Crew member killed when shot by prop gun on set of Baldwin movie

[Twangbanger]

I wish all the 4 rules guys would explain why they think these people would have followed those rules when the standard film rules that have not had a fatality in decades were not followed.

The difference the Four Rules would make here, is that they introduce human redundancy.

You and Ark represent what I will refer to as the "The Existing Rules Were Adequate" viewpoint. Those rules apparently do not ***_REQUIRE_*** the final holder of the weapon to check it. Again, if I am incorrect about that, I beg instruction and correction.

When you shift to a rigorous application of the Four Rules, every single person who touches that weapon is responsible for it.

You are correct, in that if a person won't follow one rule, they probably won't follow another. But with the Four Rules, every subsequent downstream handler of that gun is required to double-check what the person upstream is handing them. With the rules I think I'm hearing here, downstream gunhandler(s) is/are not required to check the weapon themselves. Only one person has to fail, to allow a tragedy.

If the Four Rules were followed, everybody in the chain would have to fail.

If anyone finds the Four Rules too restrictive in principle - then real guns should not be used (eg. Alpo's Simunition example). That's what you do when the Four Rules can't be followed. You don't use real guns.

The fact you got lucky XXX times really does not change the principle. "Were you safe - or just lucky?"

 

[Alpo]

Ya I know how a single action works. Grandpa had a couple when I was younger. I’ve never shot competition, but a single action revolver would be a challenge if it’s a timed thing.


I wasn’t really focused on the type of firearm, per se. I’m more focusing on the fact a human being actually aims a weapon capable of firing at another human, in the year 2021 when we can literally edit people onto different planets. Just doesn’t make sense to me.


I don’t trust other humans, especially with my life.

Hmmm. I thought you were talking about the other two discharges. My mistake. .

And yeah, it's a timed thing. Most seasoned shooters can fire 5 rounds out of each revolver, starting holstered in under 7 or so seconds. The best? Under 3 seconds.
This is a friend of mine from Michigan.

 

[Alpo]

This is a simple reading comprehension problem on your part.

In #732, I asked you to post-up an example of a legit training entity, advertising a curriculum violating the 4 rules and which ***does not*** use Simunitions:



...it's ok, it happens. You just read my comment too fast.

Let's review the bidding. Force on force police training exercise with simunition is a legitimate training, and the police are a reliable and professional training entity. Ask Frank or BB.

Second, the whole point of comparing force on force training errors and Rust vis a vis the 4 rules is exactly what happened. A trainee failed to follow procedure and killed his comrade with what he thought to be a simunition-prepared handgun.

Third. Simunition training, in and of itself, violates the 4 rules. It has to. That is its purpose.

I don't see that a movie set is so different than a force on force training exercise. A live round on Rust shouldn't have happened for the same reason the leo was killed.

 

[cbhausen]

Let's review the bidding. Force on force police training exercise with simunition is a legitimate training, and the police are a reliable and professional training entity. Ask Frank or BB.

Second, the whole point of comparing force on force training errors and Rust vis a vis the 4 rules is exactly what happened. A trainee failed to follow procedure and killed his comrade with what he thought to be a simunition-prepared handgun.

Third. Simunition training, in and of itself, violates the 4 rules. It has to. That is its purpose.

I don't see that a movie set is so different than a force on force training exercise. A live round on Rust shouldn't have happened for the same reason the leo was killed.

Use of Simunition does not break 4 (or 3) rules if a converted gun loaded with Simunition is used. You have to start with a real gun first.

 

[churchmouse]

I can honestly say i did not expect this thread to become contentious

Fellas we will put the brakes on or vacations will be awarded. You know who you are.

 

[Twangbanger]

Hmmm. I thought you were talking about the other two discharges. My mistake. .

And yeah, it's a timed thing. Most seasoned shooters can fire 5 rounds out of each revolver, starting holstered in under 7 or so records. The best? Under 3 seconds.
This is a friend of mine from Michigan.

Might want to give your range buddy a safety talk. He breaks the 180-plane at 0:57 of that video. If the camera resolution was good enough, you could see the hole in his muzzle. He can empty a revolver, but that would have got him kicked out of any USPSA or IDPA match on the planet.

