action revolver.
I’ve never seen a blank that looked anything like a real bullet. They are all obviously missing the bullet and are either crimped or have a plug of some sort to stop up the case neck.
There are dummy rounds that can look like real bullets, but they have no powder.
We aren’t talking about pyro or animals. We are talking about firearms. And Alec failed to provide the appropriate standard of care, which is that he and he alone must personally verify the load status of that particular firearm.
was going to respond to your reasoning (which is faulty) but damikesc kind of covered it.
A gun in your hand that you are pointing and pulling the trigger is considered a loaded life ending threat, until you prove that to be true or false. Baldwin didnt check, pulled the trigger and someone is dead. He is directly responsible. Your other arguments are not relevant to these facts.
I think Gray Jay is right. You also don’t point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, even if you know it’s unloaded, according to normal gun safety rules. But you do on a movie set. And you often have a gun loaded with blanks or dummy rounds. I don’t think it’s necessary or appropriate to expect actors to be able to assess these things. How does he tell the difference between a live round in the chamber and a realistic dummy? The armorer for the production needs to be responsible for making sure the guns are safe. The usual gun safety rules don’t apply because they are necessarily broken by the way firearms are used on set.
Nope.
You don’t point the gun at another actor. In a theatrical production you point it upstage. The weapon doesn’t need to be pointed directly at another actor or the camera to make it appear so and it is not done for safety reasons. For a scene where it is necessary (taking a hostage for example) you use a dummy gun. If you don’t believe me just wait for the parade of expert witnesses at the upcoming civil and likely criminal trial(s).
I can get that the safety instruction a 6 year old is expected to understand is beyond both you and Alec, but stop excusing his gross negligence.
I suspect Baldwin has had instruction on how to handle a firearm on set yet forgot or ignored them. They weren’t shooting a scene he deliberately pointed the gun at his cinematographer and pulled the trigger.
Killed – yes. Murdered – no. At least, not based on the evidence available so far. The crime of murder includes the element of intent. If you kill someone accidentally, by definition it can’t be murder. Manslaughter is generally the name given to negligently killing someone – which is what Baldwin ought to be charged with but probably won’t.
Agreed, Rossami. But because of his unreasonable conduct in overseeing the conduct of his experts, which led to the negligent killing his cinematographer. Not because the actor reasonably thought the weapon was cold and used it in accordance with what the scene required.
I don’t know any of the other actors on this production. Let’s say (since I’ve just seen Dune) it was Zendaya who fired the revolver instead. She isn’t acting unreasonably when she’s using a cold weapon in the manner an actor is expected to be using it. Not on a movie set. The armorer, their staff, the person overseeing the safety protocols surrounding firearms use: all of those people have acted unreasonably. The actor just did what they were told.
She’s also not acting unreasonably if, again by example, the scene were to call for her to jump into the driver’s seat of a car, stomp on the gas, and peel out in reverse, and she did all of those things, but she didn’t check her rearview mirrors first and ends up running over some hapless PA. Not checking your rearviews, or looking behind you, is negligent behavior. And while actors may not be gun owners normally, the vast majority of them know how to drive, and they know not checking the mirrors is negligent.
So, normally, is pointing a revolver at someone. She is relying, in both cases, on the professionalism and due care that the vehicle stunt coordinator is exercising to ensure she doesn’t run into anything, and the armorer giving her a cold weapon.
Sorry, no. You are assuming the existence of a Hollywood-specific definition of “negligence” that is not accepted in any other context. Well, except maybe police and the (un)qualified immunity doctrine. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
To be blunt, blindly assuming that someone else did their job perfectly is not reasonable in a high-risk scenario. It is even less reasonable in a setting where you have knowledge that the person responsible for that job has failed to perform it in prior circumstances.
How much you can or should trust someone else can count toward contributory negligence but that’s just deciding ratios of blame. The idea that the ratio of the actor’s blame is always zero is absurd.
No, there is a difference.
On the Hollywood Set, driving recklessly is potentially expected. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is potentially expected.
Anyone who has been taught basic driving or gun safety knows that these are things you NEVER do. But on the set of a film, you may need to do this.
Under exceptional circumstances like this, you need someone to define how to make these exceptions SAFE. And you rely on that person to establish different procedures and safeguards that allow you to accomplish your goals while still maintaining safety.
