Guns in Films normally very safe

[uk 75]

What makes this accident so shocking is that hundreds of movies and TV shows use firearms safely and to the credit of the people who act as "armourers".
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-shocking-props-masters-talk-on-set-shootings

 

[muttly]

Why would you even have live ammo on set? Was this an accident
or a murder?

 

[perttime]

The question of this being either stupidity or something done on purpose does arise.

 

[riggerrob]

Okkum's Razor reminds us that when forced to decide between cruelty and stupidity ... the most simplest and most likely answer is stupidity.

This reminds me of a accident at the Canadian Forces Base Valcartier, cadet camp during the summer of 1974. Somehow a live grenade was accidentally placed in a box with dummy explosives. When sample dummy explosives were passed around the class room, a cadet pulled the pin on the l live grenade. The explosion killed several cadets.
I served with two of the survivors, but never had the courage to ask them their side of the story. We attended the same graduation ceremony (University of Ottawa) where I earned a Bachelor of Arts, while the twins earned Science PhDs.

 

[Fluff]

Why would you even have live ammo on set? Was this an accident
or a murder?

Absolutely!

The only tiny reaason I can think of, is to film say shooting cans off a fence, but to that with live rounds, you would need to be able to shoot.

But thats not an excuse, this is not combat, time is not pressured, and 99% of the time, you need no ammo loaded, and some of the time blank ammo loaded. its not rocket science.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The question I need answered is, "Why was AB firing any weapon in the direction of a set member"? Even blanks carn harm people so when firing them you aim away from EVERYBODY.

 

[GTX]

Even blanks carn harm people so when firing them you aim away from EVERYBODY.

I would go further: I was taught that you treat every firearm as if it is loaded with live rounds (even if you know its not). You build appropriate habits that way.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I know of only one mishap with a loaded weapon and that was caused by shear stupidity and ignorance, like most 'accidents'. When we had the first two Challenger tanks they were parked in front of the guardroom when not being assessed. Two squaddies armed with the Sterling which was already dangerous in the first place. One say's to the other "Give me a fag". Second guy say's "No, buy your own". First guy responds, "Give me a fag or I'll shoot you". The response is the same so idiot britches pulls the cocking handle back by what he said was an inch. Fixed firing pin and not enough movement to catch safety means a round is fed into the chamber and fired. The whole incident led to us all being stood to because the pair invent a 'spy' trying to gain access to the Challengers to take photo's (Which is still imho, implausible) and muggins who was duty medic, spends the whole night treating the idiots and holding fort against many very senior officers. The injury was a through and through which smashed the humerus (Not so funny) bone 2/3 from elbow to shoulder. Shot idiot was discharged medically. Other idiot ended up with the RMP for a while and bad conduct discharged.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Why would you even have live ammo on set?

You wouldn't, unless:
1: You were an incredibly low budget flick and live ammo was the cheapest way to do certain things. This was a low budget movie, but not *that* low budget ($8 million, IIRC)
2: You are incredibly incompetent and/or stupid.
3: One fairly specific instance...

The weapon used here was a revolver. The unfortunate thing about a revolver from a movie point of view is that if the camera is close enough you can - sometimes, from the right angle with the right lighting - see the actual bullets in the cylinder. But you can easily insert *fake* bullets into the cylinder if the shot does not require that the revolver actually fire. So if your shot is a close-up of the revolver from the front so that you can see the bullets *and* the shot requires multiple rounds be fired sequentially, there are few good options apart from shooting actual bullets. One thing you can do is use rounds that have the powder removed and have only the primer; this will have the power to shove the bullet out of the cartridge and into the barrel but often not all the way through the barrel, so you end up with a bullet stuck somewhere int he barrel. This is safer for *that* shot, but not the next: try to stuff another bullet down the barrel and the thing might explode. Worse, if you fail to remove the barrel and install blanks, the blank *will* have the power to send that bullet down the barrel with Brandon Lee-killing power.

The below photo of "Dirty Harry" shows a shot where you can see the bullets... but only just barely. Putting peoples lives at risk for something that most people wouldn't notice? When Hollywood *already* gives zero craps about firearms accuracy anyway? Criminal insanity.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I know of only one mishap with a loaded weapon and that was caused by shear stupidity and ignorance,

As it usually happens.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfONckOPyaI

 

[Nick]

The question I need answered is, "Why was AB firing any weapon in the direction of a set member"? Even blanks carn harm people so when firing them you aim away from EVERYBODY.

