A Colt Can't Fire Itself

[Watchmen]

You keep presuming that Alec Baldwin should have been treating the gun as if it were a dangerous weapon. But he was an actor handling a prop that was only there to LOOK dangerous. He had no reason at all to behave as if it WERE dangerous. To him, it was just a movie prop. And he was doing with it as directed.

That absolutely is not the industry standard.

 

[PureX]

That absolutely is not the industry standard.

What industry are you referring to? In the movie industry, people point guns at each other all the time. Sometimes they have blanks in them, and sometimes they have fake bullets in them. The actor can't tell a fake bullet from a real one, and is not expected to. Because the armorer's job to make sure they're fake, for him.

 

[Revoltingest]

What industry are you referring to? In the movie industry, people point guns at each other all the time. Sometimes they have blanks in them, and sometimes they have fake bullets in them. The actor can't tell a fake bullet from a real one, and is not expected to. Because the armorer's job to make sure they're fake, for him.

Were I an actor, I'd personally thoroughly inspect every
gun I used or had pointed at me. This is useful to guard
against an incompetent armorer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That absolutely is not the industry standard.

I posted the industry standard earlier: absolutely nobody other than the one designated firearm person on set loads or unloads weapons.

How do you suggest that Baldwin could have checked whether the gun had live rounds or dummy rounds in it without unloading the gun? The rounds look identical; the way to distinguish between them is that the dummy rounds rattle.

 

[PureX]

Were I an actor, I'd personally thoroughly inspect every
gun I used or had pointed at me. This is useful to guard
against an incompetent armorer.

In a perfect world, you'd be a perfect man. So would we all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Were I an actor, I'd personally thoroughly inspect every
gun I used or had pointed at me. This is useful to guard
against an incompetent armorer.

Were I working on a film set, I would have serious safety concerns with actors "inspecting" firearms after the on-set armorer has confirmed that they aren't live.

During and after high school, I did technical work in live theatre. It was always astounding how easy it was for actors to screw stuff up; at one point, we even stopped giving actors mics with accessible on/off switches because they'd always manage to switch them off at the wrong time.

We had some productions with replica firearms - mostly prop guns that had been wired for a flash charge. Our instructions to them were always to not touch anything on the gun except for the one button to set off the charge, and even then only at the exact cue to fire. That's it.

If you want to make sure that live rounds never, ever make it into a gun on a film set, increasing the number of people who are loading and unloading firearms on set is the opposite of what you should be doing.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a perfect world, you'd be a perfect man.

I'm practical.
Inspection is easy.
It prevents death.

 

[Revoltingest]

Were I working on a film set, I would have serious safety concerns with actors "inspecting" firearms after the on-set armorer has confirmed that they aren't live.

If all involved are trained in safety protocols,
I'd prefer their accepting this responsibility.
On the Rust set, they trusted the armorer.
Look what happened.

During and after high school, I did technical work in live theatre. It was always astounding how easy it was for actors to screw stuff up; at one point, we even stopped giving actors mics with accessible on/off switches because they'd always manage to switch them off at the wrong time.

We had some productions with replica firearms - mostly prop guns that had been wired for a flash charge. Our instructions to them were always to not touch anything on the gun except for the one button to set off the charge, and only then only at the exact cue to fire. That's it.

If you want to make sure that live rounds never, ever make it into a gun on a film set, increasing the number of people who are loading and unloading firearms on set is the opposite of what you should be doing.

I never said actors should be loading guns.
Only that they should personally verify safe status.

For an anti-gun activist, it's odd to oppose
more training & safety enhancement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm practical.
Inspection is easy.
It prevents death.

IMO, anyone who thinks that getting actors to monkey with firearms would "prevent death" hasn't had much exposure to actors.

 

[Revoltingest]

IMO, anyone who thinks that getting actors to monkey with firearms would "prevent death" hasn't had much exposure to actors.

Notice that I advocated that actors be trained
in safe gun handling. If they aren't, they shouldn't
touch guns.
Do you oppose this requirement?

I also favor licensing of armorers, with rigid conduct
specifications. For the unusual circumstance of
people pointing guns at each other, & pulling the
trigger, such special regulation makes sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never said actors should be loading guns.
Only that they should personally verify safe status.

Please tell us how you think someone could verify the safe status of a gun with dummy rounds in it - which are, out of necessity, visually indistinguishable from live rounds - without unloading the gun.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Notice that I advocated that actors be trained
in safe gun handling. If they aren't, they shouldn't
touch guns.
Do you oppose this requirement?

Training for actors is fine. Loosening controls over on-set firearms is not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Please tell us how you think someone could verify the safe status of a gun with dummy rounds in it - which are, out of necessity, visually indistinguishable from live rounds - without unloading the gun.