This isn’t some crazy wackadoodle concept. There are all sorts of examples of situations where we have different procedures for john q public, vs some professional performing goals in a different environment.
I don’t understand why this became such a giant object of contention in the comments. Everyone agrees that Baldwin should be held accountable. We are just saying that he should be held accountable for using an expert that any reasonable person should know was incompetent.
Not because the actor reasonably thought the weapon was cold and used it in accordance with what the scene required.
Baldwin himself claimed in his affidavit that he was “rehearsing a scene that involved pointing the gun at the camera”, not a scene that involved him firing the gun (even if just pretending to do so). But he pulled the trigger anyway. So, no…he was not using it “in accordance with what the scene required”. He unnecessarily pulled the trigger on what he knew was a real firearm while it was pointed at living people. That he assumed the gun to be “cold” based on what he was told by his bargain-basement armorer doesn’t make that any less stupid or negligent.
Correction. It wasn’t the incompetent armorer who directly told Baldwin that the gun was “cold”. It was his careless and also inept assistant director, who was supposed to have verified himself that the gun was not loaded before giving it to Baldwin…but did not do so.
Baldwin’s problem was he hired an armorer who didn’t do the job correctly.
My understanding was that the person wasn’t even an armorer, he was listed as an assistant director by title and pevious prop managers, armorers, and pyrotechnicians had lodged safety complaints against him.
Also, there’s a body that strongly suggets i wasn’t a prop gun.
There was an armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (a woman), who was inexperienced. (She had only done one other movie previous to Baldwin’s.)
I think it couldn’t have been a prop gun, since we know it managed to fire a real bullet.
Right.
All the bullets that hit the side of the barn were because I’m a good shot. The rest were blanks. I’m not an actual Texas sharpshooter, but I play one on TV.
I think
Your posting history indicates otherwise. For instance…
it couldn’t have been a prop gun, since we know it managed to fire a real bullet.
In the film industry, “prop” doesn’t mean “fake”. It is short for “property”, and refers to objects used by actors on stage/screen.
Definitions matter. A “prop gun” is any gun that’s used as a prop in a movie or play whether or not it is capable of firing real bullets.
A “prop gun” might be a rubber gun (which, despite the name, just means a non-functioning replica whether or not actually made of rubber) but it could equally well refer to a gun fitted out to only fire blanks only or an unloaded real gun that the actors just wave around but never actually fire. The term could even refer to a real gun that will fire real bullets in some later scene where that’s safe and appropriate. “Prop” does not mean “fake”.
“The term could even refer to a real gun that will fire real bullets in some later scene where that’s safe and appropriate.”
Thank you for sharing your pedantry. 🙂
I know right, leftists like you always appreciate a little bit of pedantry, huh? 🙂
I mean, look at Fraudci literally changing the definition of gain of function research to save his sorry ass. Leftists, huh? 😀
Thank you for sharing your pedantry.
You claimed that it couldn’t have been a “prop gun” because it fired real bullets. It’s not pedantry to point out that your claim was not factually correct and that you don’t know what the hell you’re babbling about.
I bet Baldwin is having trouble finding any armorer who will do the job correctly, without spouting the “firearm safety rules don’t apply to movie sets” nonsense that Gray_Jay is passing around elsewhere in this thread. It may be that the only people in Hollywood who will check a firearm every time they pick it up and yell at anyone who doesn’t are the police officers. At which point, hiring police officers starts to make sense.
Of course, being an authoritarian tool, Baldwin wants to *require everyone* to hire police….
Baldwin is desperately virtue signaling with this idea. But why would movie/tv sets be safe with a cop? Aren’t they all engaged in deliberately murdering black people? Would you want to be a black actor on a set with a real cop?
Or dogs, forget about any dogs on the set.
all dogs were shot during filming.
After they defund the police, they’ll have a cop in. every film studio.
Meh. A member of the liberal elite wants to have personal police service to protect him and his friends. But (I will assume, if anyone has a direct quote please post it) Baldwin supports reducing police resources for little people. Now that’s some serious equity.
More police to protect our precious movie sets.
Less police in areas where blacks are offing each other in record numbers.
Equity.