Apparently the film shot was to be of Baldwin aiming the gun at his enemy, as seen from the opponents point of view. That's why he pointed at the camera and pulled the trigger. He had been told by an assistant director that the weapon was cold - i.e. unloaded.
The movie's armourer is also very new to the job and this is her second or third time doing this on set.
Nobody is going to come out of this well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59024820

 

[Orionblamblam]

Apparently the film shot was to be of Baldwin aiming the gun at his enemy, as seen from the opponents point of view. That's why he pointed at the camera and pulled the trigger.

It seems that the President of the Film Actor's Guild is probably more or less blameless here, at least directly; he was apparently doing what he was supposed to be doing. That said, he's a producer on the film, so he suddenly becomes financially responsible when those inevitable lawsuits come flying.

 

[Fluff]

Apparently the film shot was to be of Baldwin aiming the gun at his enemy, as seen from the opponents point of view. That's why he pointed at the camera and pulled the trigger.

It seems that the President of the Film Actor's Guild is probably more or less blameless here, at least directly; he was apparently doing what he was supposed to be doing. That said, he's a producer on the film, so he suddenly becomes financially responsible when those inevitable lawsuits come flying.

Only because they paid an armourer, who said it was 'cold'.

Anyone wanting to make a decent movie, and keep people safe, would give the whole cast and crew, a half day training session on weapons handling. Common sense says check the weapon yourself.....every military says check the weapon yourself.....I could go on....

 

[CJGibson]

Ian McCollum (aka 'Gun Jesus') at Forgotten Weapons.com did an interesting piece on guns modified for use in films a couple of years ago and yes, they can be modified to fire, at people, at close range.

Chris

 

[_Del_]

The below photo of "Dirty Harry" shows a shot where you can see the bullets... but only just barely. Putting peoples lives at risk for something that most people wouldn't notice? When Hollywood *already* gives zero craps about firearms accuracy anyway? Criminal insanity.

One could produce a static shot without anyone behind the camera and/or with a mirror.
I imagine these days it is relatively cheap to have a motorized programmable mount with an arm capable of multi-axis of movement during a shot.

Never a reason to put a person in front of the barrel even with blanks.

 

[Manuducati]

(...)

The movie's armourer is also very new to the job and this is her second or third time doing this on set.

It should be her last time also.

 

[Graham1973]

Even blanks carn harm people so when firing them you aim away from EVERYBODY.

I would go further: I was taught that you treat every firearm as if it is loaded with live rounds (even if you know its now). You build appropriate habits that way.

I was taught the same rule when I practiced archery, quite simply the rule with any projectile weapon is that you do not point it at something unless you intend to hit that target.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It should be her last time also.

That's likely a given. If she somehow doesn't get sent to the slammer, sued into oblivion or officially ejected from the profession... who would hire her?

 

[Nigelhg]

The question I need answered is, "Why was AB firing any weapon in the direction of a set member"? Even blanks carn harm people so when firing them you aim away from EVERYBODY.

Direction by the director, pretty normal on set- ultimately the safety lies with the prop master. It's easier and safer to have a prop master ensure safety than trying to train every actor on gun safety (types of rounds, gun types, etc)

 

[Orionblamblam]

ultimately the safety lies with the prop master. It's easier and safer to have a prop master ensure safety than trying to train every actor on gun safety (types of rounds, gun types, etc)

Errrrmmmm... ultimately YOUR safety is on YOU. Everyone should receive basic firearms training in grade school, from safety to marksmanship to knowing when to cap a fool. If your profession requires you to be around firearms in any capacity, even if you're just the stockboy in a hobby shop that deals in airsoft guns that just *look* like firearms, you should have enough training to be able to safely handle them and recognize them.

It is never wise to determine that you have no responsibility for your own safety. Baldwin trusted someone else; as a result of his failure to to a basic check of his weapon, he sent a woman to her grave.

 

[jeffb]

Why would you even have live ammo on set? Was this an accident
or a murder?

Incompetence. Ignorance of industry standard practice. Articles I've read strongly suggest that there was an ongoing issue because there had already been two previous incidents involving prop guns. Earlier on the day of the accident the union camera operators had walked off the set because they were concerned about safety. Non-union camera operators were secured and filming continued.

 

[Archibald]

The question I need answered is, "Why was AB firing any weapon in the direction of a set member"? Even blanks carn harm people so when firing them you aim away from EVERYBODY.

