An avoidable tragedy...

[martin-w 3,235]

17 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

When the actor takes the gun they are supposed to say 'Permission to dry fire the gun into the ground' and when the AD say 'yes' you are supposed to trigger 6 times towards the ground, after that you can use the gun in a scene or a rehearsal, in this case it was a rehearsal. Obviously this did not happen

 

Are you sure that's universal though? Is that the nationally agreed guideline? I've not seen anything suggesting that. Interviews I've seen with prop master don't mention anything about that. 

 

17 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

Alec Baldwin wanted the legit revolver to practice his DRAW, but didn't use safety protocols when being handed that 'Cold Gun'

 

 

17 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

victim Halyna Hutchins who was director of Photography was changing the angle of the camera for a new 'Blocking' angle working with the director Joel Souza, and at the same time Alec Baldwin was practicing his DRAW, that was when the gun went off

 

Do you have a link? All kinds of things are being claimed at the moment so if you can show us your source. I'm not saying its not true, but we do need to be careful with all these claims being made. 

If true, bonkers stuff. 

Its also been claimed that the assistant director who handed Baldwin the gun had been sacked from a film a couple of years ago when a prop gun accidentally fired. 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by martin-w

[zmak 331]

17 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Doubt that will happen. So far the police seem satisfied  he wasn't at fault. Seems Baldwin followed the nationally agreed industry safe guards in place. Whether everyone else did is another matter. Something clearly went wrong. 

Somebody's has to pay. He is the producer and owner of the film company. 100 % he will pay. It will be a swift out of court settlement IMO 

 

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

6 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Quote

Are you sure that's universal though? Is that the nationally agreed guideline? I've not seen anything suggesting that. Interviews I've seen with prop master don't mention anything about that. 

This is not an international or legal protocol, every film set is different, this is based on my experience in the past on a functional set, but I was in the hair and makeup department so this was my observation, when it comes to weapons on set their are supposed to be many many redundant protocols, in fact even more compared to the standard aviation of 2 or 3, the set is supposed to have at least 4 redundancies, from my memory the armorer sets up the equipment, the AD briefs everyone on the equipment, the AD double checks the equipment, the AD shows the actor with a flashlight an empty barrel, and then the actor takes the weapon and does what I already said...  'Permission to dry fire the gun into the ground' and when the AD say 'yes' you are supposed to trigger 6 times towards the ground, at that point you are safe

Quote

Where are you getting this from? Do you have a link? All kinds of things are being claimed at the moment so if you can show us your source.

Based on my frustration with this like everyone else and learning from it through my interactions with others, I can't say exactly at this time just remember what I said and let this investigation pan out

Quote

If true, bonkers stuff. 

My blood is boiling

 

[martin-w 3,235]

46 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

This is not an international or legal protocol, every film set is different,

 

Yes, that's what I thought. So we cant really say Baldwin SHOULD have fired shots into the ground first.

 

47 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

My blood is boiling

 

Its crazy stuff. Seems to me, if the rumours are true, that it might not be one or two failures to follow protocol, but several. A deadly perfect storm. 

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, zmak said:

Somebody's has to pay. He is the producer and owner of the film company. 100 % he will pay. It will be a swift out of court settlement IMO 

 

 

it depends if the authorities deem that laws have been broken. Or if there is legal grounds for somebody to be sued due to negligence.

I would imagine the film company would compensate the victims family anyway, whether somebody is to blame or not. If its deemed to be simply an accident there should be an insurance policy in place for such eventualities I would have thought.

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

56 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

their are supposed to be many many redundant protocols, in fact even more compared to the standard aviation of 2 or 3, the set is supposed to have at least 4 redundancies, from my memory the armorer sets up the equipment, the AD briefs everyone on the equipment, the AD double checks the equipment, the AD shows the actor with a flashlight an empty barrel, and then the actor takes the weapon and does what I already said

 

Yes, I posted a link to the numerous steps earlier in the thread. You are correct. 

[martin-w 3,235]

Latest claim is that some of the crew were "plinking" shooting at beer cans. And it's claimed one of the live rounds got into Baldwins gun. According to CNN on Instagram.

[Antipodeslonghaul 79]

@martin-w, I'm generally with you. I wouldn't want to own a gun anyway. And much prefer living in an area where guns don't seem prevalent. If I saw someone stealing my 800 euro mountainbike out on the street I'd actually also feel inclined to shoot the thief, but I'm 100% sure I wouldn't take a human life over some silly material object. Nor would I probably if someone broke into my home. But inside one's own home, it's sort of sacred ground. Plus there's that instinctive fear factor, the darkness, being awoken in the middle of the night.

Anyway, of course I also know to use per capita when comparing different countries. Germany is about 1/4, UK about 1/5 the size if the US. I was mainly comparing the US against itself, saying their accidental gun deaths seem relatively low overall compared to all the other stuff that's been going on, or continues to go on.

[martin-w 3,235]

1 minute ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

was mainly comparing the US against itself, saying their accidental gun deaths seem relatively low overall compared to all the other stuff that's been going on, or continues to go on.

 

Well it's not just "accidental" gun deaths we should look at, its all gun deaths. And relative to other causes of death isn't relavent as they are higher than we'd like too. 

[birdguy 3,943]

Martin, I have to thank you for your comments on biometric trigger locks.  I was skeptical at first but discovered how advantageous they are, part from the safety factor.