Despite a tragic on-set death
According to a frequently drunk and frequently violent fat-headed asshole known to be in desperate need of some anger management classes.
Baldwin stated: “Every film/TV set that uses guns, fake or otherwise, should have a police officer on set, hired by the production, to specifically monitor weapons safety.”
Even a cop, with the police fucking up with their firearms more than any other group, would’ve been better than the amateur hour armorer that Baldwin and his drinking pals hired for the production.
At least a cop on the set of Rust could have “feared for his life” and killed Alec Baldwin thus making the world a better place. So there might be something to this proposal.
You make a compelling argument.
Every film/TV set that uses guns, fake or otherwise
Do phasers and blasters count as “guns, fake or otherwise”?
This sounds like the report of a police shooting:
“In October, a tragedy occurred on the set of Rust, a Western film in production in New Mexico, when star Alec Baldwin discharged a prop gun that he did not realize was loaded with live ammunition. Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was killed and director Joel Souza was wounded by the projectile.”
How about – “Alec Baldwin shot two people, killing one person and wounding another, apparently due to an accident involving [etc]”
But look at it from his perspective. If an awesome, intelligent person like himself can’t be trusted around guns, how can we trust the average citizen?
This sounds like the report of a police shooting
At least they stopped calling the gun going off when the shooter pulled the trigger a ‘misfire’. *eyeroll*
It’s not an accident. It’s a negligent discharge.
I was avoiding legal terminology – “accident” in the sense that “when it happens you go ‘oops’ instead of ‘just as I planned!'”
Doing a search, I found a lot of “conservatives pounce” articles.
Several blaming Trump, and MAGA supporters too.
>>Baldwin’s ideas skew in the wrong direction
always. also did he shoot two people with one trigger pull?
“Magic bullet?”
Big slow hunks of lead have a hard time stopping in one human. (Right, Governor Connelly?) Especially if that human was maybe a buck 10, soaking wet.
Contrast with the behavior of the .223 55-grain bullets that ‘sploded one guy’s arm, and stopped within the bodies of the initial people hit in Kenosha. Even though they were FMJ. Speed kills. People and bullets both.
Shooting on location.
Excellent title for a Lifetime movie, since after all he killed a woman.
If it were a song, it would be headed to number one, with a bullet!
It certainly seems appropriate for Baldwin to be in the crosshairs.
for once Alec is the target
He wasn’t a very sharp shooter.
OK, now you’re just sniping. I’m sure he wouldn’t appreciate all the potshots.
He was certainly triggered though.
Do you have a off switch for these puns? If so, glue/tape it in the on position because you are throwing out bangers every day
Wonder why we haven’t heard more about this?
https://nypost.com/2021/10/26/rust-crew-used-alec-baldwins-prop-gun-for-plinking/
That’s so wrong, it hurts. I would love to see a slew of manslaughter/criminally negligent homicide charges for this.
Thanks for posting that; yes, I understand the “crew” were using at least on of the handguns for target practice, and presumably this is how “live” ammunition got onto the set, and the two prior “negligent discharges” occurred.
Baldwin is deflecting responsibility not just for pulling the trigger but for the entire CF for which, as producer, he was responsible.
He also apparently bragged how good he was with “gun play” in movies; I’m surprised he hasn’t already blamed the NRA for this.
Baldwin is deflecting responsibility not just for pulling the trigger but for the entire CF for which, as producer, he was responsible.
He’s doing all of this. And he should burn for the latter. Like Landis should’ve.
I don’t know if NM has depraved heart murder or not, but the armorer’s fuckups on this are bad enough that I’d consider it. From how I ‘ve had it explained to me of Hollywood set firearms best professional practices and procedures, her conduct is absolutely inexcusable, downright reckless, and her willful disregard of such serious risks to life might constitute malice. Probably not, in practice, but involuntary manslaughter seems like a no-brainer for her.
I had heard this and was under the understanding it was widely known. Part of the reason why I don’t believe it was a prop gun or, more accurately, whether it was a prop gun or not, is moot.
‘The closest existing parallel to what Baldwin is requesting are school resource officers (SROs),’ erm, no, the closest existing parallel is the progressive/liberal tendency to always create more layers of regulation and demand more laws, personnel and policies that will have minimal or zero impact. A better solution, firearms safety courses for actors, strict adherence to safety protocols on set with weapons.
