Pulling the trigger (heck, touching the trigger) while pointing at somebody, ain't funny.

One, real armory is now no longer needed or necessary on film sets, and two, I question how much responsibility does the armory employee take?
I guess it is a question of where does the buck stop.?

 

One, real armory is now no longer needed or necessary on film sets, and two, I question how much responsibility does the armory employee take?
I guess it is a question of where does the buck stop.?

If you hand me a real gun, and tell me that it's not loaded, and you are an "expert", I'm still not pointing it at anyone.

During training (my work with dogs and cops), we always used props (brightly colored plastic and rubber weapons).

 

One, real armory is now no longer needed or necessary on film sets

Can you expound on that? Do you imply "because real guns shouldn't be on film sets?"

two, I question how much responsibility does the armory employee take?

Most if not all of it, IMO. "Don't point guns a people even if they're unloaded" is something that "we" had drilled into us, where "we" = "people who were raised around guns." Not everyone fits that description, and we are talking about actors are: (A) weird, (B) often high on expensive drugs, and (C) paid to point "unloaded" guns at people. It is the job of the armorer to make sure things Iike this don't happen. She clearly didn't do her job and now someone is dead.

 

The #2 grandson was given a BB gun at age 8. He was expected to act responsibly with it and he has. He kept asking his mother when grandpa Blain might give him a "real" gun. Well his grades are good and he is a well behaved kid so this year for Christmas I gave him one of my old Remington .22 rifles. I made it clear I expected him to remain responsible and continue the good grades or that rifle would be gone as fast as it found him. Now we are waiting on some warm weather so I can get him on the range. I have hopes for this kid. I could have given him his father's Ruger 10/22 but I wanted the kid to have a bolt action to learn. Heck, eventually everything will filter down to the kids and grandkids. May as well start now.

Ron

 

Can you expound on that? Do you imply "because real guns shouldn't be on film sets?"

A while after this episode happened, there was a program on the whole issue and it was demonstrated quite elaborately the a 'real' gun is NOT now required on film sets, In the demonstration with gun firing scenes, , I would defy anyone to detect otherwise.

 

A while after this episode happened, there was a program on the whole issue and it was demonstrated quite elaborately the a 'real' gun is NOT now required on film sets, In the demonstration with gun firing scenes

So, 'yes' then? I agree. I see no reason for real guns to be on set, and surely not real bullets. I just have seen so many crazy arguments about this ordeal that there was a real chance you could be advocating for (real guns) and (no armory) at the same time, with the implied justification that "everyone is responsible for their own actions and their own safety."

 

I also think that special effects has probably advanced to the point where there is no need for live weapons to be used on set. In instances where there is a need for live action fire, it can almost certainly be done under carefully controlled conditions by the professionals and then edited into the film. One exception might be lower budget films that can't afford the special effects or the separate shoot (in both senses) by professionals. But, then that places the extra burden for range safety on the armorer.

As for not pointing any weapon at someone -- that's certainly the rule in the real world, but when making a film, it's a rather unrealistic expectation. Which, again, imposes additional responsibility on the people responsible for range safety. My impression is that the primary responsibility is on the armorer. It was her responsibility to train the actors on what they could and could not do and to oversee them when they had the weapons she was responsible for. If the actor was doing what was within the guidelines she set, then she is the primary in terms of accountability. As for him pointing the gun at the camera and pulling the trigger (assuming he did), if that is what was in the script directions, it's hard to fault him for doing it. If it wasn't, that's a different matter. Should he have verified that the gun was empty (or only had blanks, if that's what the shot called for)? Absolutely. In a perfect world. But what is an actor? It's someone who wears clothes that someone told them to wear, stands where someone tells them to stand, makes gestures that someone tells them to make, and recites words that someone else wrote. In most cases, these are not people imbued with the ability to think for themselves or take responsibility for their own actions (as we see played out in the news on a regular basis).

As for any charges against Baldwin related to whether or not he pulled the trigger -- I don't see how there is any hope of getting a conviction at this point. Two labs say that the trigger had to be pulled. The first lab says that when working with a weapon that the armorer is accused of tampering with. The FBI then says that it could have fired without the trigger being pulled, and in the process disassembled the gun. The third lab claims the trigger had to be pulled, but they tested a gun that had been tampered with, then disassembled, then reassembled. Gee, seems like more than enough room for reasonable doubt on that one.

 

I have a Colt Army model 1860 cap and ball black powder revolver that someone made from a kit. I bought it used as I wanted to play with black powder. Yes, you have to pull the trigger, but that pistol has a hair trigger. Not a big deal if you know about it but unless you want it to go off you keep your finger off of the trigger. Standard trigger pull for double action revolvers is over 10 lbs. Single action is ~ 5 lbs. That pistol, although I've never measured it, is probably less than 1 lb. Bottom line is you never put a weapon in someone's hand without training first. Even with training there are lots of Bozos that do not practice keeping the weapon always pointed in a safe direction and not touching the trigger unless you are firing. Especially if it has a light trigger pull.

 

For those following this I have a question, did or didn’t the gun have a cylinder full of 6 rounds of live amo or just one bullet? and the rest dummies.

It would seem to me someone made him a scape goat, especially when you know how stupid funny he thinks he is, had he fired the gun during a shoot someone was going to be shot, not once but multiple times possibly depending on his trigger pulls. The actor who would have been the recipient of a bullet or more should thank their lucky stars it wasn’t them.

kv

 

My question also is how much blame also falls on the armorer ?
A Very large proportion IMO.

