Alec Baldwin Involved in Fatal Shooting On Set of Rust

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
8,738
5,905
118

Even if you don’t like the guy it’s tough not to feel a bit sorry for him. Chances are he was set up by some disgruntled set hand or something but on the other hand, what was he doing pointing the gun at off camera crew members let alone pulling the trigger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
26,692
11,192
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male

Even if you don’t like the guy it’s tough not to feel a bit sorry for him. Chances are he was set up by some disgruntled set hand or something but on the other hand, what was he doing pointing the gun at off camera crew members let alone pulling the trigger.
Somebody already posted it on the general movie and TV news thread.
 

Mister Mumbler

Pronounced "Throat-wobbler Mangrove"
Legacy
Jun 17, 2020
1,844
1,692
118
Nowhere
Country
United States

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
One can only hope this spurs action in the film industry to stop using real firearms on set loaded with "non-lethal" blanks.

They do it to save money*, so it'll never happen of course, but it would be nice to happen.

[* Real firearms being cheaper than law enforcement/military training conversion kits, or purpose-built training weapons with simulated recoil and pyrotechnic charges to simulate muzzle blast.]
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
If I had to guess, the scene that was shot before the one where the accident happened showed Baldwin loading the pistol. Blank rounds are obviously fake, so they would have to load it with rounds that have the bullet in them. A careful company would use rounds with no powder, but I wouldn't necessarily say using live rounds since they look like real bullets (being real bullets) for that kind of scene would be unsafe.

So long as you fully unload the weapon before the next scene.

Which is where I suspect the fuckup was at.

The guy unloading probably just counted the rounds as he unloaded and miscounted, keeping a live round in the cylinder.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
One can only hope this spurs action in the film industry to stop using real firearms on set loaded with "non-lethal" blanks.

They do it to save money*, so it'll never happen of course, but it would be nice to happen.

[* Real firearms being cheaper than law enforcement/military training conversion kits, or purpose-built training weapons with simulated recoil and pyrotechnic charges to simulate muzzle blast.]
Fake guns usually look like fake guns. If they wanna ban guns completely, I'd imagine that creating passable fake guns will be much more expensive, like you said. Seems so stupid to ban guns from movies when the problem was specifically the round. If they wanna reform anything, it should be regulations for bullets and blanks. But I don't even think they need ban those, since this is so rare. We've all spotted digitally added gunshots. Some look much less convincing than others.


Blame the actor/crew, not the gun.
 

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States

Idiot.




"Every time I have ever been handed a gun, the prop master has made sure that I see the status of the gun, showing me that it is either clear and totally empty, or if I am firing a blank, how many rounds are loaded and how many times I will fire the weapon. I must acknowledge."

Interesting. Looks like that's what the armorer was doing with Carrie-Anne Moss in my screenshot above.
 
Last edited:

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
Fake guns usually look like fake guns.
Real guns nowadays look like fake guns. It's a byproduct of the firearms industry switching to primarily polymer -- especially matte polymer -- construction for frames, grips, buttstocks, barrel shrouds, optics -- basically, any component that isn't related to trigger assemblies, chambers, or barrels that need to be made of metal, to withstand the internal stresses and pressures of firing a round.

That applies even to -- hell, especially to -- wood grain-finish polymer.

Blame the actor/crew, not the gun.
I'm blaming producers and accountants. The pricks who'll spend hundreds of millions on dumbfuck effects and marketing, but won't greenlight ten to twenty thousand for conversion kits already in studio/armorer stock.

Nothing -- absolutely nothing whatsoever -- would have to be "created", as training kits I described earlier do not just exist, but are commercially-available to civilians and not just LEO/military. I could buy one, today, for my home defense/EDC and it costs maybe three to five hundred -- about half what the damn pistol cost in the first place -- depending on manufacturer, style, make, and model. All they are, are replacement slides and barrel assemblies, maybe trigger assemblies and custom magazines for some, and most I've ever seen or heard of actually block the chamber to prevent live rounds from entering it.

Depending on aforementioned style, make, and model, there's zero aesthetic difference at all, except for safety coloration, and it would be trivially cheap for film industry armorers -- who have to hold FFL's and state entertainment firearms licenses -- to overcome.

And the kicker is it would likely cost studios less in the long run to switch, thanks to lower insurance premiums for not having firearms capable of firing live rounds on sets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
Real guns nowadays look like fake guns. It's a byproduct of the firearms industry switching to primarily polymer -- especially matte polymer -- construction for frames, grips, buttstocks, barrel shrouds, optics -- basically, any component that isn't related to trigger assemblies, chambers, or barrels that need to be made of metal, to withstand the internal stresses and pressures of firing a round.

That applies even to -- hell, especially to -- wood grain-finish polymer.


I'm blaming producers and accountants. The pricks who'll spend hundreds of millions on dumbfuck effects and marketing, but won't greenlight ten to twenty thousand for training conversion kits for prop firearms likely already in studio stock. I could buy one, today, for my home defense/EDC and it costs maybe three to five hundred -- about half what the damn pistol cost in the first place -- depending on manufacturer, style, make, and model. All they are, are replacement slides and barrel assemblies, maybe trigger assemblies and custom magazines for some, and most I've ever seen or heard of actually block the chamber to prevent live rounds from entering it.

Depending on aforementioned style, make, and model, there's zero aesthetic difference at all, except for safety coloration, and it would be trivially cheap for film industry armorers -- who have to hold FFL's and state entertainment firearms licenses -- to overcome.

And the kicker is it would likely cost studios less in the long run to switch, thanks to lower insurance premiums for not having firearms capable of firing live rounds on sets.
They apparently had three accidental discharges prior. Unbelievable. But I'm blaming the actor too. Adam Baldwin is right. Some more of him:




But for rare cases of such criminal negligence, what you suggest isn't necessary.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
They apparently had three accidental discharges prior. Unbelievable. But I'm blaming the actor too. Adam Baldwin is right.
I want to make this clear: I am a Second Amendment advocate. And frankly...I don't give a shit who's "right" and who's "wrong" on the level with which you're preoccupied.

This was a problem in the making before Alec Baldwin put his booger hook on the bang switch. Solve for root causes, not symptoms.

Solutions exist today to make firearms capable of chambering and firing live rounds no longer a necessity on film studio sets, and they are commercially-available to civilian purchasers and cheap. The film industry as a whole should have adopted them years, if not decades, ago. End of story.
 

Ezekiel

Elite Member
May 29, 2007
1,056
558
118
Country
United States
I want to make this clear: I am a Second Amendment advocate. And frankly...I don't give a shit who's "right" and who's "wrong" on the level with which you're preoccupied.
Then you should have omitted this:

I'm blaming producers and accountants.


Also, this part needs citations and math:

And the kicker is it would likely cost studios less in the long run to switch, thanks to lower insurance premiums for not having firearms capable of firing live rounds on sets.
Since your argument rests on this being cheaper.
 
Last edited:

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
Then you should have omitted this:
No, no I should not have. Your unwillingness to read the plain text of my posts, particularly phrases like "solve for root causes", is not my problem.

Also, this part needs citations and math:
No, no I don't believe I do. Your unwillingness to read the plain text of my posts, particularly words like "likely", nor unwillingness to accept a possibility I personally believe to be common sense like live firearms on set being a risk factor that increases production insurance costs, is not my problem.