A Colt Can't Fire Itself

[Revoltingest]

I think too if you make everything in life perfectly safe you will eventually stagnate and limit life and not be able to afford to do anything. In other words I would think the current rules are adequate and we don't need more. We accept the teeniest amount of risk all the time when we step on planes, drive on the freeway, make a movie, etcetera.

That is no excuse for what so many of us see
as very very dangerous behavior. It's so easy
to verify that a gun is safe if it absolutely must
be pointed at someone.

 

[Revoltingest]

There was no way for him to personally verify that the gun wasn't loaded because it was loaded with dummy bullets.

Examine them.
And why point it at the director & cameraman?
However, I'd be willing to accept has carefully
watching the armorer verify the gun was safe.
He'd likely have caught her not doing her job.

 

[George-ananda]

That is no excuse for what so many of us see
as very very dangerous behavior. It's so easy
to verify that a gun is safe if it absolutely must
be pointed at someone.

The gun was verified as safe by the responsible professionals. And that works fine 99.99999% of the time like airplane mechanics declaring things safe.

 

[Audie]

There was no way for him to personally verify that the gun wasn't loaded because it was loaded with dummy bullets. That's what the scene was being set up for: for the camera to see the gun being pointed at it with the (dummy) bullets in the chambers. The cinematographer was specifically setting up that shot, with the "loaded" gun pointing at her (the camera) so the camera would see the bullets in the cylinder and Baldwin's thumb pulling back the hammer. That's why she was telling Baldwin exactly which way to point the gun, and to pull the hammer back. He was doing exactly as she instructed, because that's what actors do. It's why they are there and why they are being paid.

Also, Baldwin was one of the executive producers of the movie, but he did not do any of the hiring. Nor did he do any of the set or personnel management.

He could easily have checked.

Like I am a expert, but i learned in like two minutes that
1. All guns are always loaded
2. Dont point at anything you dont wish to destroy
3. When you pick up a gun, check if it is loaded.

Did you see the vid? How many safety protocols did he ignore? What does it take to
identify " irresponsible "?
Alex was the big man in charge?
As Admiral Rivjover observed,
"If you are not responsible, you are irresponsible"

 

[Revoltingest]

The gun was verified as safe by the responsible professionals. And that works fine 99.99999% of the time like airplane mechanics declaring things safe.

I doubt that use of the word "responsible".

 

[Audie]

Examine them.
And why point it at the director & cameraman?
However, I'd be willing to accept has carefully
watching the armorer verify the gun was safe.
He'd likely have caught her not doing her job.

No way to verify? Ha.
Put that with firing bullets.

 

[Audie]

I doubt that use of the word "responsible".

?

 

[PureX]

He could easily have checked.

Like I am a expert, but i learned in like two minutes that
1. All guns are always loaded
2. Dont point at anything you dont wish to destroy
3. When you pick up a gun, check if it is loaded.

Then there could be no movie.

 

[Audie]

Then there could be no movie.

Thats just silly.
And, dangerous.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thats just silly.
And, dangerous.

Hey, if one cannot argue against something reasonable,
then invent an unreasonable straw man. Actors can
easily verify what is or isn't in the barrel, chamber, mag, etc.
All that's required is a little knowledge, time, & commitment.

 

[Kooky]

So how do you make a movie that shows a firefight if nobody is allowed to handle any guns?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Am I the only person who doesn't care what John Schneider has to say about Alec Baldwin? I'll admit that I could be mistaken about his motive, but it seems to me that he's only publicly criticizing Baldwin to get some attention for himself. It's almost like he's trying to stay relevant or something. I'm not sure why he thinks his personal opinion of Alec Baldwin should matter to anyone. When was the last time he was in a popular TV show or movie? I know he played Jonathan Kent in Smallville, but his character was eventually killed off in the show. What else has he done in recent years? I remember him as Bo Duke from The Dukes of Hazzard, but that was over 35 years ago. I hope I don't sound rude or anything, because that's not my intention. I was just curious to know if anyone else feels the way I do about John Schneider publicly going after Alec Baldwin like he has. Why should his opinion matter?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I favor more precautions, especially when they're
so easy to do, & the consequences so grave.
I wouldn't expect actors to get as involved in guns
as some of us here, but I think it's a reasonable
requirement to get at least few days training in safety
protocols, with a refresher course every movie.
If they can't find the time, then don't touch a gun.

What gun safety training has Alec Baldwin had, and how do you know?

 

[Audie]

What gun safety training has Alec Baldwin had, and how do you know?

Inquiring minds...

 

[Revoltingest]

What gun safety training has Alec Baldwin had, and how do you know?

He's had little to none.
This I know because anyone skilled would never
handle a gun as he did. He never cleared the
action to inspect it himself. He cocked the hammer,
placed his finger on the trigger, & aimed it in an
unsafe direction.
You wouldn't know this, but such actions violate
ingrained habits that we have. There'd be great
reluctance to do otherwise.