 

[Butch627]

The difference the Four Rules would make here, is that they introduce human redundancy.

You and Ark represent what I will refer to as the "The Existing Rules Were Adequate" viewpoint. Those rules apparently do not ***_REQUIRE_*** the final holder of the weapon to check it. Again, if I am incorrect about that, I beg instruction and correction.

When you shift to a rigorous application of the Four Rules, every single person who touches that weapon is responsible for it.

You are correct, in that if a person won't follow one rule, they probably won't follow another. But with the Four Rules, every subsequent downstream handler of that gun is required to double-check what the person upstream is handing them. With the rules I think I'm hearing here, downstream gunhandler(s) is/are not required to check the weapon themselves. Only one person has to fail, to allow a tragedy.

If the Four Rules were followed, everybody in the chain would have to fail.

If anyone finds the Four Rules too restrictive in principle - then real guns should not be used (eg. Alpo's Simunition example). That's what you do when the Four Rules can't be followed. You don't use real guns.

The fact you got lucky XXX times really does not change the principle. "Were you safe - or just lucky?"

I will correct you and this has been mentioned several times in this thread. The Armor is supposed to bring the firearm to set unloaded. He then shows it for inspection to the 1s AD. He then invites anyone on the crew who wishes to inspect it. He then shows it to the actor for inspection. If the firearm is to have dummy rounds he shakes them in the same manor as the presentation of the gun for the same people before loading them for all to see and then giving the actor the gun. If one does not think following those procedures is safe or does not understand what I said I am sorry but I will let you blather on and ignore you.

Blanks are different, since blanks were not to be used in this scene I am not going to discuss them. The procedures regarding them are totally different.
I find it ironic that these procedures have been explained several times and the 4 rules guys do not pick those procedures apart but just ignore that they have been presented to them and repeat their same talking points.
If there has never been a ND from someone who has been taught the 4 rules then that would strengthen their contentions but we all know there have been 1 or 2 since those rules are established.

 

[88E30M50]

I wish all the 4 rules guys would explain why they think these people would have followed those rules when the standard film rules that have not had a fatality in decades were not followed.

The 4 rules are universal to firearms handling where as the industry rules are situational. Teaching the 4 rules from early in life makes them an intrinsic part of who a person is.

Then, when on the movie set, additional rules are applied to keep that situation safe.

Put differently, the 4 rules are foundational

 

[Twangbanger]

I will correct you and this has been mentioned several times in this thread. The Armor is supposed to bring the firearm to set unloaded. He then shows it for inspection to the 1s AD. He then invites anyone on the crew who wishes to inspect it. He then shows it to the actor for inspection. If the firearm is to have dummy rounds he shakes them in the same manor as the presentation of the gun for the same people before loading them for all to see and then giving the actor the gun. If one does not think following those procedures is safe or does not understand what I said I am sorry but I will let you blather on and ignore you.

Blanks are different, since blanks were not to be used in this scene I am not going to discuss them. The procedures regarding them are totally different.
I find it ironic that these procedures have been explained several times and the 4 rules guys do not pick those procedures apart but just ignore that they have been presented to them and repeat their same talking points.
If there has never been a ND from someone who has been taught the 4 rules then that would strengthen their contentions but we all know there have been 1 or 2 since those rules are established.

Thank you for confirming that. If you are stating, based on your experience in the film industry, that Alec Baldwin had a responsibility either to:

1) Check the firearm, or
2) Play a constructive role in checking the firearm, before the scene was run,

...and was therefore negligent in this incident (along with others), then it sounds like we are mostly in agreement and I appreciate your participation.

Ark and Alpo are now isolated as the only participants asserting Alec Baldwin had no responsibility in the checking of this weapon. It is clear to me that they simply like Alec Baldwin's onscreen work, and are incapable of being objective about the gun-safety aspects of this incident.

 

[Butch627]

Thank you for confirming that. If you are stating, based on your experience in the film industry, that Alec Baldwin had a responsibility either to:

1) Check the firearm, or
2) Play a constructive role in checking the firearm, before the scene was run,

...and was therefore negligent in this incident (along with others), then it sounds like we are mostly in agreement and I appreciate your participation.

