The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I don't see this going political but I've been proven wrong before. LOL

I'm just curious ... how many people knew they use real guns on set? For whatever reason I thought that went out a long time ago. Even as a kid I just imagined them being basically a better version of a cap gun. It was odd to me when Brandon Lee got killed ( we all thought it was a hit) bur this latest instance is even stranger to me. 

I have every belief that this will go political because everything goes political.  lol

But yeah, I had been thinking the same thing that with all the lifelike reproductions of firearms available, why would they have the real deal on a movie set?   

I am semi okay with real guns. Although, I agree probably unnecessary with realistic replicas.   Real ammo is mind blowing.  What possible purpose could that have?

I knew some guns were real with blanks and figured they just had some fake guns too for scenes where they wouldn't be fired.

The "Armorer" on set was just some 23 year old kid who had no idea what she was doing, probably was hired to save money on a small production. What real bullets were doing on the set, I have no idea. That's just insane.

My sentiments exactly.  I know nothing about the film industry so maybe I'm missing something.  But I can see absolutely no reason why live ammo should be on a set. 

Besides the live ammo issue. I check and/or clear any gun that I pick up or that comes into my possession. It should be standard practice for anyone who handles firearms. Actors should be taught and instructed to check the firearm before it is used. Baldwin is ultimately responsible for this on several levels.

I have been struggling with even understanding this, so I've done a fair amount of research.


So, with "real guns", here's what's going on...

You have prop guns or fake guns for all kinds of stuff, like if a character is going to run with a gun or wave it around and do stuff other than shoot it.  Often, these are real guns that have been fully disarmed where they don't have the mechanics to fire anymore.  And for stunts and distance shots, they are completely made of wood or rubber.

You use real, working guns with "blanks" when you are firing and want something realistic because you still get muzzle flash, smoke if desired, but I think most importantly, the gun gives kick still.  It looks realistic in the way the body take the pressure from it.  

And a blank is a real bullet, but without the projectile part.  It can be done a few different ways, but I believe one of them is by using actual bullets and removing part of them.  But it's still a casing and powder and stuff..maybe even fragments of the original projectile, if done improperly.  And it can still eject something, but not something that's going to kill you at range.  But if that thing get accidentally fired too close, it can damage you.  That's why there are other safety procedures in place.  Like, if you're firing a gun into the camera, you use a shield of bullet-proof glass in front of the camera-man, for example.

There are also other general safety things (and other consistency things) that keep a set safe.  Like, if you're on a set and there's a glass...don't touch the fucking glass unless it's your job, no matter if you're the star or the director or not.  It's someone's job to move that glass and know where it is and where it supposed to be.  This is true x100 for weapons.  Nobody is supposed to be responsible for a weapon except the person holding it and up to that point, it's the film's armorer.

But...

Like with all industries, when shit gets tough, we cut corners.  And those whittling down of safety procedures plus the demands of getting things done quickly cause human error and mistakes.


Alec Baldwin the actor is zero percent responsible for this accident.
Alec Baldwin the productor may be partially responsible, because it sounds like the safety protocols were thin at best and the armorer on set wasn't qualified.  It's a case where higher ups either knew or should have known that there was an unsafe environment and risked it anyway.

All this said, I support the use of real guns and blanks if it is the vision of the director, though I wouldn't care if some directors wanted to use CG muzzle flash.  These incidents are rare enough and there are safety procedures that make this safe when followed.  It is only when those procedures are ignored that it becomes dangerous.

Wow, very interesting, Dave.  I had no idea about all that!   

Gun safety 101, any time you handle a weapon you treat it as if it were loaded. Zero responsibility is a big statement.

That's true for you and me, but not for actors.

You don't treat a prop gun like it's loaded or else you wouldn't be pointing it at other actors.  This is an oversimplification.

If we're assessing blame, it's the armorer mostly, then the producers because there were safety issues already brought up and ignored, and then (not to victim blame, but) the deceased, who should've insisted on the bullet shield since the actions were toward camera.  Baldwin the actor isn't responsible for making sure the gun he's holding isn't operational.  There's literally a person on the set whose sole job is that.

Great point, Dave.

It is not reasonable to tell an actor "Treat every gun like it's loaded" when that actor is preparing to fire said gun at one of his coworkers as part of the script.

Yeah, good point by you and Dave both on that.  For all of us, the rule of "treat every weapon like it is loaded" is very true.  But on a movie set where an actor is supposed to fire a "gun" at someone as it states in the script, that obviously won't work. 