 

[Audie]

He's had little to none.
This I know because anyone skilled would never
handle a gun as he did. He never cleared the
action to inspect it himself. He cocked the hammer,
placed his finger on the trigger, & aimed it in an
unsafe direction.
You wouldn't know this, but such actions violate
ingrained habits that we have. There'd be great
reluctance to do otherwise.

Mr B does not even know what made the gun go bang.
Ifn that is one is to take his word.

I expect that it will come up in court, just how to
make it go bang w/o touching the trigger.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mr B does not even know what made the gun go bang.
Ifn that is one is to take his word.

I expect that it will come up in court, just how to
make it go bang w/o touching the trigger.

Who knows what Baldwin actually thinks.
He's an actor who could be acting to gain
sympathy & exculpation.
But I stand by my claim that he's utterly
unqualified to ever handle a gun.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He's had little to none.
This I know because anyone skilled would never
handle a gun as he did.

I'll take that as an "I don't know."

He never cleared the
action to inspect it himself.

He didn't? Are you sure?

For argument's sake, let's say he didn't do this. If he had, what would his inspection have found? There was supposed to be a (dummy) round in the cylinder.

He cocked the hammer,
placed his finger on the trigger, & aimed it in an
unsafe direction.

... as the shot called for.

You wouldn't know this, but such actions violate
ingrained habits that we have.

There'd be great
reluctance to do otherwise.

I have to echo what I think @Kooky said: it sounds like you're saying guns shouldn't be in movies at all.

There are plenty of times on a movie set where the story requires a gun to be pointed at another person. If film sets were to function the way you suggest they should, nobody would ever be held at gunpoint or shot at in a movie.

Apparently, the shot they were doing called for the camera to look down the barrel of the gun at an angle where a round would be visible.

How do you think this should be achieved if not by pointing the gun at the camera with dummy rounds in the cylinder?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He's had little to none.
This I know because anyone skilled would never
handle a gun as he did. He never cleared the
action to inspect it himself. He cocked the hammer,
placed his finger on the trigger, & aimed it in an
unsafe direction.
You wouldn't know this, but such actions violate
ingrained habits that we have. There'd be great
reluctance to do otherwise.

Interestingly, the approach you're suggesting would actually violate firearms rules for a film set.

Apparently, in the US, unions and film studios mostly dictate the rules, which vary from set to set, but he's a sample that - AFAICT - is pretty typical for the industry:

15. It should be the responsibility of only the Handler to load and unload weapons. If this is unreasonable, e.g., in the case of large numbers, then the Handler may designate assistants to assist, under his or her supervision, the handling, loading and unloading of weapons.

Guideline No. 39: Firearms | Safety Guidelines for the Film and Television Industry in Ontario | Ministry of Labour

... so an actor taking it upon themselves to unload the gun they were handed, shake each round to confirm that it's a dummy round, and then re-load the gun would be breaking an important safety rule.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll take that as an "I don't know."

I'll take that as your refusal to accept
the reality of what Baldwin actually did.

He didn't? Are you sure?

Positive.
If he had, he'd have seen rounds in the chambers of the cylinder.

For argument's sake, let's say he didn't do this. If he had, what would his inspection have found? There was supposed to be a (dummy) round in the cylinder.

If he saw something in the chamber of the cylinder,
& he needed it to be a blank, snap cap, or other
safe round, he should've verified this personally.
Look at the video in the OP. It's not that hard.

... as the shot called for.

Did it?

I have to echo what I think @Kooky said: it sounds like you're saying guns shouldn't be in movies at all.

That was a foolish & histrionic statement. What's required
is better training & safety protocols for anyone & everyone
handling any weapon. Unqualified armorers, unqualified
actors, & slipshod protocols (eg, using prop guns with live
ammo) should be prohibited.
But I can see that some movie productions might prefer to
avoid the burden of training & safety, & eschew having guns
on the set. That would be their choice.

There are plenty of times on a movie set where the story requires a gun to be pointed at another person. If film sets were to function the way you suggest they should, nobody would ever be held at gunpoint or shot at in a movie.

That's absurd. All that's needed is proper training of all involved,
& for each person to take full responsibility for the status of any
gun they pick up.

Apparently, the shot they were doing called for the camera to look down the barrel of the gun at an angle where a round would be visible.

How do you think this should be achieved if not by pointing the gun at the camera with dummy rounds in the cylinder?

It should be achieved by carefully observing all safety protocols,
with only well trained individuals handling guns. The problem
here was that the entire set was unqualified. The armorer
didn't do her job. Staff went plinking with live rounds using
prop guns. And Baldwin handled his gun unsafely.

This bespeaks a larger problem of industry inattention to
safety. There's a lack of proper regulation, & a culture of
letting someone else be responsible for what one does.