Alec Baldwin fired prop gun ***trigger?

FYI the term cold gun would mean that the gun doesn't have blanks in it either - it's very well known that blanks are also dangerous at close range. The latest report was he was rehearsing a cross draw while seated, so trying to pull a gun out of holster across his body. I imagine that he accidentally grabbed the trigger.  It's clear that the AD who yelled cold gun before handing it to Baldwin was woefully negligent. Adding in the armorer didn't double check weapons after lunch when others had access and that there was live ammunition which is never supposed to be there was on set, means there's potentially a few others who contributed to this tragedy.  

The bottom line is that there should be no need for any type of gun that is capable of firing live bullets on any film set this day and age. It would be an impossible task to train everyone that would have access to " props" including guns that an actor uses on a film set - there would be far too many people involved and that is when things go wrong - the chain of command and who is responsibility would be too long. People get complacent and think that someone else has checked/ done the task in hand. That is why they have an armourer surely? But Hannah Gutierrez-Reed seems to have quite a chequered past according reports.

Yes, I did address your post.  Maybe my answer was not what you wanted, but I'll try again.

Comparing automobiles and guns are not an apples to apples comparison. 

- Everyone knows automobiles and guns can cause injury or death.
- Anyone who drives an automobile goes through training, must test for competency, and only then receives a license. 
- Those who work to manufacture parts for stunt cars are trained in their craft through apprenticeship (training and demonstrated proficiency).
- Actors who handle guns are not always trained, are not required to show proficiency, and are not licensed.  

There is a difference between the MALFUNCTION of a product (which is the scenario you described) versus the MISUSE of a product (due to lack of training and engaging safety protocols) which is what happened on the movie set.

Would your daughter perform her driving stunt if someone else said "ready" knowing she did not have the basics of seat belt restraints and a helmet in place?  Is she going to pass that responsibility off to someone else?  Likely not.

A better example - what if your daughter were driving a stunt scene and the driving path was blocked by a group of spectators and the director yells "action" but the crowd does not clear.  Is your daughter going to slam on the gas and get the car to 80+ mph knowing she can possibly hit and injure a multitude people?  No, she would advocate for herself and say she can't go until the people are moved out the way.  That's taking personal responsibility.

I know I won't change your mind because rarely are minds ever changed on social media boards, but I stand by my statements 110%.  If you are going to handle a weapon in an way, shape or form, you must know the basics of how to use the thing and identify if your ammunition is live or not whether it's a movie set, a firing range, or your home.  Know how the basics on how to use the weapon so you don't make yourself the cause of a problem.

@oh yvonne - I know the photographer who took the still photos on the latest James Bond movie. Some of the things she has shared - WHOA. Smokin' hot of a man!!!

I really don't like to be confrontational here, but I have to say this is a silly and untruthful comment. You only know the backgrounds some have chosen to share. 
Some of us are able to see and accept the plural requirements of personal and professional settings.

Yes. If they can memorize an entire script for a movie, not to mention action, stunts and everything else involved in their job, then they can also learn about the weapon that they will be firing.

I can understand why you and many feel the way you do. I just cannot and will not ever agree that if you have a gun in your hand and you pull the trigger that you are not responsible for shooting someone.

And this comment is spot on...



Also...



A gun cannot distinguish if it is in a dual requirement setting. As an inanimate object it does not care. That's why the person handling said gun must have enough care to handle it properly and safely.

That comparison was already made and I responded above.

Those who do not handle guns don't understand that basic gun safety rules exist, regardless of the situation.  Those that do handle weapons and know gun safety rules understand that putting them in practice each time a weapon is handled is what prevents accidents, regardless of the situation.

This type of safety situation is pretty black and white because gun safety rules are very basic and the frustration exists on both sides - basic gun safety practices prevents injury and death. Follow those rules and prevent bad things from happening.

Maybe because the world has been operating in state of grey for so long it's hard to switch the perspective?  I don't know, but yes, it is very frustrating.  It is very frustrating that suggesting basic gun safety rules need to be followed by anyone handling a weapon is being accused of being in "judgement" and "audacious".

But as been stated a zillion times basic gun safety rules will NEVER be followed on a set as most of the time they're not actually holding a gun. I'm not sure if people are being deliberately obtuse, but I'll state it again just in case some of you "gun experts" are failing to understand how movies are made. As everyone knows the most basic of all gun safety rules is you NEVER point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. Well guess what people point things at people while filming movies - sometimes it's another person, sometimes it's the audience which means they're pointing at a cameraman, sometimes it's at themselves. These props SHOULD NOT BE FIREABLE WEAPONS. But they sure need to LOOK like weapons.  Most of the time these props can't fire live ammunition at all, even if there was live ammunition on set - do some research on actual veteran armorers and what they do - you'll learn something about all the different permutations of prop guns - the vast majority of which do not actually shoot bullets. Alec Baldwin should never have been handed a fireable weapon for a rehearsal - that was WRONG. 

I'll even go further to say if gun owners want to call for a ban of fireable guns on movie sets as armorers and assistant directors - not just trained but EXPERTS in gun safety - can't ensure the safety of people around guns - go for it. Clearly even someone who claims that they love their job as they can show how safe guns are and grew up surrounded by weaponry couldn't manage to differentiate between dummy bullets and live rounds (or at least make sure none were in the gun) so clearly the real answer here is to ban them entirely instead of thinking some dumbass actor is going to be doing a better job. 

It is incorrect to think that every American knows all about guns. I have never touched a gun and never will. Neither has my husband or kids. My dad was a hunter and I have one brother who is also a hunter (and he also shot himself, supposedly on accident) but otherwise None of my other siblings have guns. We have talked about guns at my book club and a few women said their husbands had them (and IMO they do not store them properly based on the conversation) but most do not.

Those of us who don’t handle guns do know that there are basic safety protocols. But I also think that most of us realize that many people don’t follow them. Every gun owner thinks they are doing the “right” things but that is really not the case.

SAG-AFTRA has strict guidelines whenever guns are used on set. As a veteran actor, I’m sure Alec has been exposed to the proper procedures if not on this set, then on others. If the scene had involved Alec being shot, do I think he would have made sure the gun was a dummy? Yes I do. That said, I do believe that there were many lapses in judgment and the blame doesn’t fall on one, but many.

Oddly, I can’t find anything in your first post that addresses my point about safety checks in other potentially dangerous props on set. Perhaps it was accidentally deleted. Thank you for retyping it.

You declared my question about an actor checking the collapsible fender as illegitimate, but your counter questions about an actor’s seatbelt and helmet are not equivalent examples of non-gun props/equipment with which that actor could hurt another human. And your scenario of driving into spectators vs. braking? I’d be very surprised if there is industry safety protocol in place about never braking. 

So, yes, you’re right. I remain unconvinced that the “guns are special” argument isn’t inconsistent and parochial. 

I also remain unconvinced that filmmaking safety would be improved by my wholly-gun-ignorant actor daughter practicing the occupational disobedience that is expected by some in this thread. She’s quite the rule follower, but I’m guessing she would not consider the argument here - “Just follow the gun rules advocated by gun owners on social media, not your employer’s prop gun rules” - compelling…or personally responsible, actually.