For true safety, Baldwin should receive a lifetime ban from any job in, on, or around any type of theatrical activity, live or recorded.
“A better solution, firearms safety courses for actors, strict adherence to safety protocols on set with weapons.”
But then they would have to actually engage in firearms related practices and of course real guns are just “icky” to that set. Colion Noir has a pretty good take on this; it was his anti gun arrogance that culminated in this fatality.
But then they would have to actually engage in firearms related practices and of course real guns are just “icky” to that set.
You’re tap dancing around the 500 lb. gorilla. Guns aren’t icky. They’ll handle prop guns all day long. The personal responsibility around handling actual guns is icky.
Why don’t Baldwin’s solutions place responsibility on the executive producer for adhering to current best practices?
Why doesn’t he suggest that the person pulling the trigger be responsible for ensuring the gun is safe?
What makes you think he can tell a blank from a hole in his head?
Because there is supposed to be a person on the production team who is responsible for all of that.
The guns are supposed to look real. An actor who has little personal knowledge of guns isn’t the person to determine if a round is live or not.
That’s probably something that needs to change. Take one day of production and train any actor who will be handling guns on set to check and clear the guns, make sure dummy rounds are actually dummies and blank rounds are actually blanks. This would have saved Brandon Lee’s life too, and I’m sure there are others
Sure, that’s probably a good idea. But when the idea is for things to look as realistic as possible, I think the ultimate responsibility still needs to fall on one person who is in charge of all of the potentially dangerous weapons on set.
Brandon Lee would have needed to check the barrel for obstructions to prevent his death. Which is also a good idea, but does everyone really do that every time? It’s easy enough with a revolver, but not so much with, say, a .223 rifle. That was also a fuckup by the armorer who left live primers in rounds that were supposed to be dummy rounds, but had real bullets in them.
If it falls on one person and that one person fucks up, then you have the potential for disaster. If everyone had some knowledge anyone might be able to say “hey that sounded like a squib round, someone should check the barrel” or “I saw the bullet was missing from that dummy round you just took out, let’s make sure we know where it ended up”
There’s a reason that industrial jobs might have one safety officer, but still hang signs around saying “safety is everyone’s job”
the ultimate responsibility still needs to fall on one person who is…
…pointing the weapon at living, breathing people…and pulling the trigger.
Going out of your way to make excuses for an actor’s failure to act responsible, how shocking for you. Sorry, but these are rules we expect elementary school children to be able to understand and follow so actors should be able to understand them too.
But they will protect Alec Baldwin from litigation, which is the goal.
Alec Baldwin is fine with police on the set. His days of cocaine and hookers in his trailer are behind him.
When someone says “#DefundThePolice” it turns out what they mean is “stop arresting me and mine, and step up the arrests of you and yours”.
The existing gun safety protocols are more than sufficient for safety. The problem in this case is that the protocols were not followed. As one of the producers of this safety challenged production, Baldwin is just trying to cover his ass.
I mean Jeepers H Cripes, there was a walkout over lax safety ON THE SAME DAY! The blame is on the producers.
So my high school had a starter pistol. It was a regular .38 pistol. Blanks were used. It’s impossible to mistake a blank for a live round. Not once in the history of the school was a live round fired by mistake. So what the hell happened on that set that a live round was even loaded? Why was a live round even on the set? In this day and age of special effects, there’s no business for live rounds to even be on the set.
Not once in the history of the school was a live round fired by mistake. So what the hell happened on that set that a live round was even loaded? Why was a live round even on the set? In this day and age of special effects, there’s no business for live rounds to even be on the set.
I would argue that there’s no reason to have a real gun on the set. Movies with guns often involve actors pointing guns at other actors (or in their general direction) running with them with cameras and crew scattered around the set.
If there MUST be a real gun on the set for some reason, then all people handling the weapon, including the actors into whose hands the gun will be placed must be trained in safety procedures, check and clear, don’t point it at anything you don’t want to kill, etc. etc.
If it’s one thing police are known for, it’s their stringent gun safety.
Mandatory NRA memberships and annual training for everyone in Hollywood.