If I were handed a gun for the purpose of pretending to shoot
another actor, & found rounds in it that were indistinguishable
from live rounds, I would refuse to point it at anyone.
You've introduced a new wrinkle, ie, the necessity of easy &
reliable verification of round type.

 

[Revoltingest]

Loosening controls over on-set firearms is not.

Well, tis good that I propose the exact opposite of that.

 

[esmith]

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.
... as the shot called for.

For your information, if he had inspected the revolver as he should have, he would have seen that there was a projectile crimped into the brass and there was either no primer or a fired primer..no primer would be my educated opinion.

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?

To answer your question it depends on what is called for by the director.
If it was a semi-auto or auto firearm there would be no call for a dummy round, only either blanks or no ammuntion in the magazine or chamber.
If it was a revolver and the director wanted to see rounds in the cyclinder there would be either no primer or an expended primer...IMO no primer, manily because a dented primer still could be live.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I were handed a gun for the purpose of pretending to shoot
another actor, & found rounds in it that were indistinguishable
from live rounds, I would refuse to point it at anyone.

They aren't completely indistinguishable; the dummy rounds rattle.

... but to check this, you'd have to unload the gun.

You've introduced a new wrinkle, ie, the necessity of easy
verification of round type.

It's hardly a new wrinkle; it's a key point of what happened on the Rust set: live rounds - which shouldn't have been on set to begin with - were mistaken for dummy rounds.

You say that Alec Baldwin should have inspected the gun himself and have implied that if he had done this, the incident wouldn't have happened. Well, the gun was supposed to have rounds in it that looked like live rounds. What do you expect the outcome of that inspection should have been?

Things I think they should have done differently:

- they should have used a replica gun that looked realistic but was incapable of firing.
- if that was impossible, they should have locked off the camera or set it up with a remote control so that humans didn't have to be in line with where the gun was pointing.
- they shouldn't have had working conditions bad enough that the unionized prop department staff walked off the set.
- they shouldn't have continued shooting without the unionized prop department staff.

I don't think they should have given the actors more opportunity to monkey with firearms. That would create a brand new, potentially fatal hazard to everyone on set. This hazard can be mitigated somewhat by training actors the way you suggest, but I'd much rather just avoid creating this new hazard in the first place. If an actor gets trained in firearm safety, great... but a safe chain of custody would still involve the armorer handing the actor the gun, the actor doing only what they need to do with the gun and nothing else, and then the actor handing the gun right back to the armorer.

 

[esmith]

Please tell us how you think someone could verify the safe status of a gun with dummy rounds in it - which are, out of necessity, visually indistinguishable from live rounds - without unloading the gun.

Dummy rounds are not needed in a semi-auto, either blanks or no rounds
If it was a revolver, and dummy rounds were called for there would have been, preferably, no primer; an expended primer. However, if the primer was dented by the firearm it still could be a live primer.

 

[Revoltingest]

They aren't completely indistinguishable; the dummy rounds rattle.

... but to check this, you'd have to unload the gun.


It's hardly a new wrinkle; it's a key point of what happened on the Rust set: live rounds - which shouldn't have been on set to begin with - were mistaken for dummy rounds.

You say that Alec Baldwin should have inspected the gun himself and have implied that if he had done this, the incident wouldn't have happened. Well, the gun was supposed to have rounds in it that looked like live rounds. What do you expect the outcome of that inspection should have been?

Things I think they should have done differently:

- they should have used a replica gun that looked realistic but was incapable of firing.
- if that was impossible, they should have locked off the camera or set it up with a remote control so that humans didn't have to be in line with where the gun was pointing.
- they shouldn't have had working conditions bad enough that the unionized prop department staff walked off the set.
- they shouldn't have continued shooting without the unionized prop department staff.

I don't think they should have given the actors more opportunity to monkey with firearms. That would create a brand new, potentially fatal hazard to everyone on set. This hazard can be mitigated somewhat by training actors the way you suggest, but I'd much rather just avoid creating this new hazard in the first place. If an actor gets trained in firearm safety, great... but a safe chain of custody would still involve the armorer handing the actor the gun, the actor doing only what they need to do with the gun and nothing else, and then the actor handing the gun right back to the armorer.

I think we've covered all possible ground.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Second firearms used in movie sets have blanks, and blanks do not have projecticles in the case.

Except not always. Brandon Lee was killed by real ammo that had been modified. And 30 years later another questionable death happens in a world where everything is more or less fake. Apparently the guns aren't fake enough.

 

[esmith]

Except not always. Brandon Lee was killed by real ammo that had been modified. And 30 years later another questionable death happens in a world where everything is more or less fake. Apparently the guns aren't fake enough.

Yes blanks can kill if they are close enough. I am pretty sure that the requirment is that the debris from a blank (wad or parts of cartridge) can not penetrat a piece of
paper from 5ft and beyond.