Ark and Alpo are now isolated as the only participants asserting Alec Baldwin had no responsibility in the checking of this weapon. It is clear to me that they simply like Alec Baldwin's onscreen work, and are incapable of being objective about the gun-safety aspects of this incident.

As I am not a lawyer nor familiar with NM laws nor privy to the contracts any of these people signed with their start paperwork I would not give any kind of legal opinion, BUT

Baldwin as an actor handling the gun had a responsibility to himself and the rest of the crew to follow the established film gun rules

He had far and away much more film firearm experience than the rest of the crew combined and had been through the proper procedures on numerous other movies and TV.

As executive producer he should have known and made sure all the rules were executed properly, The armor if felt unsafe could called the studio or money people and had gun related filming stopped until she felt proper measures were being followed and Baldwin would have had to follow her gun related shutdown.

Baldwin as actor and executive producer knew the 1st AD was not in the proper chain of custody and should have not allowed him to handle the weapon, he should not have accepted it from him.

There had already been at least one rehearsal without a round going off, was that because some rounds were dummy, there were empty chambers, or because he did not pull the trigger in previous rehearsal just moments before the live round discharge.......or what, this is meant to be rhetorical.

I think the 1st is in almost as deep as Baldwin. He had the 2nd most firearm experience on the set and knew he was not supposed to be in the chain of custody and did not have the authority to touch, hand off, or declare the gun cold. He had many years in his position.

I don't feel that either one of them have any reasonable defense at all, except pointing fingers at each other

I think the girls lawyer can give a lot of excuses for her part in this to try to save her neck blaming everyone else around her and even those who put her in her job because she worked cheap and was given a department head position due to her gender and probably gave them a sweetheart deal on the firearms rentals.


This all stems from money and wokeness. If Tier 1 goes over a predetermined Budget then the crew must get back pay and benefits to tier 2 status. Both Baldwins and the AD's saleries were probably based on the budget numbers. They were behind on schedule, running very late that day and they saw production possibly being stopped for good when they got almost up to the next budget line.

Based on everything I have read I thought that this was a union movie, someone today at work said that some union members from NM were working on it but that was not a union show I do not know the real story.
The camera crew that walked off was union and hired by the DP who was also union. When her crew found the conditions intolerable she should have left with them, she paid a big price.

Some shows no matter the budget are an absolute pleasure to work on, some are angry, ugly, and mean. From what I have heard of Baldwin in the past and read about this AD recently, two of the people most responsible for setting the tone of the show this was probably a tense angry way to spend 14 to 15 hours a day. Probably lots of yelling, threats, dirty looks, intimidation, disorganization, missing proper resources, equipment and staff.
I have been on a handful of shows like that in the past 30 years one of them fired thousands of blank rounds but I don't remember any dummy rounds. No one was injured.

People were late in getting paychecks, missing paychecks, and having their timecards disputed. That must have added another level of anger on the crew.
People were sleeping in their cars because there was not enough time to drive and get enough sleep
Executive producer or his lawyer lol should be asked to answer for it all.



.

 

[BugI02]

If there has never been a ND from someone who has been taught the 4 rules then that would strengthen their contentions but we all know there have been 1 or 2 since those rules are established.

I am surprised about two things:

1) You keep insisting your industry's existing rules are safe enough, when obviously they are not, and you then misunderstand what support for the 4 rules actually is. We are the only ones suggesting a simple change to procedures that could have prevented the tragedy

2) You wish to proudly trumpet how few fatal NDs have occurred in your industry, but haven't actually processed those numbers adequately for comparison. How many actors frequently handle guns in scenes where they point them at crew members - 100, 300?
I would suggest if you compared NDs and ND fatalities per 100000 concealed carry licensed/permitted in the US to the number of NDs and lethal NDs per 100000 actors manipulating firearms that you will find your industry is less safe just on the results of that one production, and quite likely less safe over any timeline for the industry you wish to use

I have had zero NDs in over 40 years of firearms use (knock on wood). I already have a better record than your entire industry

 

[Alpo]

Ark and Alpo are now isolated as the only participants asserting Alec Baldwin had no responsibility in the checking of this weapon. It is clear to me that they simply like Alec Baldwin's onscreen work, and are incapable of being objective about the gun-safety aspects of this incident.

