Alec Baldwin kills one,inures another with Prop Gun on set.

Dude... I'm a surfer from Huntington Beach, CA. I know all about what you speak of. I have rescued many people from rips, being stupid and drunk, and the worst was another surfer that got wrapped around a pylon of the pier with his leash and panicked. The amount of idiocy in the water would be stunning if I was not used to it. I always go about it the same way. I offer them my surfboard first with me off it. It's much easier than grabbing some panicked fool that would drown me too if I let them. Once they grab the board and I'm able to talk them down a bit they almost always do what I say and let me save them. I had one drunk fool that wouldn't so... I sat in the rip with him and then the lifeguard showed up, then the lifeguard boat, they finally yanked his ass from the water to the boat when we got him far enough "outside". The lifeguards appreciate the surfers in a big way around here.... and vice versa.

 

Depending upon the facts of this case, it may be an excellent time for gun owners to weigh in with standards and explain them to people who have no knowledge of weapons.

 

I understand your point fine. You can’t address my rebuttal. That’s fine, but saying I don’t understand your point is fallacious argument.

My mistake. I read somewhere early on he was assistant director. I should have confirmed it. I have not misrepresented anything. I’ve quoted you directly and addressed what you have said. We will all wait for the consequences if any. But I will continue to point out Baldwin is the responsible party because he pulled the trigger without safety checking the firearm. If you really are a shooter you should never condone anything less.

 

Sorry to interrupt 557, but are you suggesting that in every movie that has been made and in the future that when an actor is handed a 'cold gun' i.e. a stunt prop that they are responsible safety checking it?

 

Absolutely.

 

Interesting. I can't help thinking about whether this could be practically implemented though? It's such a hectic, intense and fast-paced job at times and actors need to be completely focused on their job. There are always time pressures, delays, etc. And as an actor your mode of operation is being told exactly what to do and then doing it. It's the ultimate surrender of control, to the director and to the script. I suppose that is why they pass off the responsibility to the assistant director ( for safety etc. )

Now in Australia, this would never happen because the gun that they would use would likely not be one capable of firing real rounds. A true "prop gun"!

 

Also thinking about it, practically speaking this would require the actor to pull out all the bullets in a gun and examine them for live rounds. I wonder how this would apply to a semi-automatic for example. Aren't the bullets hidden deep in the magazine?

 

If you think it’s overwhelming for an actor to take responsibility, imagine being sleep deprived, hungry, stressed because a predator is killing your friends and paycheck, and rushed because you have one shot at ending the predation. Imagine also having to account for the location of moving “no shoot” targets (your animals and family members) while still being responsible 100% for the safety of your firearm and the proper ammunition type for the current application.

I don’t know you well but from our previous dialogue I can’t imagine you personally putting profit over safety. You wouldn’t point a gun at someone and pull the trigger without verifying every aspect of safety you could. We shouldn’t condone others doing that if we wouldn’t.

You show you wouldn’t put profit over safety when you bring up proper nonfunctional prop guns. This could easily have been prevented by not using a firearm capable of taking live rounds in the chamber.

The level of stupidity here is unfathomable. Target shooting with prop guns when not filming? Having live ammo anywhere near a set? Stupid beyond belief. Any competent actor or crew would have refused to film another scene in such a scenario. The incompetence of every person involved here is incomprehensible. But at the end of the day, the person pulling the trigger owns what comes out the barrel. No if’s and’s or but’s. It’s that way for everyone else. Actors aren’t that special.

Almost all my firearms are semiautomatic. Yes, confirming safety is more difficult with some firearms than others. There are many practical ways to make verification easier. Many magazines can be had that are transparent. If I were an actor, both myself and the person I was shooting on set would verify the safety of the firearm. The shooter and the “shootee” would load and make ready the firearm together with the armorer so everyone is on the same page. I would feel I owe the person at risk the opportunity to verify what level of risk they are being subjected to. Profit and convenience would be secondary to safety if I were an actor the same as when I’m a farmer. But obviously not everyone agrees with me. Which is fine, but different approaches focusing more on profit than safety lead to exactly this sort of thing happening. It’s just different priorities.