 

Hurricane Sandy when it got to NYC was The Perfect Storm meaning a collection of things needed to happen for the storm to be as destructive as it was. What happened on the movie set was also a perfect storm. Baldwin was essentially playing with a very real gun. Baldwin needed to cock the gun and pull the trigger for the gun to discharge. Next we add an apparently inept armorer on the set. Then we have stage hands who were playing with the gun outside with live ammunition, ammunition which never should have found its way on the set. The list goes on and on of the collection of stupid things needed for this to happen but perfect storms do happen. It took negligence all around for someone to end up dead and another injured.

Complacency kills.

Ron

 

Some rules to live by:

• Treat all guns as if they are loaded. ...
• Keep the gun pointed in the safest possible direction. ...
• Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. ...
• Know your target, its surroundings and beyond. ...
• Know how to properly operate your gun.

None of these basic rules was followed. Not a single one. Someone hands me a gun and says "It's not loaded" the first thing I do is clear the weapon and check for myself while pointing the gun in a safe direction. Now for those not gun savvy either do not accept the gun or watch while someone else makes sure the gun is safe to handle. Beating what happened on the Rust movie set won't change anything and now we wait while the court sorts it out.

Ron

 

My question also is how much blame also falls on the armorer ?
A Very large proportion IMO.

A very large portion of the blame rest with the armorer. Just my thinking and listening to what I hear the armorer was an idiot hardly worthy of the title. Plenty of blame to go around though.

Ron

 

A very large portion of the blame rest with the armorer.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the guy who pulled the trigger confirmed the gun was safe.

If he didn't know how to, he shouldn't have been handling it.

 

Yes, and yet here we sit. Baldwin obviously picked up the gun and was handling the gun and through all of this not even the first rule of gun safety was followed. Since I was not there, on the set, I have no clue about any of the she said, he said being tossed around.

If he didn't know how to, he shouldn't have been handling it.

Absolutely!

Ron

 

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the guy who pulled the trigger confirmed the gun was safe.

Which brings us back to my original point, why was a real gun used at all?
People, actors get slain in a multitude of ways in many movies and many sets in almost every show out there, but it is a prop based piece of equipment and never the real weapon or instrument of death.

 

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the guy who pulled the trigger confirmed the gun was safe.

If he didn't know how to, he shouldn't have been handling it.

Basic Gun Safety is all he needed, he is just a fool that thinks he can toy around with a weapon Loaded or not. My new view is the armorer‘s Father had a code of ethics which would not have happened under his management. She on the other hand is swept away by the set, people, power, influence around her, she then dropped her code and misplaced her responsibilities to the fools who handled them. Loaded or unloaded.

kv

 

Which brings us back to my original point, why was a real gun used at all?
People, actors get slain in a multitude of ways in many movies and many sets in almost every show out there, but it is a prop based piece of equipment and never the real weapon or instrument of death.

Though a major exception (and not the only one, but possibly the most extreme) was Act of Valor, where a LOT of the scenes were filmed with live fire. The most impressive one (in my opinion) was when the SWCC boats came to the rescue and shot up the trucks that were chasing the good guys after they bailed into the river. My understanding is that was all a single take and 100% live fire, with the actors actually in the water with the rounds going right over their heads.

Many of the scenes were shot in two takes, one with life fire and then spot scenes using blanks when characters were actually getting "shot". But things like the helicopters shooting up vehicles on the ground was actually helicopters shooting up vehicles on the ground.

 

I have a Colt Army model 1860 cap and ball black powder revolver that someone made from a kit. I bought it used as I wanted to play with black powder. Yes, you have to pull the trigger, but that pistol has a hair trigger. Not a big deal if you know about it but unless you want it to go off you keep your finger off of the trigger. Standard trigger pull for double action revolvers is over 10 lbs. Single action is ~ 5 lbs. That pistol, although I've never measured it, is probably less than 1 lb. Bottom line is you never put a weapon in someone's hand without training first. Even with training there are lots of Bozos that do not practice keeping the weapon always pointed in a safe direction and not touching the trigger unless you are firing. Especially if it has a light trigger pull.

I had a real cheap revolver that, when half-cocked (which was the 'safe' position for that firearm), could be made to drop the hammer by pulling the trigger really hard. The hammer would slowly move back as you pulled hard and then drop down, but not nearly as hard as when actually fired. I don't know if it dropped hard enough to discharge a round -- never tried. Then again, that gun was so inaccurate that your best option was to throw the gun at your opponent -- much better chance of hitting them.

But whether other weapons can or can't discharge without the trigger being pulled is irrelevant -- it only matters whether that specific weapon, in the condition it was in at that specific time, could discharge without the trigger being pulled.

 

I had a real cheap revolver that, when half-cocked (which was the 'safe' position for that firearm), could be made to drop the hammer by pulling the trigger really hard. The hammer would slowly move back as you pulled hard and then drop down, but not nearly as hard as when actually fired. I don't know if it dropped hard enough to discharge a round -- never tried. Then again, that gun was so inaccurate that your best option was to throw the gun at your opponent -- much better chance of hitting them.

But whether other weapons can or can't discharge without the trigger being pulled is irrelevant -- it only matters whether that specific weapon, in the condition it was in at that specific time, could discharge without the trigger being pulled.

The Phrase don’t go around with your trigger half cocked, means you can’t shoot until fully cocked otherwise it’s in a locked position. To release the hammer full cock and trigger pulled with thumb on hammer lowered to rest position. But I don’t know because I don’t own one.


kv