I’m thinking of the opening scene in *Michael Clayton* (starring George Clooney, who is kind of a non-fatal counterpart to Alec Baldwin). One of Clooney’s clients is in a hit and run and kills or injures someone – the client tells Clooney it’s the city’s fault for making the road so bad or whatever.
Baldwin is acting like that client.
Since all Americans are equal before the law, you or I could pick up a gun and kill someone, then act surprised when they die. You or I could then start advising less incompetently reckless producers how to run their movies, lecture elected officials on how the Second Amendment “isn’t really” in the Bill of Rights and send deputies running of in all directions looking for throwdown bullets and Nazi frogmen. I can hardly wait. “Dead, from Noo Yawk, its Sattidy Night Special!”
A “police officer” hired and paid by a Production Company is not a Police Officer, they are a Security Guard. Going by some of the Police Officers that I know and have shot with, that would be a bad thing.
What will make things safer is some Production Companies and Producers being sued into oblivion by this. The only thing that counts to them is money. The Producer’s of this movie were taking short cuts and playing fast and loose with safety to save MONEY.
Are you against the Moonlighting Cops Full-Employment Act?
Alec Baldwin is a moron because he thinks cops are safe gun handling experts. Too many have the problem of too much familiarity breeding complacency. A friend I have known for over 30 years is what most would call a “gun nut”. He is a collector of military firearms & all handguns except hand cannons. His income has been such that he can indulge his hobby which includes frequent (bi-weekly trips to a range. He has stated that many times that cops break range safety rules all the time. What Hollywood needs is insurers that insist that prop guns that use propellants, powder, air or gas never are out of sight or possession of a armorer or propmaster except when locked up and key under the control of the armorer. Also, if Covid protocols prevent this the set ruber guns should be used & CGI used to add muzzle flash.
If they maintain their status as police officers when moonlighting then yes.
The issue is not whether Alec Baldwin is a good person or a bad one. Neither that nor his politics matter. The relevant fact is that he obviously violated three basic safe gun handling rules:
1. Every gun always must be treated as loaded. That has to be the default assumption unless and until the person handling it personally takes every one of the multiple steps necessary to ascertain and confirm that it is not. Being told by any other person or even by several other individuals that a firearm is unloaded won’t cut it or excuse a violation of this rule.
2. No gun ever should be pointed at any portion of one’s own body or at any other person who does not pose an immediate dangerous threat that must be neutralized.
3. No gun holder ever should place a finger inside the trigger guard unless and until the gun is aimed at a target at which the gun holder has decided to shoot.
Anyone who picks up a gun and fails to comply with each of these fundamental common sense rules must be held accountable — legally, financially, and morally — for the consequences of any such failure . . . and this is particularly true when all three rules are violated with fatal consequences. A celebrity exemption from these rules cannot and must not be tolerated.
The problem is numbers 2 and 3 are pretty much impossible to follow while filming a movie scene, but that much makes number 1 that much more important
Yeah, the people saying “you just have to follow the gun safety rules” are missing an important point. Filming with guns pretty much requires breaking some of those rules, as you say. Which is why there needs to be strict procedures and an expert in charge of it all. More training for actors is definitely a good idea too. But it’s just never going to be the same exact rules as a normal gun owner should always follow since the whole point is having guns to point at people who you don’t really mean to harm.
A movie is fake, so what’s wrong with fake guns? And with computer animation to boot, what’s the excuse for the actors handling guns on the set at all during filming?
To make it look as realistic as possible to the super nerds who point out every inaccuracy in movies?
I’m not interested in having a say in how movies are produced. I don’t think super realism is all that important, but if others do, then they can figure out how to do it safely. Which absolutely can be done.
To make it look as realistic as possible to the super nerds who point out every inaccuracy in movies?
You think it would be challenging to produce a non-functional replica of a firearm that is visually indistinguishable from the real thing on film?
A systematic industry practice of engaging in negligence does not cause it to cease being negligence.
I’m not saying we tell people how to make their movies. I’m saying we don’t give them a special exemption from the ordinary rules because they’re making a movie. If they decide to run the risk of using real guns instead of “rubber” guns, they’re free to do so . . . but they get prosecuted for every negligent discharge just like anyone else, and they get prosecuted for every involuntary manslaughter just like everybody else.
