woodguru

"Someone" didn't walk up to him on the street. There was "someone" who's job it is to hand actors guns that have been checked and cleared for wh**ever it is that the set and scene is calling for.

"Someone" is responsible for handing Baldwin a gun that was supposed to be cold, unloaded

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

A movie set is not a shooting range, Emily. I've already posted sufficient information about how weapons are handled in movies.

The armorer (weapons master) for any movie production is directly responsible for weapons safety, that includes either loading the weapon or supervising the loading, and this is usually done just before the cameras role. There may be two more people up the chain who check the gun before it is given to the actor. The actor is not expected to check the gun for safety.

EmilyD

I agree that there is something suspect about there being a live round in the gun.

I don't agree at all with "...when the person checking and setting up the gun yells cold gun, or hot gun, the actors have to trust that they know what they are doing." And I don't agree that because they are using different types of loads and combinations, or the angle of the camera are excuses that actors (or anyone on the set) should use to supplant gun safety practices by that actor. No, a movie set is not a shooting range and that is why EXTRA precautions should have been taken!

I am not an "armchair warrior". I own four guns right now, and have been a gun owner for 50+ years. I have taken gun safety training courses and renewal courses many times throughout the years. No gun owner I know would agree that it is someone other than the person handling the gun's "job" to make sure a gun is loaded with the "right" ammunition! Not on a movie set....not anywhere! If the actor does not know how to check a gun and does not know the number one, basic rule of gun safety - assume ALL guns are loaded to k**l, and don't point it at anyone unless you intend to k**l them - they should NOT be given a gun that fires any type of projectile! The woman who was k**led was not another actor, she was the Director of Photography, so he had to have pointed the gun right at her to k**l her. The fact that he was aiming towards the camera and crew points to an even more serious need to check the gun...just minutes...even seconds...before it is supposed to be fired! The NRA would absolutely not condone anything other than that, either! Once the gun leaves the armor's hands (I think that is the title of the person who is responsible for all weapons on a movie set), the gun becomes the responsibility of the person who subsequently takes possession of the gun. The armor is only responsible for giving actors instructions on how to use guns. What the actor does with the gun is not the responsibility of anyone else but that actor holding the gun and pulling the trigger.

If there is any doubt at all that an actor cannot be responsible while handling a gun - even a prop gun - then maybe there should be another actor who does understand gun safety...or use another non-lethal weapon.

One thing I read about this was that some of the staff on the set were h****rs and carried their own guns with real ammo, and the mixup might be related to that somehow, but I still think that anyone who holds a gun in their hands is totally responsible for what happens while they hold that gun. Even if Baldwin was doing exactly what he was supposed to do, I still think he should be held accountable. Maybe he should have been required to take a gun safety class before filming the movie??

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

So you don't care that the movie industry has established strict protocols for weapons handling on movie sets and that 99.9% of the ammunition loaded into prop guns are blanks. You're just gonna blame the actor cuz, according to you, his actions that day don't measure up to your gun safety program.

An accident does not just happen, accidents are caused, most often by a series of mistakes adding up over time.

In the incident in question, an inexperienced armorer who should have followed her gut instinct when she was offered the job and an assistant director with a history of reckless behavior creating unsafe conditions were supposed to insure the pistol was positively safe before it was given to the actor. Obviously, they did not do their job.

In war movies like Saving Private Ryan or Tears of the Sun or F**gs of our Fathers. there are literally hundreds of weapons in use, including machine guns, flame throwers, rocket launchers, mortars, and artillery pieces. Every scene, every take, is carefully choreographed and every weapon is prepared for just that scene.

The actors in most cases actually go through a "boot camp" or training course to prepare them for their roles. And the big movie production companies with hefty budgets spare no expense in getting the best armorers, weapons handlers, and instructors in the business.

Rust productions had a budget of $7 million, they could not afford a world class weapons crew.

