The gun's fault. It wasn't a blank, it was a live round that got fired by mistake.
Alec Baldwin Involved in Fatal Shooting On Set of Rust
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
There's only a few scenarios I can think of, and these are all assuming that the weapon was some sort of semi-automatic:
- A live round was mistakenly loaded into the weapon
- The bullet came free from the neck of a dummy round and stayed lodged in the chamber while a blank cartridge was loaded
- Something else became wedged into the chamber or barrel and the force of the blank cartridge gave it enough velocity to be deadly
As a gun owner...
Bullshit.
Absolutely, categorically, under any conceivable circumstance, bullshit. I own a P320 and I'll be the first person on Earth to tell you, there's always a risk associated to producing, let alone handling, a firearm. "It's only a risk if..." is a false statement, period, the end. And it's a false statement that gets people killed.
The biggest risk with any firearm is when there's "no" risk. Firearms always have one in the chamber ready to go, especially if you "know" there isn't one in the chamber ready to go. The safety's always off, especially if you "know" the safety's on. I don't give a hot, flying, fuck if the goddamn trigger assembly's sitting in front of you on a table, disassembled, across the room from the rest of the gun. You always practice your muzzle discipline and you always practice your trigger discipline. End of fucking story.
Making assumptions about firearms' readiness, and understating firearms' risk profiles at any time, is the first fuckup people make that gets people killed.
Which is what you've been "trying" to say the entire thread, in your vain and impotent attempt to push blame away from any systemic, procedural, or institutional failure that led to this moment.
No, true is precisely what it is. Converting firearms with kits such that it is physically impossible for them to chamber live rounds or blanks, and prohibiting live ammunition from sets, eliminates the risk factor entirely. The presence of a firearm capable of firing a live round, and live rounds capable of being fired, are kind of prerequisites for someone getting shot on a film set with a live round from a firearm capable of chambering and firing one.
I didn't believe I would actually have to explain a tautology here, but apparently that is indeed the case.
Last edited:
Spare me your drama. It's you that's trying to push some false narrative when the rarity of events like this proves the industry does just fine with live firearms. Stand by what you are saying then ("Biggest risk is when there is no risk.") and forfeit your gun. Because I don't see any reason why it needs to be banned from movies but not private use. The percentage of accidents is certainly a hell of a lot higher off movie sets. Everyone using the gun on set should go through standard safety training. But it seems like they do already have enough safety measures and protocols in place to ensure no one gets shot. Punish reckless incompetence accordingly and let the studios continue to decide according to local laws. Again, it looks good on camera. That's enough of a reason for many filmmakers to keep on doing it. Imagine how many tens of thousands of gunshots (blanks and real cartidges) must have been filmed between Brandon Lee and Halyna Hutchins, a 28 year period.
Last edited:
Also, lots of old movies and serials about G-Men. Everyone carries revolvers, occasionally there's a lever action rifle or pump action shotgun. Been wondering why nobody ever had a 1911 for a bit before it struck me.
(The odd Thompson does appear, though)
Omg Jack Posobiec is like the least trustworthy person anyone could've used as a source, his entire schtick is just shit-stirring reactionary bullshit for attention and cash.
Anyway, some interesting stuff I didn't realise about guns in this vid...
Anyway, some interesting stuff I didn't realise about guns in this vid...
How the fuck does that happen? There should not be live rounds anywhere NEAR a movie set.
Redirect Notice
images.app.goo.gl
Found this that breaks down blanks. Apparently there is something called a Wad that blocks up the casing where normally a bullet would go. This wad is made of paper or sometimes a thin piece of plastic. Both types of wads are supposed to melt or burn up from the heat of the gunpowder going off so the gun fires but there is nothing to come out of the barrel.
Rarely these wads do not burn up the way they are supposed to and can get expelled from the guns at a velocity that can make them dangerous. Usually only over pretty close range.
These are very distinct looking items and i find it hard to believe they could ever be mistaken for a live round. And if anything gets banned it obviously just needs to be live rounds from any movie set because there is no reason for people playing pretend to use real bullets.
You get the muzzle flash, that is, hot gases leaving the barrel at high speed. That can be dangerous at short ranges. You also get some coming out of the cylinder gap of revolvers (whether or not a blank was fired) and so if you hold the piece wrong when firing you can injure yourself, to the extent of losing fingers if the ammo is powerful enough. Also means silencers don't work so well on revolvers.