I don't know that that is true. I've seen interviews where armorers have said that it's also the actors job to make sure it isn't loaded and just today I saw where Alec is directly being sued (besides being a producer) because the scene did not call for him to fire the weapon but he took it upon himself to do so.

They don't actually point it at other actors since Brandon Lee was killed. The camera makes it look like it. I'm guessing that's actually how Baldwin hit non actors.

Anytime a firearm is involved the person handling the gun is the person responsible for the gun. Baldwin killed someone through his own laziness and stupidity.

It's a fully functional gun on a set where I heard staffers actively fired live rounds with that particular weapon in the down time. It's moronic to think anyone should handle a weapon on that set and not check it themself.

What are they checking?  The blanks are still bullets.  They just don't have a projectile.  If the error was that the gun had unmodded bullets in it that were supposed to be blanks, the actor wouldn't know that by checking. 

Every single actor in the film industry should also become an expert on firearms, able to immediately distinguish between blanks and live ammo in all types of guns.
This is a reasonable suggestion, and I am not a crackpot.

In all seriousness, I cannot believe there are people who believe that - on a set where there is a trained expert specifically hired to manage the use of firearms - individual actors are responsible for training themselves on the safety precautions on these weapons.  Do you also believe that actors need to become experts in electrical wiring?  Or pyrotechnics?

It was a rehearsal, so the chamber should have been empty. You don't need blanks for a rehearsal, hell you don't even need to pull the trigger during a rehearsal. Much less point it at members of the film crew. He should have checked the chamber when he took possession of the weapon.

Also, blanks can and have killed people. I remember one particular intendent from the 80's where that pretty boy guy on that show was fucking around and killed himself with a blank.

Edit: Jon-Erik Hexum was his name on the show Cover Up

You don't need to be an expert to check the action of a weapon. You also don't need to be an expert to distinguish between a blank and a live round. It's literally something you can learn in 30 minutes.

Actors aren't in direct control of electrical wiring or pyrotechnics so your comparison is silly. In all seriousness, I cannot believe there are people who have little to zero experience with handling firearms that argue against gun safety for people handling firearms. I guess it's a good thing that you people are anti gun, because you don't need to be in the same room with a firearm.

Then you're arguing against your own point, because an ACTUAL expert has to be required to verify it anyway!

Alec Baldwin, non-expert in firearms who "learned in 30 minutes" how to check the action of a weapon or distinguish between a blank and a live round, cannot be responsible for ensuring the safety of the weapon on the set!  So what's the point in having some actor say, "It's OK, I watched a YouTube video on how to make sure there's no round in the chamber" when we literally cannot accept their word as sufficient and an expert has to double check them anyway?  It's insane and a complete waste of time.

You're not talking about gun safety.
You're talking about gun safety theater.

This is what you get when you have laymen "experts" who think the difference between themselves and actual experts is not really that big of a deal.

Any blanks I've ever seen are crimped on the end and doesn't have the actual bullet. It looks like an extension of the shell.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQikEX3sCIQziRvJPzcW9BdZqaWhr5SdrnBt-XorA-VtoLqFgQtnxiO4g64cSqyaZFYJoE&usqp=CAU)

So if Angelina Jolie looks at those cartridges and says, "OK, we're good to go," then this means... exactly nothing, because the weapons expert on set still has to clear it anyway.

I mean, this is a shitstorm now.  But can you imagine how much worse it would be if turned out that they didn't even consult the armorer because Alec Baldwin said the gun was fine?  The insurance costs for the next film from this company would cost more than the film.

So you want the actor to unload the blanks and reload them?

I am all for gun safety.  But this fuck up occurred by the armorer, not the actor. Alex Baldwin the producer might have screwed up in getting an inexperienced armorer.  But the expert has one job and fucked it up, not the actor. 

It's not just the armorer.  ....she was not qualified, but the producers were warned about safety concerned and several people had walked off the set over safety issues.  So, this was something that was reported (not necessarily the gun stuff, but that corners were cut for safety, in general).

That is a producer's job to make sure that safety protocols are followed by responsible people.  I'd say that's even more true if formal complaints were made and ignored.

So, Baldwin is to blame for some of that, probably.  (And not to make excuses, because it's his responsibility), but sometimes producer credits are honorary titles and they don't have actual responsibilities, but are more about ownership of franchise rights and stuff like that. 

Either way, I don't think it's the fault of the actor firing the weapon, though.

This just shows your ignorance on the topic. There is a very distinct visual difference, a live round has a projectile in the end.

The Spider spin, no trhread is complete without it. You are making a strawman argument. Not one person has suggested an actor clear a weapon instead of an armorer. What is being said is that just like everyone else in the world the actor should be responsible for assuming the weapon he is handed is loaded and double checking it. Gun safety 101.

Hoodie's point makes this basically irrelevant.

Do you want each actor unloading and reloading each weapon every time they handle it so they can personally verify all of the ammunition in it?

Yes. Hoodie's point is stupid when discussing gun safety. I find it very humorous that the people who speak up the most about gun regulation are for looser gun safety practices. It's almost as laughable as supporting the death penalty but wanting abortion illegal.

What does "gun safety 101" say about pointing a gun at something you don't intend to kill and pulling the trigger?

Please stop acting like normal firearm precautions are relevant to a film production in which people are intentionally firing guns at other people they don't want to hurt.  If the actors followed "gun safety 101," they wouldn't be shooting at each other.

Just to be clear:

You think the preferred practice should be that, after a trained and certified expert has checked and cleared the gun, a layman actor - possibly with little-to-no experience with firearms - should follow behind them, unload the weapons and check the ammunition themselves, then reload the weapon.

And you believe that this practice would make film sets... safer?

I find it absolutely predictable and expected that the people who most vocally support gun proliferation are also the biggest proponents of giving laymen responsibility for ensuring gun safety on the set.

Please stop acting as if it is irrational to make sure a gun that has been used on a film set to shoot live round already be double checked before pointing and firing it at someone you don't want to hurt.

Your point might be valid if this had really been an expert. Every account i've seen labeled her under qualified. So yes, there needed to be a double check on the weapon. The fact it had live rounds in it should make my argument for me.

The armorer does their job and then every subsequent person the touches that firearm checks it status. You don't take someone's word for it. It's a basic procedure that anyone that handles firearms should be doing. Hell, I press check my firearms when I pick them up and I live by myself.

See Spider, the whole point is that people make mistakes. And when people make mistakes with firearms people die. That's why there are certain universal rules to act as a failsafe against people dying. It tragically hilarious that you are stupidly arguing against firearm safety.

Again, you don't have to be an expert to check the breach and rounds. Also, part of his job as an actor is using firearms safely. I know school teachers, old people, 100 lb female cashiers, and teenagers that aren't experts and they don't go around having fatal negligent discharges. It's interesting that he uses firearms as part of his profession and actually killed someone. So you're telling me that millions of normal everyday citizens should exercise firearm safety. But shithead accused racist Baldwin shouldn't have to because he uses firearms in his profession? Dafuq outta here with that silly shit.

Maybe I'll hire some people to work in a warehouse moving freight. Ah, fuck it they don't need to know how to safely operate the forklift without injuring or killing someone. Their job is to move the freight, not make sure it's safe to use the equipment in the manner that they're going to use it.

Come on Spider, we'll fly my plane down to the Miami game this weekend. Ah, fuck it I don't need to do a pre flight walkaround. That's the mechanics job.

Hey, that might explain places like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, DC, and all the other liberal shitholes with high gun crime rates. Maybe they're like Baldwin and just aren't smart enough to follow a few simple safety rules. Sike, nah it's just a bunch of criminals and murderers  

You want the gun to be double-checked?

Then hire a second expert to check it!

Johnny Depp saying, "OK guys, this gun is fine, we're good to go" accomplishes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  It's POINTLESS.

Wouldn't matter. The last person handed a weapon should always treat it as loaded. Surely you can understand that point.

Radical Liberal - We just want common sense gun laws
Same Radical Fiberal - Fuck common sense gun safety.

They don't give a fuck if people get killed or not. It's all about an agenda

I don't know enough about the details in this tragedy to have an opinion on who was to blame.  But since there has been a lot of talk about the armorer not being well qualified, does anyone know if there is some kind of training certification that an armorer has to go through or can you just call yourself an armorer because you have owned a couple guns and gone to the range a couple times and you are magically an armorer?  I know it isn't an apples to apples comparison, but for law enforcement weapons trainers there is a lot of training and multiple certifications.  So I would think that a private company armorer there would have to be at least some form of training and recognition of competency before you could legally do the job.  But I have no idea.  

Again, this is obviously not true, because you would not fire a weapon you thought was loaded at another person you didn't want to kill.

That doesn't address my point in the slightest. Spinning Spider. I haven't said a single word about whether I think rea guns should be used on a set. It's a complete hypothetical since they are. Let's stay on the topic of how to safely practice it since they are. Discussing if they should not be used is a different tangent since it was used and done so unsafely.

Yes, because she would be alive right now. But I'm pretty certain that you don't really care about people being killed. You just care about the agenda.

Why do you keep using the term laymen? Gun safety is no more difficult than making a sandwich, rolling a joint, or stealing nikes during a riot. Why are you trying to make it sound like it's difficult and some type of expertise in needed? Are you really that ignorant about firearms?

You say that every actor should treat the weapon as loaded.
So Charlize Theron receives a weapon and checks it herself.  But since she is not qualified to certify the safety of a firearm, her signoff on its safety means NOTHING.
Furthermore, now we can't proceed at all, because the weapon which WAS checked by the expert... has now been unloaded and reloaded by an actor.  And the expert's verification of the weapon's status is now completely invalid!  Great plan.

It makes zero sense to have an actor perform a weapon safety check when that actor is not qualified to certify the weapon as safe!  It's pure theater, borne out of the idea that experts aren't really experts so why don't I just check this myself?

And to address this related comment:

Wrong.
There needed to be a qualified expert on the set, not to have a bunch of actors acting like they're experts and certifying weapon safety themselves.

An unqualified "expert" armorer is no different than an unqualified "expert" electrician or pyrotechnician.  The solution to that problem is not better training for the actors; it's hiring better experts.

When an actor has to have a fight scene with swords, they are given sword training and then they use fake swords.
When an actor has to have a fight scene with boxing, they go to boxing class to learn how to box.

I don't think it's unreasonable that if you're asking an actor to gun fight .. that you give them training with guns.

I don't mean to say that they should be armorers or experts at firearms, but they should learn how to use and check guns. And if blanks and real ammo look nothing alike, they should be able to check that as well.

Safety works in layers, don't depend 100% on an armorer or on a single safety consultant, have experts sure, they supervise and do most of the legwork, but anyone touching a gun should be an additional layer of the safety onion, including actors. they certainly get paid enough to expect them to sit through some safety training that anyone can get at the local gun range.

"Gun safety is really simple and straightforward... why are you trying to make it sound difficult?" said the commenter in a thread about an accidental firearm death on set, after two OTHER instances of accidental firearm deaths on set were cited.

Interesting that you believe you are representing the "pro-safety" side of this discussion.  In this instance of an underqualified armorer making a mistake that led to an accidental death, your "pro-safety" position is NOT that there should be more stringent qualifications for armorers.  Nor is it that there should be a second armorer to double-check the first.  No, YOUR safety-minded solution is that the cast and crew should put their lives in the hands of... "shithead accused racist" Alec Baldwin and his ability to check a gun.

Then - because gun safety is "no more difficult than making a sandwich" - we can consider this problem resolved going forward.

Yes, this is the pro-safety position.

They take this training to be able to look better for the camera while swordfighting or boxing, not as a bootleg backup safety valve to protect the cast and crew.

Once more: an actor who takes a short gun training will not be qualified to certify the safety of a weapon.  There is zero point to having someone "check" a weapon when they literally cannot certify the weapon as safe.

If you say so clown 🤡🤡🤡. You're probably the least qualified person on this site to give advice on firearms. Go play with a gun or something....

Yet millions of Americans from all walks of life do it everyday without specialized training nor being a certified in anything. Gotcha 👌👌👌

A hit dog will holler!

You could have saved a lot of time by just opening with "Experts aren't necessary, this is America."

Are we talking about how things should be or how they are?

It is my understanding that currently, on the way a film set works, it's the armorer's job to provide a safe weapons environment and its producers jobs to make sure that those efforts are hampered in the interest of efficiency.  As I understand it now, the actor has little more than "common sense" and isn't expected to have a working understanding of firearms.

Maybe that will change, but that's the jist of it.

So, based on that understanding Alec Baldwin, the producer bears responsibility, under current norms for a producer but Alec Baldwin the actor, does not -- speaking what I would expect from a legal standpoint.

IMO you can't take everyday life usage of a gun, and translate it to a movie/TV set where there are protocols in place for the safe handling of weapons.  Because of those protocols there has not been a shooting death on a set in 30 years.  The problem here is that the protocols were not followed.  First off the crew should not have been off shooting live rounds with guns that were being used in the production during their downtime.  Second, where was the armorer?  The news reports I've read said the assistant director grabbed the gun off a cart, declared out loud "Cold Gun", before handing the weapon to Baldwin.  Was the armorer standing there by the cart? Did she tell the A.D. that it was a "Cold Gun"?  Thirdly, it is protocol for the A.D. to double check the weapon after receiving it from the armorer, and before giving it to the actor, which was obviously not done - or he didn't know what he was doing.  So, the gun should have been checked twice before it even reached Baldwin's hand.  Therefore, I can't see blaming Baldwin, as the actor, for this shooting.  I gotta agree with Spider on this one.

Also, typically live ammunition is forbidden on a set, who brought that live ammunition on set and had possession of it also bares a large part of the blame.  If the people in charge of the production were aware of this live ammunition on set, and let it occur, they are also partially at fault for this tragedy; at least civilly if not criminally.

Wow, just saw this. These are some pretty hefty allegations.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/alec-baldwin-intentionally-fired-the-shot-that-killed-halyna-hutchins-and-chose-to-play-russian-roulette-with-a-loaded-gun-in-violation-of-the-script-new-lawsuit-claims/ar-AAQPvoP?ocid=msedgntp

seems a bit over the top.  was there mistakes and negligence- yes.  Intentional - give me a break.

Well that's the claim. You know how it goes you claim the worst and then you haggle over the details, but if there's at least some truth to it, then it does look pretty bad.

Although I would agree with some of the statements, mostly it's over the top B.S., by none other than Gloria Allred.  I discount anything that woman says by about 60%, she's always out for the big payday, regardless of the truth.

Yesterday, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Baldwin said, "The trigger wasn't pulled. I didn't pull the trigger.  I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger, never."

Um, dude.  You've had over two weeks to come up with a cover story and that is what you decided was your best bet?  To say that the gun shot itself?   I'm sure he didn't know that there was a live round in the chamber.  Saying the gun shot itself is the kind of explanation that you give in a panic two seconds after it happened.  It isn't the kind of explanation that you give when you have had two weeks to come up with a cover story.  I suppose celebrities aren't the smartest people on the planet. 

Yes. I can't quite understand where he going with that unless he is wanting the MSM to back him up on it. If that happens people will buy into it regardless of how dumb it is.

Guns don't just go off unless there is a malfunction, which is kind of rare. I'm more than certain that they will strip and function check the weapon to rule out a malfunction, if they haven't already.

In my entire life there has been only one instance where I personally know someone who claimed a malfunction caused a ND. We were seniors in high school and he shot himself in the leg with a Beretta 92.  He said he didn't pull the trigger and that he just tapped the side of the pistol on his upper thigh and it went off. I always figured his story was bullshit. Maybe there was a defect of some type or maybe Beretta just wanted to avoid litigation. In any case, he got a 6 figure settlement from Beretta.

Weird that Baldwin is getting supported in his "I didn't pull the trigger" theory. They going as far as saying his finger wasn't ever on the trigger. I've been around guns since I was a kid. I've been around misfires as well as have fired a gun that I didn't think was loaded. I've seen some things but I've never seen a gun fire where someone or something didn't touch the trigger or hammer. Anyone else witness something like that? 

After seeing the type of pistol he was using, there are ways the firearm could discharge unintentionally. It looks to be a replica of a single action old west type revolver. It kind of depends on if it has a transfer bar/hammer block safety like newer revolvers or the hammer had an exposed firing pin like originally designed in the 1800s.

If it has the transfer bar/hammer block type safety the trigger would have to be pulled for the gun to fire.

If it has the "old west" type hammer with built in firing pin, the gun will fire if:
1. Hammer down on a live round and the back of the hammer is hit with enough force to ignite the primer. Not likely to happen in Baldwin's situation
2. Hammer manually cocked and a defect causes the hammer to drop on a live round. Again, possible but not likely
3. Hammer manually cocked and trigger pulled. Most likely cause.

I would say a bad trigger job could have made the trigger pull too light and a light touch caused to fire. But since they had been using the pistol with actual live ammunition, Baldwin would have somewhat known the weight of the trigger pull. So unless they come out and find a defect in the action, he's lying to cover his ass. Even with a defect that makes the hammer fall, most single action revolvers have a half cock notch position to keep the hammer from striking the firing pin should the full cock notch on the hammer fail.

I just saw another interview. He pulled the hammer back and released it. Appears it wasn't far enough back to cock but still far enough to fire when released.

I guess that's technically possible. But all the single action revolvers of that type that I've ever dealt with had a half cock position that you have to use to even load the weapon. It's hard for me to believe that either: half cock didn't catch the hammer or that the hammer had enough inertia to ignite the primer before the half cock position. Anyhow, all the info will come out eventually

I have no idea whether the reports are valid or not, but I've seen a couple things in the "news" that stated that they doing a marking exercise which is where everyone gets into position so they can measure camera distances for the "real" filming, but that these marking exercises are also filmed.  So if that is the case, I would think that there would be video evidence which would either support Baldwin's claims or dispute them.