Please don't help me state my own opinion and your snark is out of bounds. Did you miss what Churchmouse said?

 

[88E30M50]

I am surprised about two things:

1) You keep insisting your industry's existing rules are safe enough, when obviously they are not, and you then misunderstand what support for the 4 rules actually is. We are the only ones suggesting a simple change to procedures that could have prevented the tragedy

2) You wish to proudly trumpet how few fatal NDs have occurred in your industry, but haven't actually processed those numbers adequately for comparison. How many actors frequently handle guns in scenes where they point them at crew members - 100, 300?
I would suggest if you compared NDs and ND fatalities per 100000 concealed carry licensed/permitted in the US to the number of NDs and lethal NDs per 100000 actors manipulating firearms that you will find your industry is less safe just on the results of that one production, and quite likely less safe over any timeline for the industry you wish to use

I have had zero NDs in over 40 years of firearms use (knock on wood). I already have a better record than your entire industry

Rules mean nothing when people don’t follow them. Given the number of guns used in movies, we would have regular instances like this one if the rules were lacking. The argument that people didn’t follow the rules so we must need more rules impacts the people that do safely make movies with guns in them for no reason.

It’s the same argument that anti-gunners use to try to get guns banned.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Rules mean nothing when people don’t follow them. Given the number of guns used in movies, we would have regular instances like this one if the rules were lacking. The argument that people didn’t follow the rules so we must need more rules impacts the people that do safely make movies with guns in them for no reason.

It’s the same argument that anti-gunners use to try to get guns banned.

This^^^

You can make all the rules you want. Doesn't matter since they weren't following the rules already in place.

Doesn't make sense to me. They're not following the rules, so we need more rules to fix it.

 

[Bugzilla]

If only they had a rule that you had to follow existing rules, you would not need to add more rules because existing rules are not being followed as this would cause all the current rules to be followed!

 

[Jaybird1980]

If only they had a rule that you had to follow existing rules, you would not need to add more rules because existing rules are not being followed as this would cause all the current rules to be followed!

And maybe you could do something like...I don't know... Have a punishment for not following the rules...Yeah that will for work for sure.

 

[Butch627]

I am surprised about two things:

1) You keep insisting your industry's existing rules are safe enough, when obviously they are not, and you then misunderstand what support for the 4 rules actually is. We are the only ones suggesting a simple change to procedures that could have prevented the tragedy

2) You wish to proudly trumpet how few fatal NDs have occurred in your industry, but haven't actually processed those numbers adequately for comparison. How many actors frequently handle guns in scenes where they point them at crew members - 100, 300?
I would suggest if you compared NDs and ND fatalities per 100000 concealed carry licensed/permitted in the US to the number of NDs and lethal NDs per 100000 actors manipulating firearms that you will find your industry is less safe just on the results of that one production, and quite likely less safe over any timeline for the industry you wish to use

I have had zero NDs in over 40 years of firearms use (knock on wood). I already have a better record than your entire industry

I am surprised that you have not pointed out the flaws in the procedures as I have outlined them I really wish you would.
You have 0 ND's in 40 years, therefore you know how the film industry should handle guns and that they are doing it wrong, OK i get it but I am not going to waste any time trying to make a rational reply.

I am not trumpeting anything, you are trying to put words in my mouth and I will have none of that.

You want me to compare all of those statistics that I don't have, why don't you show them to prove your point? Unless you can show all of that information I think you are just bluffing in order to win an argument.

If there ND's by people familiar with the 4 rules then maybe they need to add another 4 or 40 rules and that will fix things. You would not need them of course because in the last 40 years you have never had one but maybe they should be added anyways because everyone else is not as good as following them as you are and then you will have more rules to be able to follow yourself. Maybe they should be called the "Common Sense Gun Rules" amendment to the 4 current rules. You can't use common sense gun laws because that phrase is already taken by other people who want more rules over guns. You and them have a lot in common.

 

[tbhausen]

As I am not a lawyer nor familiar with NM laws nor privy to the contracts any of these people signed with their start paperwork I would not give any kind of legal opinion, BUT

Baldwin as an actor handling the gun had a responsibility to himself and the rest of the crew to follow the established film gun rules

He had far and away much more film firearm experience than the rest of the crew combined and had been through the proper procedures on numerous other movies and TV.