That mistake means it’s the person’s fault who loaded the gun, or ultimately Alec’s fault for breaking the number one rule in films involving weapon usage.
Alec Baldwin ignored the No. 1 rule of gun safety: Hollywood weapons expert
Alec Baldwin failed to follow the No. 1 rule of gun safety before the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust,” a Hollywood weapons expert tells The Post.
nypost.com
Although at the same time, there’s only so much camera trickery that can be pulled in certain scenes that, you know, actually need the gun pointed right at someone. That’s where the safety measures need to be on-the-spot and diligently carried out every.single.time.
Last edited:
I wonder how the director also got injured. What kind of gun was it to shoot through a person and into another person. Additionally if there was a live round included in the blanks then whoever prepares the gun props is at fault. Alex is an actor and actors just take and do with the props whatever they are told. And unless the actor is very trained in spotting blanks he probably could never have known something was wrong.That mistake means it’s the person’s fault who loaded the gun, or ultimately Alec’s fault for breaking the number one rule in films involving weapon usage.
Alec Baldwin ignored the No. 1 rule of gun safety: Hollywood weapons expert
Alec Baldwin failed to follow the No. 1 rule of gun safety before the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust,” a Hollywood weapons expert tells The Post.
Although at the same time, there’s only so much camera trickery that can be pulled in certain scenes that, you know, actually need the gun pointed right at someone. That’s where the safety measures need to be on-the-spot and diligently carried out every.single.time.
He was also executive producer though, so that ultimately is on him as well since it carries additional responsibilities for how a set is managed, including safety measures. I’m not sure how that is split up with the production company but in any case he’s got a heap of legal challenges ahead. His career at this point is more than likely toast.
i'm surprised he had a career stil tbh, but yeah there will definitely be legal fights ahead.
I meant between the two options presented. From the sound of it, the gun did need to be pointed that way, and the director/cinematographer were behind Plexiglass, which would have been enough to protect them if it wasn't a live round. At least, that's the way it's supposed to be, but on a set this bad, it very well could be overlooked.That mistake means it’s the person’s fault who loaded the gun, or ultimately Alec’s fault for breaking the number one rule in films involving weapon usage.
Alec Baldwin ignored the No. 1 rule of gun safety: Hollywood weapons expert
Alec Baldwin failed to follow the No. 1 rule of gun safety before the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust,” a Hollywood weapons expert tells The Post.
Although at the same time, there’s only so much camera trickery that can be pulled in certain scenes that, you know, actually need the gun pointed right at someone. That’s where the safety measures need to be on-the-spot and diligently carried out every.single.time.
You either believe in proper firearm safety or you do not. Now you're going to claim this "the exception that proves the rule" after contradicting yourself on when and where firearms are to be considered safe, after playing the "firearm safety is the individual's responsibility" card all thread? A possessor's ultimate responsibility is to understand the risk factors associated with possession, and accommodate and mitigate those risk factors.
It sounds to me like you just want to criticize Alec Baldwin, any and every other consideration -- indeed, basic firearm safety or logic itself -- be damned. And considering you're linking right-wing Twitter accounts and nothing but right-wing Twitter accounts, I daresay I have a fairly strong suspicion as to why.
Ah yes, prototypical right-wing false dilemma. Gun, love it or leave it. And a prototypical right-wing failure of reading comprehension that betrays how little you actually know of the subject matter.
I own my firearms, knowing full well there is an inherent risk factor to them. I carry, knowing full well there is an inherent risk factor to carrying, and I don't carry unless there is a specific and articulable need to it. I never forget or deny there is an inherent risk factor regardless how "responsible" I think I'm being. I remain conscious of that risk factor and work to mitigate that, whether my firearms are in storage, under maintenance, in transport, or being carried regardless of circumstance.
And I would never make a statement so facially ludicrous as to say "there's only a risk when/if...". That is irresponsible possession. If I knew you personally, based on that statement alone, I guarantee you'd be the last person to even see my firearms.
So did toxic stage makeup and prostheses, highly flammable costumes on sets with incandescent stage lighting, and filming on location downwind from nuclear weapon test sites. And the film industry was more than happy for those negligent, hazardous, and needless practices to continue until major incidents led to outcry.