 

A real gun can be a prop.

 

In a properly supervised production there would be competent people insuring that All the blanks were blank. It would not be necessary for the actors to check each round. It isn't their first rodeo, they do this all the time. This was careless behavior and out of step with the reality of a real movie production. It was not standard Hollywood procedure.

 

Yeah, and scared people can be surprisingly strong.

I'm amazed more people don't end up killing themselves.

Yeah, for sure about surfers. Surfers and lifeguards have been saving people from before when I was growing up in Palos Verdes in the early 1960s.

Growing up near the ocean.... I've never lived more than a short drive from the Pacific Ocean and most of my life within fifteen minutes.

 

They were cutting corners due to the low budget, and everyone was under a lot of pressure and there was a rush.
Several of the crew members had already walked off the set in protest the working conditions were so bad.

Baldwin was not only an actor in the film, but one of the film's two producers.
That gives him additional responsibility for all the working conditions.

 

LOL. In one of the 911 calls, the woman caller went off in a brief aside to someone else trashing what I presume was a director about him going off on her at lunch about script revisions and him being responsible to check the gun. Sounds like it was a dumpster fire of a set. That doesn't in anyway excuse Baldwin for not exercising more caution. I am wondering at this point if they just cancel the movie and file a claim on their completion bond.

 

Sure, but why would bullets be on a film set?

 

Because safety was way down the list of priorities for a bunch of people on the set.

 

What did I miss? Who did he blame?

 

Prop guy.

 

Yeah well Baldwin and the American Marxist clan made fun of a cop in a shooting not too long ago. He was quoted as saying "how does it feel to shoot an unarmed citizen?" The cop was found innocent by the way. Baldwin hates guns (unless they're in one of his movies, and he doesn't like cops. So now he himself knows how it feels. His stupidity cost a human life!

 

So. Anyone to the 'left' of your own political beliefs is a 'Marxist'? Interesting. I only ask because as far as I'm aware Baldwin has never publicly affirmed any particular support for or belief in Marxism or Marxist causes. Which doesn't make him a saint BTW, just ... not an avowed Marxist. You must be on the inside track and have access to information the rest of don't.

Thanks also for being the 'go to' expert on everything anyone you don't like has apparently done wrong at a workplace accident. I'm sure the Police and accident investigators would value your input. You should call them and offer them your 'insights'. I'm sure they'd appreciate it.

 

That doesn't answer the question. WHY would they be there. What possible purpose would someone have for having real bullets on a film set?

 

Heard this morning that the armourer was previously dismissed by another company for not doing his job properly

 

It was a 24 year old woman....

 

I'm not familiar with how a movie set is run but it seems reasonable enough to me that there could be live rounds on set. They should never be found stored with props for the movie but simply being on site doesn't guarantee an accident like this one.

 

From what I have read it is the job of the armorer to check the guns and instruct the actors and stunt men of safety measures. That is what they are paid to do. Actors are paid to handle the guns as per script. That's just the way it works in that industry. Whether or the actor can still be held legally liable is another issue.

Some movie sets use rounds which are not blanks, and look exactly like real rounds, but have all gunpower removed and replaced with sand. It would be nearly impossible to tell them from real rounds, because they are meant to look like real ones for a reason. They are used in sets where the actor loads them into a firearm or magazine.

In how many instances are your guns loaded with blanks or look-alikes? I suspect your magazines are either loaded or empty.

Are you in habit of handing your loaded guns to others and telling them they are empty and safe, If you did, you could be held liable if there was an accident involving your firearm. In the other hand, that is exactly what happened in the church incident where two people were struck, and charges were not pressed.

Yes. This was a low budget file, and the armorer was someone who had been fired previously for safety violations.

 

Some people seem to have ignored the fact that on one hand they say that experienced gun owners would check guns for live rounds yet there is an armorer who is surely highly trained in handling guns who passed a loaded gun to a novice and stated that there were no live bullets in the gun