We’re not missing the point, you’re making excuses for murder. With filming angles you don’t point a gun at someone to make it look like you are and there are fake guns to be used if you’re fingering the trigger with post production to make it real. But we get it, they’re actors so why should they be held to any standards, safety or otherwise.
“Hollywood: It’s time to create “Halyna’s Law”, which will ban the use of real firearms on film production sets and create a safe working environment for everyone involved. – Sign the Petition!” /Olivia Wilde
https://deadline.com/2021/10/halyna-hutchins-petition-ban-real-guns-legislation-california-1234861635/
I don’t think a new statute would be needed once the lawyers and insurance people explain about civil liability.
How about Joe Sixpack’s Law to forbid laws being named after victims of tragedies?
So I guess the current generation now has its own Chappaquiddick, which means we can retire all the Chappaquiddick jokes.
I have a sinking feeling about that
That joke was a bridge too far.
I saw no harm in floating it…
It’s an old incident, it’s not part of current events.
It’s been water under the bridge for some time now. Public interest has, therefore, taken a dive.
Want to ban gun violence, ban liberals from owning guns….oh wait. they already ignore all laws anyways. Carry on.
Seems like a convenient way to get rid of a potential #metoo problem.
I feel for Alec Baldwin, his terrible politics aside. He killed someone, and he’ll have to live with that fact for the rest of his days. It’s a perfectly natural psychological reaction for the mind to rationalize all the ways that someone else must be responsible.
Of course, realistically, there’s no reason a police officer is any more qualified or infallible than any other human being with basic firearms training
And when a law enforcement officer is this careless with their firearm they too should face the consequences and be responsible for the loss of life.
For all y’all that think actors are routinely pointing and firing guns at each other (and the crew) in movies and television this is only the 4th fatal shooting with a prop on a movie/television set/location that I can find a record of (at least in the US). I wondered about that because they used to churn out 10s of thousands of hours of westerns, A-pictures, B-pictures and serials since the dawn of cinema and television shows post-WWII.
The first was in 1915 on a Cecille B. DeMille film. The second was that male model who shot himself in the head with a blank. The 3rd was Brandon Lee in The Crow and this is #4. The reason there were so few fatal shootings is because they don’t actually point their guns at people.
because they don’t actually point their guns at people
Let along pull the trigger while pointing them at people.
We should just presume every adult involved in making movies can decide for themselves if using real guns is worth the danger inherent in using a deadly weapon for make-believe.
And accordingly prosecute Alec Baldwin for involuntary manslaughter just like anyone else who kills someone with a gun by aiming and firing it while under the misapprehension that it wasn’t loaded.
No special privilege for doing it on a movie set, no special privilege for being an actor, just simple ordinary criminal responsibility. Alec Baldwin is a felon; treat him like one.
They’ll probably let him plead to littering.
Meh, he won’t struggle. It isn’t like he has a conscience or much intelligence. I mean come on, he’s barely sentient.
While I won’t be “welcoming armed agents of the state into yet another area of our lives” because I’m not an actor and therefore not above the law, personal responsibility, or common sense as they apparently are; I do think maybe we just shouldn’t let idiots handle guns. You know, idiots like Alec Baldwin or probably most actors. Will Smith seems to know his shit so he’s probably ok but certainly not most of them.
A large percent of directors today don’t use real guns rather, fake, be it plastic toy or whatever. They haven’t for the past 5 years which is when everyone was told or given the opportunity to stop having real guns on sets. There’s no need to have real guns, we all know it isn’t real, movies are fake situations, we all know this so get with the program and stop trying to live in a fake world while calling it real.
If Alec Baldwin had shot just one more person, he’d a be a mass shooter (and not just any kind of mass shooter, but a white male mass shooter, the type the left really loves to hate!).
But for now, we have to settle for Baldwin only shooting 2 people, which is 2 more than most NRA members.
Saddest part of all this is that Baldwin shot his victims precisely because he wasn’t following the industry rules that had been established long ago (in response to Brandon Lee’s death). Why would making more rules make any difference if sociopaths like Baldwin think they’re too special to have to follow the rules?
I was pleasantly surprised to see that this wasn’t immediately a screed demanding that guns remain on movie sets. You’re gonna leave no stone unturned on behalf of the NRA. There’s room for guns there! You won’t rest until there’s a gun in every child’s nursery.