Apparently the film shot was to be of Baldwin aiming the gun at his enemy, as seen from the opponents point of view. That's why he pointed at the camera and pulled the trigger. He had been told by an assistant director that the weapon was cold - i.e. unloaded.
The movie's armourer is also very new to the job and this is her second or third time doing this on set.
Nobody is going to come out of this well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59024820

And then there is THIS (Dave Halls)
https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/3917039/staffer-gave-alec-baldwin-gun-fatal-shooting-the-crow/
And this... (Hannah Gutierrez)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...ing-24-year-old-armourer-film-set-wasnt-sure/

Her father Thell Reed, 78, is a legendary Hollywood armourer, gun expert and stuntman who has worked with stars including Brad Pitt and Russell Crowe, as well as on Westerns including Tombstone.

The twin coincidences (which are only that: coincidences) are pretty awful, when you think about it.

 

[Dilandu]

Why would you even have live ammo on set?

Well, maybe they needed to film something being penetrated by bullets, or bullets hitting stones, or something like that?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Well, maybe they needed to film something being penetrated by bullets, or bullets hitting stones, or something like that?

That would generally seem to be "second unit" sort of stuff. When done on sets with actors and such, usually that sort of thing would be done with squibs rather than actual bullets.

 

[TomS]

Why would you even have live ammo on set? Was this an accident
or a murder?

One thing to note about terminology:

For the rest of the world, "live ammunition" would imply a projectile.

Apparently in the film business, the term "live ammunition" includes blanks.

So, odds are it was a blank that did this. Blanks are still quite dangerous up close, and it takes a stunning degree of negligence to have one in a gun that is declared "cold" on set, but not quite the same degree as an actual projectile would take.

 

[jeffb]

Why would you even have live ammo on set? Was this an accident
or a murder?

One thing to note about terminology:

For the rest of the world, "live ammunition" would imply a projectile.

Apparently in the film business, the term "live ammunition" includes blanks.

So, odds are it was a blank that did this. Blanks are still quite dangerous up close, and it takes a stunning degree of negligence to have one in a gun that is declared "cold" on set, but not quite the same degree as an actual projectile would take.

That may be, although the reports I've seen say the object/force/projectile went through cinematographer Halyna Hutchins before wounding director Joel Souza who was standing behind her. I may have misheard.

"The sheriff's office confirms that two individuals were shot on the set of Rust," police said in the statement.

"Halyna Hutchins, 42, director of photography, and Joel Souza, 48, director, were shot when a prop firearm was discharged by Alec Baldwin, 68, producer, and actor."

Hutchins died after being airlifted to hospital and Souza is being treated at a medical centre for injuries sustained in the incident.

Detectives are investigating how and what type of projectile was discharged on set

 

[Foo Fighter]

Why would you even have live ammo on set? Was this an accident
or a murder?

One thing to note about terminology:

For the rest of the world, "live ammunition" would imply a projectile.

Apparently in the film business, the term "live ammunition" includes blanks.

So, odds are it was a blank that did this. Blanks are still quite dangerous up close, and it takes a stunning degree of negligence to have one in a gun that is declared "cold" on set, but not quite the same degree as an actual projectile would take.

I doubt a blank would kill one person and then go on to injure someone stood behind her. That is live round territory.
BTW, a live round is a projectile in a casing WITH a charge. Never heard the projectile alone being described that way.
AB is a very experienced actor and he has zero excuse for not checking the weapon himself, he has huge experience with guns.

 

[drejr]

The rumor in Hollywood is that the armorer took the guns out for target shooting during a break.

The assistant director has apparently done this before with a musket - which is rather difficult for an actor to check.

Dummy rounds are visually indistinguishable from real cartridges, you have to shake them to tell the difference.

It's quite odd to me the discharge happened on the second take, but nobody knows anything concrete at this point.

 

[Archibald]

although the reports I've seen say the object/force/projectile went through cinematographer Halyna Hutchins before wounding director Joel Souza who was standing behind her.

I heard a similar story.

 

[TomS]

although the reports I've seen say the object/force/projectile went through cinematographer Halyna Hutchins before wounding director Joel Souza who was standing behind her.

I heard a similar story.

I had not seen that. I'd so, it really does raise many more questions.