As executive producer he should have known and made sure all the rules were executed properly, The armor if felt unsafe could called the studio or money people and had gun related filming stopped until she felt proper measures were being followed and Baldwin would have had to follow her gun related shutdown.

Baldwin as actor and executive producer knew the 1st AD was not in the proper chain of custody and should have not allowed him to handle the weapon, he should not have accepted it from him.

There had already been at least one rehearsal without a round going off, was that because some rounds were dummy, there were empty chambers, or because he did not pull the trigger in previous rehearsal just moments before the live round discharge.......or what, this is meant to be rhetorical.

I think the 1st is in almost as deep as Baldwin. He had the 2nd most firearm experience on the set and knew he was not supposed to be in the chain of custody and did not have the authority to touch, hand off, or declare the gun cold. He had many years in his position.

I don't feel that either one of them have any reasonable defense at all, except pointing fingers at each other

I think the girls lawyer can give a lot of excuses for her part in this to try to save her neck blaming everyone else around her and even those who put her in her job because she worked cheap and was given a department head position due to her gender and probably gave them a sweetheart deal on the firearms rentals.


This all stems from money and wokeness. If Tier 1 goes over a predetermined Budget then the crew must get back pay and benefits to tier 2 status. Both Baldwins and the AD's saleries were probably based on the budget numbers. They were behind on schedule, running very late that day and they saw production possibly being stopped for good when they got almost up to the next budget line.

Based on everything I have read I thought that this was a union movie, someone today at work said that some union members from NM were working on it but that was not a union show I do not know the real story.
The camera crew that walked off was union and hired by the DP who was also union. When her crew found the conditions intolerable she should have left with them, she paid a big price.

Some shows no matter the budget are an absolute pleasure to work on, some are angry, ugly, and mean. From what I have heard of Baldwin in the past and read about this AD recently, two of the people most responsible for setting the tone of the show this was probably a tense angry way to spend 14 to 15 hours a day. Probably lots of yelling, threats, dirty looks, intimidation, disorganization, missing proper resources, equipment and staff.
I have been on a handful of shows like that in the past 30 years one of them fired thousands of blank rounds but I don't remember any dummy rounds. No one was injured.

People were late in getting paychecks, missing paychecks, and having their timecards disputed. That must have added another level of anger on the crew.
People were sleeping in their cars because there was not enough time to drive and get enough sleep
Executive producer or his lawyer lol should be asked to answer for it all.



.

With all the personnel and firearm problems recently seen on set, how could neither Baldwin nor the armorer exercising an extra degree of caution be seen as anything other than criminal negligence?

 

[Butch627]

With all the personnel and firearm problems recently seen on set, how could neither Baldwin nor the armorer exercising an extra degree of caution be seen as anything other than criminal negligence?

since I am not a lawyer i could not reasonably determine criminal negligence under NM laws for anyone. As a lay person I would like to see all three of them convicted of a crime and see civil suits against others who enabled the production to proceed without massive changes after the earlier ND's. I would like to see text and email messages published for everyone in authority on that show.

 

[Tryin']

I'm not sure I find a lot to disagree with, in what Baldwin said in that particular video clip. He said changes have to happen within the film industry. If current practice is that "Prop Guns" are allowed to be real guns which retain the ability to chamber and fire a live round of ammunition, and the Four Rules are not universally applied, then that needs to change. (But I also don't think it necessarily saves his personal bacon in this situation, to say that).

The Four Rules of safe gunhandling must apply everywhere real guns are being touched. No exceptions. Movie sets, a Point Blank Range employee checking a gun and handing it to you to look at...everywhere.

If the definition of "Prop Gun" can include a "Real Gun" which retains the mechanical ability to fire a live round, there is simply no way around this.

If movie sets can't follow rules, then they need to use fake guns.

How do you feel about truck guns, shoulder holsters, appendix carry, target bays with no overhead baffling, IWB, nightstand guns, self defense shooting realities, and the myriad other ways guns will be pointed in "unsafe" directions? Not trolling, just curious whether you hold an exacting standard or whether it's more like the PETA posters about drawing the line between food and pets.