Yesterday afternoon I went to our local gun store to check them out.  They are GREAT!  The dealer showed me how they worked and I could see the advantages.

Without the lock I have to pull the gun out from the drawer and pull the slide back to cock it and load a bullet in the chamber.  The trigger lock allows me to have the gun cocked with a bullet already chambered and the safety off.  So I just touch the lock, it drops off, and I am ready to go!  Saved me about 2 or 3 seconds there and I have an extra round; 14 instead of 13...one in the chamber and 13 in the magazine.

But it was costly.  While they do make biometric trigger locks for multiple people he didn't have any in stock and with the supply chain being what is is he didn't know when he could could get one in.  You see, both my wife and I have to have access to the gun.  And with a biometric lock with my fingerprint on it the gun would be useless if she had to use the gun in an emergency.

So I just bought another gun and another lock for her.  Now we both have a Glock ready for action in a drawer under our bed, one on her side and one on my side.

Yes, it was expensive to have to double up on locks and guns, but we're too old to immigrate to a country like Great Britain that doesn't have the horrific gun and crime rates we have here.

Thanks again, Martin, for setting me straight.  Cheerio!

Noel

[W2DR 1,860]

Some general questions (I'm not picking on you Martin):

How many guns do you presently own?
How many guns have you ever owned?
Have you ever been in the military?
Have you ever had a job in law enforcement?
Do you have. or have ever had, a concealed-carry permit of any type?
What qualifies you to comment here?

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, birdguy said:

Yes, it was expensive to have to double up on locks and guns, but we're too old to immigrate to a country like Great Britain that doesn't have the horrific gun and crime rates we have here.

Thanks again, Martin, for setting me straight.  Cheerio!

 

I think I was referring to a safe with biometrics rather than a biometric trigger lock. But if it's safe, fast and perfect for your need that's great news Noel. 

[martin-w 3,235]

51 minutes ago, W2DR said:

Some general questions (I'm not picking on you Martin):

How many guns do you presently own?
How many guns have you ever owned?
Have you ever been in the military?
Have you ever had a job in law enforcement?
Do you have. or have ever had, a concealed-carry permit of any type?
What qualifies you to comment here?

 

😁

250, plus nukes

5 million

I AM the military

I AM the law

I only conceal my awesome muscles and huge manliness, under clothes.

Common sense and the legislation pertaining to keeping weapons inside a secure safe in many states in your country. Plus advice of experts. 

 

The authorities in many states in your own county agree that a safe is a good idea. If you think a safe is not necessary, or a trigger lock, as Noel now has... then I think your logic is flaswed. But its your choice, your moral responsibility, not mine.

You know I'm from the UK, so  you know I'm not allowed to own such a weapon here. Don't think you should be asking me if Ive owned a weapon, given that owning a weapon isn't required to understand that to have a pistol, not in a safe, no trigger lock, magazine loaded, one in the chamber, hanging around your house like you do sounds risky.  Its up to you to decide if you are being too lax with your weapon. 😲 If you'll pardon the expression. 😲

As Ive said previously, my father was a marksman in the army during WW2. He was an utterly astonishing shot. When he was in India, and they had shooting coemptions, he would wait until there was plenty of money in the pot, enter, and win the lot.

Now before certain massacres (small by US standards) in the UK, it was possible to visit the rifle range, so me, my father and his friend from work would have regular sessions on the range. I was relatively young, but it was a good introduction to the world of firearms. When legislation became far more strict in the UK, my father was restricted to just competition air rifles of which he had many. He was also an engineer, so would modify and repair his rifles. I have seen him break chalk at the top of our garden, and it was a phenomenal range, break matchsticks etc. 

I'm thinking this is another example of the appeal to authority fallacy, with you as a gun owner regarding yourself as the authority, and me as not a gun owner, not an authority, thus, in your opinion, my opinion isn't valid. 

You must look after your weapon, your own property, as you see fit, because its YOUR moral and legal responsibility to do so, not mine. 

Hopefully after reading this thread, which we can all learn from, you will at least consider a trigger lock like Noel has now. If not, your choice.

Edited October 26, 2021 by martin-w
I was to grumpy and rude due to not much sleep.

[dmwalker 604]

1 hour ago, W2DR said:

What qualifies you to comment here?

I dismantled a Bren gun once. Does that count? I think the first step was to remove the Body Locking Pin which, apparently, is also known as the Virgin's Delight.

[birdguy 3,943]

It turns out that there is no federal law on locking devices and only 11 states have laws to fill in the gaps.  Of these 11 states, Massachusetts is the only one that requires all firearms to be stored in a locked place, whereas California, Connecticut, and New York only require this under certain circumstances. In addition to those already mentioned, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island are the other states that have regulations, and these exist mainly for handguns.

I wouldn't call this many states Martin.  Only 1 out of the 50 requires all firearms to be stored in a locked safe.  3 more require guns be locked away only under certain circumstances.  7 others have regulations that apply mostly for handguns.

So 2% (not many) of the states require guns be stored in a locked safe.  Just  22% have some sort of regulations that fall short of locking guns away in a safe.

That means 78% of the states have no laws requiring safe storage of firearms.  So instead of saying many states agree that safe storage is a good idea in reality many states do NOT agree that safe storage is a good idea.

Noel

Edited October 26, 2021 by birdguy