There is no need for firearms capable of chambering or firing live ammunition to be on sets in the first place, therefore firearms capable of chambering or firing live ammunition should not be on sets.
I didn't post any ring-wing tweets. Nothing Adam Baldwin said here seemed right-wing to me. At all. You say that you never forget or deny there is always an inherent risk, so, again, why then should the bans apply to filmmakers and not you? Of course you ignore most of the meat of my post, because that's the only way you can cling to your false narrative of guns on sets leading to deaths.
Edit: Okay, Jack Posobiec. I don't know him. But I don't even consider myself on the right on most issues. I actually wish we had tighter gun control laws, like universal background checks. Guns in movies is a very easy stance to defend, though.
Edit: Okay, Jack Posobiec. I don't know him. But I don't even consider myself on the right on most issues. I actually wish we had tighter gun control laws, like universal background checks. Guns in movies is a very easy stance to defend, though.
Last edited:
There is actually, many movies have scenes that show rounds being chambered into a gun. And if it can chamber fake rounds, it can chamber real rounds.
As to the hypothetical dummy guns that look like real ones and provide recoil and muzzle flash, I'd have to get ahold of one and play with it. Does it look and act right in every situation? In haze? In dramatic lighting? I actually don't know.
I do know that if they use CO2 canisters for their recoil action, they're dangerous too and can cause injuries or even possibly death on set.
Just showcases that there is danger in most things to some degree. Safety is important and it minimizes accidents greatly.
However they can and do happen. Sometimes it isnt even anyone's fault, sometimes shit just breaks or goes wrong which is an even higher risk when dealing with explosives (which guns technically are)
This will probably result in an insurance payout and a heafty fine to baldwin and/or the studio.
I ignored the "meat" of your post because you are not knowledgeable on the topic, and therefore not credible. You decided to give yourself away.
For third parties on the forum who may not own, carry, or be knowledgeable of firearm safety: what our fellow forum member here called "drama" was a rephrasing of three of the four (or six) universal rules of firearm safety, nothing more and nothing less. The first and most important three, in fact:
1. Always treat every firearm as if it is loaded at all times. There is no preface, disclaimer, or condition upon this; the default assumption with every firearm, at all times, is that it is loaded. Period, the end. Even if someone hands you a firearm with its chamber open and magazine removed, safety on, physically demonstrating to you there are no live rounds in that firearm, you still treat it as if it is loaded. Because even under the most ideal of circumstances with highly-experienced and trained possessors, lapses in attention, memory, perception, or judgment can and do occur, and that's when accidents happen.
2. Never let a muzzle point at something you are not willing to kill, destroy, or pay for. That's called "muzzle discipline", what I called out in the post this forum member called "drama".
3. Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target and ready to fire. That's called "trigger discipline", what I called out in the post this forum member called "drama".
That is not "only a risk if...". That is specifically acknowledging there is always risk no matter the steps taken to mitigate it, and acting conscious of that risk.
First one's most important. That's why it's the first universal rule of firearm safety. And it's one this forum member not only failed to recognize, but actively went out of their way to disregard and minimize, instead calling it "drama".
And it can have its firing pin or striker removed, or its trigger assembly disabled.
Not hypothetical, but go on.
They're not dummy guns. Well, some are, but we're not really discussing those. These are real guns, that have conversion kits applied to them to simulate live fire.
That's the intent; they're LEO and military training tools, it would scarcely make sense for them to not replicate live fire as accurately as possible.
I daresay the equivalent to an up-powered airsoft pistol that wouldn't even be firing pellets, has a considerably lower risk profile than blanks or pyrotechnics.
No, you ignored most of my post because you have no defense against all the safety measures and protocols which have been discussed in this thread making deaths by gun an extreme rarity on sets. She died because those rules were broken, which only speaks in favor of the industry's practices. You haven't given any good reason for why guns should be banned from movies, and I still find it hypocritical of you to not hold the same principles (banning) for private gun ownership. If you believe that I only blame Alec Baldwin, you are wrong. The drama I was referring to was your obvious lack of respect and using expletives offensively, your condescension that deserved calling out. Being overly passionate.
Last edited: