Shooting on the set of Rust

[Spider-Dan]

Yes. Hoodie's point is stupid when discussing gun safety.

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 very humorous that the people who speak up the most about gun regulation are for looser gun safety practices.

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

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.

[pondwater]

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.

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.

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.

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  

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[Phishfan]

You want the gun to be double-checked?

Then hire a second expert to check it!

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

[pondwater]

I find it very humorous that the people who speak up the most about gun regulation are for looser gun safety practices.

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

[Dolphster]

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.  

[Spider-Dan]

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

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

[pondwater]

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?

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.

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.

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?

[Spider-Dan]

That doesn't address my point in the slightest. Spinning Spider.

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?

[Spider-Dan]

And to address this related comment:

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.

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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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?

"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.