 

[Cannonfodder43]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1451403472260190232

View: https://twitter.com/ModelCitizenne/status/1451403472260190232

https://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/comments/qdf214/_/hhmatj1

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/MorbidReality/comments/qdf214/alec_baldwin_crying_after_he_discharged_a_prop/hhmatj1/?utm_term=38070681085&context=3&utm_medium=comment_embed&utm_source=embed&utm_name=8f5cd34e-34ca-11ec-b72c-0acc82a3ff86


Based on what other's who work in the film industry have commented on, rules on safety are stringent. People are taught but as the first link talks about, ultimate responsibility lies with the Prop Master. YMMV on the points raised in the first link but it seems this is how its done with local variation set to set.

But this set was troubled in more ways than one. The Union crew walked out due to the non existent safety practices, a scab crew was brought on and this was the result. Terrible, terrible for all involved.

 

[Lc89]

I have always hated most of the unions around the world in most categories of work. When tragedies like these happen they have to speak only to justify their existence. They can't even claim to go against indie films just because they don't have Hollywood's rigorous safety standards. For them, making a low-budget independent film can't always be synonymous with lax confidence.

 

[jeffb]

As I posted above, the union camera operators walked off over safety concerns. There had already been other incidents with prop firearms.

I have always hated most of the unions around the world in most categories of work. When tragedies like these happen they have to speak only to justify their existence. They can't even claim to go against indie films just because they don't have Hollywood's rigorous safety standards. For them, making a low-budget independent film can't always be synonymous with lax confidence.

Try not to hate them too much, you wouldn't have weekends, holidays or sick leave without them.

 

[Lc89]

As I posted above, the union camera operators walked off over safety concerns. There had already been other incidents with prop firearms.

I have always hated most of the unions around the world in most categories of work. When tragedies like these happen they have to speak only to justify their existence. They can't even claim to go against indie films just because they don't have Hollywood's rigorous safety standards. For them, making a low-budget independent film can't always be synonymous with lax confidence.

Try not to hate them too much, you wouldn't have weekends, holidays or sick leave without them.

Thousands of low-budget movies are made every year around the world without tragedies like this happening.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The Union crew walked out due to the non existent safety practices, a scab crew was brought on and this was the result. Terrible, terrible for all involved.

It does not appear that the "scab crew" was responsible for this. The armorer was there from the beginning.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The rumor in Hollywood is that the armorer took the guns out for target shooting during a break.

*IF* that's the case, that's criminal-level insanity.

 

[Fluff]

The rumor in Hollywood is that the armorer took the guns out for target shooting during a break.

*IF* that's the case, that's criminal-level insanity.

Yeah, lets have some fun with the guns! What could possibly go wrong.......

 

[Archibald]

As I posted above, the union camera operators walked off over safety concerns. There had already been other incidents with prop firearms.

I have always hated most of the unions around the world in most categories of work. When tragedies like these happen they have to speak only to justify their existence. They can't even claim to go against indie films just because they don't have Hollywood's rigorous safety standards. For them, making a low-budget independent film can't always be synonymous with lax confidence.

Try not to hate them too much, you wouldn't have weekends, holidays or sick leave without them.

ROTFL. 1936 Front Populaire readily agree with that statement.

Yet, at the same time... in faraway France, silly stupid criminal CGT and Sud syndicates are paralyzing the SNCF & rail network the day millions of people are leaving on holidays.

Now THOSE are unions indeed, the criminal idiocy way. Plus the SNCF proper imbecility... dear God.

But it is a rather extreme case, related to the SNCF itself and its checkered history. Elsewhere, (yes, even in France) unions have learned (the hard way since 1995) to be more reasonable.

But as far as SNCF is concerned, they remain a colossal PITA.

 

[Orionblamblam]

For those who think "while I work around guns, gun safety isn't my job," Will Smith disagrees:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCzDQvX0hAY

 

[DWG]

The question I need answered is, "Why was AB firing any weapon in the direction of a set member"? Even blanks carn harm people so when firing them you aim away from EVERYBODY.

Apparently the film shot was to be of Baldwin aiming the gun at his enemy, as seen from the opponents point of view. That's why he pointed at the camera and pulled the trigger.

I read in another article that the practise for these down the muzzle shots is to have the camera operator (and as often as not the director, I guess) behind a perspex screen and wearing googles. That'll protect them from anything discharged or thrown up by blanks, but it's completely inadequate if someone misloads the prop gun.

The whole practise amounts to an accident waiting to happen.