EmilyD

I absolutely do not care that the movie industry has their own protocols for weapons handling on movie sets. Neither the movie industry, nor anyone in the industry regardless of what their "job" is, are responsible for what happens when an actor holds a gun in their OWN hands. I don't care that 99.9 percent of ammunition loaded into prop guns on movie sets are blanks (or supposed to be)...obviously those two things did not prevent a woman from dying and a man from being seriously hurt. I don't care how many other movies were filmed with however many f**e guns in them...With a gun that is capable of firing live ammunition, all it can take is just ONE time for it to discharge a bullet and someone can be k**led! If that isn't a reason to make 100% sure that the gun you are holding is not loaded with a live round of ammunition, then again, you should NOT be holding a gun. I don't blame Baldwin for intentionally k*****g Ms. Hutchins. What I DO blame him for is not checking the gun he was in possession of for live ammunition. If he doesn't know how to do that, he has no business handling a gun. Period. A "series of mistakes adding up over time" might be a problem with makeup or costumes, but there should be no such "series of mistakes" when there is a dangerous weapon involved!! That is why safety rules exist - for everyone who takes a gun into their possession...every single time they do!

No, I don't have a "gun safety program" that Baldwin was supposed to follow. And there's no need to get snarky. But I have followed the rules of handeling a very dangerous weapon meticulously since I was first taught to use one when I was in my 20's. Baldwin sits on the board of a gun-control organization whose existence is premised on the fact that guns are dangerous when in the hands of a human being. So he can certainly be presumed to possess at least some knowledge about their lethality. He should be aware, as just about everyone is, that guns are inherently dangerous and can readily cause death or serious bodily injury to people if used carelessly. That is WHY rule #1 is to assume ALL guns are loaded with live ammunition. Baldwin obviously was being careless in several ways while handling that gun.

Three rules that should be at the least be considered when charging him for involuntary manslaughter are that:

(1) He presumed that the gun had the correct f**e ammunition without personally verifying it.
(2) He pointed the muzzle of the gun at someone, but did not first ensure the gun did not contain live ammo.
(3) He did not check his target...Hutchins and Souza were not his target, yet he k**led and maimed them.
(3) He pulled the trigger of the gun.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

It was a rehearsal, Emily, the gun was not supposed be loaded with any ammunition. The cameras were set up and in position, but they were not filming.

The scene was simply a rehearsal of the old outlaw sitting on a church bench, then cross drawing his pistol, turning around while still seated, and aiming at the camera for a full frontal shot. There wasn't supposed to any cartridges of any kind in the gun.

I knew if people screamed "bloody murder" loud enough and long enough that the anti-gun politicians and activists would throw up another wave of propaganda demanding even stricter gun control measures. They are targeting the movie industry, but if anyone thinks a new batch of gun laws won't apply to everyone who owns guns, they will be sadly mistaken.

EmilyD

It does not matter whether it was a rehearsal or not. What difference does it make if the cameras were filming or not? It doesn't matter that an actor was sitting on a bench? It doesn't matter what kind of scene it was or whether it was a full frontal shot or not? Nothing about the scene, how it was set up, where the actor(s) were supposed to be, where the filming was being done how the filming was being done, THAT filming was being done, MATTERS. The gun was not supposed to be loaded BUT IT WAS. It was not supposed to have any cartridges BUT IT DID. The gun did not eff up....Baldwin did. The movie industry did not eff up, the armor did not eff up, the crew did not eff up....BALDWIN DID - because he was handed a gun, but was not trained to know how to check it before he fired it. YOU are the one that is targeting the movie industry! If anything, this clearly shows that that guns are not the problem....humans are, and more gun laws won't make any difference. It shows that a gun didn't k**l Hutchins....Baldwin and his trigger finger did. He had no business having a gun that was capable of firing real ammo in his hands.

If "they" make it look like it was the movie industry or the armor or anyone or anything else BUT Baldwin who fired that gun, then they would be the ones advocating that gun laws be stricter, and NOT that the people who are handling guns should be more trained in gun safety.

It couldn't be any clearer than that.