19 minutes ago, birdguy said:

A real bullet mixed with blanks would have been quite obvious.

Especially to the person who loaded the gun. Why don't you talk about his responsibility?

26 minutes ago, birdguy said:

YES!  Let the actors check the weapons including checking there are no live rounds in the cylinder or magazine.  In a semi-automatic pistol suck checking requires the slide be be pulled back and locked which would automatically eject a chambered round.  Then you just turn the pistol around and look down the barrel to see it there are any obstructions.

When I was in the Air Force and I was handed a carbine or .38 or .45 for my annual qualification the first thing I did with any of them was to see if they were loaded and peek down the barrel.  It takes less than a minute.

Martin, I'm curious.  Do you own any guns or are you familiar with them and how they operate?

Noel

 

Try that in a John Wick movie or war movie. As mentioned by the experts in the video, actors trust the EXPERT armorer. They also point out the extreme safety measures on all movie sets. 

 

Edited October 23, 20214 yr by martin-w

22 minutes ago, birdguy said:

Martin, I'm curious.  Do you own any guns or are you familiar with them and how they operate?

 

You assume I'm not because I'm from the UK. My father was a marksman in the army. When we he could visit the  range he did. Until the law changed in the UK, then we were consigned to match air guns and pistols. I grew up to the sound of air gun fire. Safety with firearms was taught to me from a young age. 

5 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Seems weird that some people want to blame the actor when it was clearly the Armorer’s fault from we know so far.  Is this really being directed at Baldwin because of His political satire of an ex-president?

The actors are provided basic training from the Armorer, that training does NOT include checking down the barrel for blanks.

Do you check for fuel leaks every time you start your car?  Do you check the wiring going to your computer from the power outlet isn’t frayed and could electrocute someone?  Do you check the food you buy and consume doesn’t contain bacteria or virus that can kill you?  There is point where one has to assume it’s “safe”.
 

Cheers Rob

 

I think your first paragraph has a lot to do with this rob. 👍

29 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Is this really being directed at Baldwin because of His political satire of an ex-president?

No I think it's an understandable disconnect between personal firearms safety as opposed to actions on a film set.

My limited firearms experience always taught me to never trust anyone else's assertion that a weapon was safe, and that I should, "cock, hook and look".  

I have no experience on film sets or with qualified armourers, so I accept practices and training may be different there.

The prop master in the video mentioned the stringent industry-wide rule for gun safety. I wonder what it says about actors' responsibilities.

1 hour ago, W2DR said:

It's been reported that it was an 1880's vintage .44 revolver (almost certainly Colt). I'm surprised though that it wasn't a .45 as that was, by far, the most popular caliber of the time

 

.44, was that the long barrelled army version? 

43 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Seems weird that some people want to blame the actor when it was clearly the Armorer’s fault from we know so far.

I'm gonna say this just one more time and then I'm finished with this now-useless discussion. I've spent almost 60 years of my life dealing with firearms. From the Marine Corps. to other civilian jobs. I have no idea how much experience some of the others here have but I want to say this one more time.....THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE PERSON PULLING THE TRIGGER. I'm outta here..........

16 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

The prop master in the video mentioned the stringent industry-wide rule for gun safety. I wonder what it says about actors' responsibilities.

 

Not many I would have thought. Follow instructions of qualified armourer and obey recognised safety protocols. 

1 hour ago, dmwalker said:

Especially to the person who loaded the gun. Why don't you talk about his responsibility?

It's the fault of everyone who handles the gun.  But the ULTIMATE responsibility is with the person who pulls the trigger.

Noel

23 minutes ago, W2DR said:

I'm gonna say this just one more time and then I'm finished with this now-useless discussion.

 

Not really the right attitude just because others disagree. The safety protocols have been around in the industry for a long time and after hundreds of thousands of rounds fired THREE have been killed when those protocols haven't been followed.  The issue here is related to those strict protocols (that have worked for years) not being followed, not assigning actors with the duties of film industry armorers and prop masters. Nobody has been killed when the safety protocols already in place have been followed.

Certainly true that if actors on two occasions had carried out additional, extensive checks, on weapons no fatality would have occurred, but Ive already mentioned how impractical that is on a film set where a multitude of rounds are being fired, especially from automatic weapons. Pretty sure Keanu Reeves wouldn't have the capability to check every one of the blank rounds he has fired from automatic weapons.

Finding out how and why the safety measures that have been successful in the past have once again been ignored is clearly the priority and efforts should be made to ensure that they aren't again in the future. 

We will agree to disagree. 

Edited October 23, 20214 yr by martin-w

17 minutes ago, W2DR said:

I'm gonna say this just one more time and then I'm finished with this now-useless discussion. I've spent almost 60 years of my life dealing with firearms. From the Marine Corps. to other civilian jobs. I have no idea how much experience some of the others here have but I want to say this one more time.....THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE PERSON PULLING THE TRIGGER. I'm outta here..........

I'm with you WDR.  This has become an argument between people who have limited to no experience with firearms and those who have had a lot of military training with and are owners of firearms.  I didn't know the gun was loaded is valid only for a toddler who picks up a loaded gun someone left lying around and shoots someone with it. 

We are going in circles here and it is pointless to continue.

Noel

Edited October 23, 20214 yr by birdguy

1 minute ago, birdguy said:

This has become an argument between people who have limited to no experience with firearms

 

Wrong! Its about understanding the impracticality of an actor checking thousands of rounds fired in a movie himself. You may regard yourself as a firearms expert but are you a movie expert that understands what transpires on a film set?

Appeal to authority isn't applicable here unless you are also a film industry authority who is aware of the strict film industry guidelines in this respect and what is feasible and what isn't.

I'm pulling the eject handle now before we start insulting each other and get the topic locked. 😁

 

 

24 minutes ago, birdguy said:

It's the fault of everyone who handles the gun. 

What is the chain of responsibility for handling a gun on the set? Should the armorer/prop manager hand the gun directly to the actor and the actor check the gun in his presence, or are others involved. It doesn't sound right that the director would hand the gun to the actor, as has been reported.

Edited October 23, 20214 yr by dmwalker

Just read an article stating that Baldwin was handed a gun by the assistant director that contained a "live" round (real bullet?).  Now what in the heck are real bullets doing on a movie set?  Something fishy going on here! 🤔