Instead it’s an anti-cop screed, which I can get behind. Is it even security theater when it’s some donut-munching neckfat? Who has his own weapon to mash with his fat fingers?
Just make them all fake. Have you seen Dune? Special affects have matured now.
How about putting the responsibility on anyone who handles a gun to do so properly.
Would that make everyone immediately safe and the acting more believable?
PROVE
Point the gun in a safe direction.
Remove the magazine
Open the action
Verify the chamber and feed path are empty
Examine the bore.
This takes seconds every time you pick up a gun. Once complete, the gun in your hand is absolutely safe.
We don’t need some pansy actors input.
Given the shoot-first habits of today’s cops, their first and last instincts would be to ventilate any actor who picked up a gun.
For 90% of actors, that outcome sounds like a case where “it’s a feature, not a bug” would apply.
I’m surprised the article did not touch on the fact that there is no reason to believe that a police officer is an expert with firearms. I do not know why there is some belief that a police officer would be better at making sure firearms on set are safe. Just because the officers use a gun on the job does not make them experts. I would guess the armorer is typically much better suited for this type of job even if in this case they did not hire an armorer who was experienced enough for the job. But that is an issue with hiring not with the role of the armorer. Additionally, I would be shocked if a police officer would be able to adequately supervise all the different types of weapons on a tv/movie set. The only gun they typically handle are their pistol and maybe a shot gun from time to time. Not the myriad weapons seen in movies.
Indeed. With some exceptions, I’d estimate that the vast majority of LEOs are actually far less knowledgeable about firearms in general than even the average hobbyist plinker.
There are effective existing protocols for safely handling guns on movie sets. Mr. Baldwins’ production didn’t follow these protocols. His suggestion to involve local police is similar to the reaction of national gun control activists in the presence of laws that already exist but are not enforced: let’s make more laws! How about holding this movie production responsible for its clearly lacking behavior?
“It is entirely possible that an officer could have prevented this tragedy, though given the lax safety controls already at play on the set, the incident could also have occurred if the officer was running late, or on a meal break, or producers simply cut corners as they did in this case.”
This is amusing. We might as well as say this could happen if the armorer was running late, on a meal break, or producers simply cut corners. Baldwin’s proposal, much like red light cameras, is meant to add a layer of security. If a police officer checked the gun before the assistant director handed Baldwin the gun, the victim might be alive. Same for Brandon Lee.
We don’t need this, because it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. 99% of the time armorers do their job. I wish I could make a living checking and testing guns. But its natural for people to want protection after incidents like this especially in Hollywood, a town crawling with predators.
Reason could simply urge reason to dispel this kind of panic driven move, instead of tacking on their undying hate for cops.
As far advanced as movie makers have become what with special F/X, I don’t see why using actual firearms would be necessary in the making of a movie.
However, as long as actual firearms are used, the humans holding them are the ones responsible and all the safety rules that apply to gun owners apply to them.
There is NO reason a live round to EVER be on a movie/tv set…EVER. Baldwin isn’t to blame because on a set the gun isn’t supposed to be a gun, it’s a prop so the “user must check their gun” argument is absurd. Also you’re dealing with actors who are usually anti-gun nuts so saying they should know the first thing about guns is equally absurd.
The fault lies with person who handed him the gun WHICH WAS NOT THE ARMORY MASTER, Baldwin should have asked “did the armory check this?” maybe but again, it’s a MOVIE SET…I also blame the film industry for using live ammo or guns that aren’t choked as to make firing a live round impossible as there is ZERO reason to EVER have a live round on a movie/tv set…EVER
Maybe if we weren’t paying people millions to goof off (act) and paid the crew this wouldn’t have happened
I have been around firearms since I could walk. I was always taught gun safety and to check any gun handed to me. Later on in life I worked as a range safety officer at a public shooting range in So. Fla. Nobody ever got hurt on my watch. Our rule was simple. If God walks in and hands you a closed pistol or revolver and says “it’s unloaded” you say “of course Lord, as you check it.” Alec Baldwin, I’m sorry for him, was 100% negligent and careless in the handling of the firearm. He should be charged, maybe not with manslaughter, though it applies, but with a serious charge of careless/reckless conduct resulting in grievous bodily harm/death.
“Nice info!”
“Nice info!”