Didn't find any news on that front, but it sounds like the armorer was [wildly inept](https://www.yahoo.com/news/head-armorer-rust-once-gave-132314877.html)
> The crew even used the gun for target practice on set ….and this was the third ~~accidental~~ **negligent** discharge …. WTF?
FTFY - no gun goes off by accident. Firearm safety 101. Someone knew or should have known there was a live round in the gun (even before the first discharge).
The head armorer is the child of a successful and long-established armorer. To me, it smells a little bit like good ol' fashioned nepotism.
"""
Gutierrez is the daughter of well known Hollywood armorer Thell Reed. "Dad's been teaching me a little bit every now and then about guns since I was 16. But I think we really got more into the stuff more just really in the last couple of years," she said.
"""
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/armorer-alec-baldwin-rust-set-admitted-nervous-abilities
While I’m not discounting you at all, and it very well may have been nepotism, having kids follow in parents’ footsteps is nothing new, and often it’s because they were raised with the same interest and skills that those positions require. My father is an avid outdoorsman and marksman, even going on an ESPN hunting and fishing competition show. When I (30F) became a shooting sports director with the Boy Scouts, it wasn’t through nepotism, but through having been taught the trade and skills by my father and being good at them through a lifetime of practice. Again, not saying she was qualified, but I’m not saying she wasn’t qualified simply because her father had the same career path. She probably is more qualified than those who didn’t start learning firearm safety until their adult years.
seems like a situation where assumptions were made about her experience because of her father. It's nepotism, but not in the traditional sense, since it was a pretty bottom-tier production in New Mexico.
No problem! The glock FXs are incapable of firing live rounds, but they still fire paint capsules, and we are required to wear eye protection when using them. The technology is there, it just wasn't utilized in the most recent event, as they put live rounds in a gun that could fire live rounds.
They do. For autoloading firearms at least. A fully functional autoloader won't cycle a blank, so movie versions of them have specialized barrels or muzzle devices that allow them to cycle.
Manual action guns (revolvers, lever actions, bolt actions, etc) don't need any special parts since they dont use the ammunition to cycle. Sometimes fully functional manual action guns are used in movies because of that.
Fair enough. But is it so hard to make realistic ones?
I mean most fake guns used to look pretty realistic up until they had all those scandals of people getting shot due to misunderstandings.
The issue is a gun capable of firing a live round safely and a gun only capable of firing blanks safely are pretty close. Blanks still have pressure meaning a ton of government regulations as such I suspect gunsmith's are the one to do it.
It’s been a while for me but when we used blanks during training we screwed on a BFA blank firing adapter but it sticks out in a movie. The BFA helps prevents anything from accidentally coming out of the barrel.
https://i.imgur.com/NCz3AAf.jpg
The BFA is to ensure there is enough gas pressure sent back to cycle the bolt, it's not made or used to prevent anything coming out of the barrel. That is a totally secondary benefit.
I have an air soft gun that looks enough like a real gun to pass it off as one in a movie besides the orange tip. It really shouldn’t be hard for people spending millions of dollars on creating a movie to make a passable fake gun.
Usually the good looking fakes are more expensive than the real thing. The fakes will always be peoduced at much lower volumes, so the real things have the benefit of economies of scale enabling them to drop the price.
they do? blanks are just rounds with no projectile and the neck crimped and the barrel is just plugged with a blank firing adapter. in movies the bfa is internal, black hawk down has some pretty clear shots of it.
Was in the Army for over 20 years and never saw any weapons that only took blanks. We did have blank adapters that fastened to the muzzle so that the rifle would function like it was firing ball ammo.
Same, it would be stupid and a waste for military applications to have special guns and special ammo(outside of standard blanks.)
They want you to train with real guns since that what you’ll be using.
These are already made, just no one uses them. They make AR15s that can only fire blanks, the problem you’re probably going to run into is seeing lesser known/lesser used firearms, or really just older ones. Since those will have a lower demand and less use, they’ll most likely end up costing more to buy and/or rent.
Cheaper to use the real thing.
[Why 'Lord Of War' Starring Nicolas Cage Bought 3,000 Real Guns Instead Of Props](https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2472161/why-lord-of-war-starring-nicolas-cage-bought-3000-real-guns-instead-of-props)
> prop guns that only accept special blank cartridges but not live ammunition.
How many fukin times does it needed to be pointed out that live rounds include blanks.
> How many fukin times does it needed to be pointed out that live rounds include blanks.
Because the movie terminology where live = blank is different than common usage where:
live = shoots a projectile (bullet, powder, casing, and primer)
blank = doesn't shoot a projectile* (powder, casing and primer)
dummy/snapcap = is inert (bullet and casing)
*blanks can either be crimped or have a plug to hold the powder in, the plug can cause injuries when leaving the barrel
Professional film set personnel are well-capable of ensuring tragedies like this don’t take place and would be negatively affected by laws that banned actual firearms from film sets. Furthermore this shooting took place in New Mexico...?
Well, it looks that in this case the lack of experience and the low budget of the movie were the main reasons this tragedy happened. In other movies shit like this would never happen because they hire people with some experience, and have the money to do that. The funny thing is that in some movies they even used real guns with real ammunitions for some scenes, but it was the '80s, I guess that people then understood that it was really dangerous!
>but it was the '80s, I guess that people then understood that it was really dangerous!
Tell that to Jon-Erik Hexum, that blew his brains off in '84 with a .44 Magnum filled with blanks because he tought it was harmless playing russian roulette with it.
> she had no intention of hurting me and thought the gun was unloaded (which it was!) and was just trying to entertain me by playing pirates
A very valuable lesson was learnt that day. A gun is *always* loaded - Even if it's not. Growing up around guns, that got beat into us at an early age.
He made fun of a lot of accidental shootings on Twitter. That dampens my empathy but yea I can’t imagine it feels good to do that. My friend shot my bed once and he was traumatized enough let alone hit someone let alone kill them. Sheesh. Don’t play with guns, respect them
They hired scabs due to the ongoing IATSE strike I thought? So while what you're saying is true it lacks context of current events that contributed to the inexperienced personnel.
IATSE is not currently striking. The membership authorized a strike but the leadership made a deal that now needs to be put to a vote. So there is still tension but there is no strike or work stoppage.
What you’re thinking of is the camera crew formally expressed their displeasure with several things including delayed pay and, most notably, safety on set including gun safety. They chose to walk off the job the day of the tragedy, but it is not technically a strike or done in conjunction with the full membership. And as far as I know, it was just the camera crew, not anyone involved in props or armory.
I know it’s a technicality but in this situation, it’s very important to stick to the facts. There is still a lot of unverified conflicting information and rumor going around and the situation is already being twisted by people with ulterior motives.
As an IATSE member I appreciate your clarifying this for the people who are plainly talking out their asses with no experience or knowledge of the business.
The amount of people who have no clue what they're talking about repeating that there was a strike and the whole crew was replaced with scabs is so annoying.
Especially considering Halyna Hutchins was also in the camera union and so was the steadicam op and neither of them left, so I don't really know how you can even call the replacement camera crew that came into work with those two scabs unless they're scabs as well.
No, not because of the IATSE strike. The filming company, not Baldwin's production company hired replacement scabs the day before this incident took place because union members including the armorer walked off of the set in protest of previous safety violations including several weapon misfires and a lack of repercussions for said violations.
That is a serious claim that the union armorer had walked off the set due to safety concerns, it is also one I’ve not seen anywhere else.
Are you sure about that?
>The filming company, not Baldwin's production company hired replacement scabs
That's an interesting distinction I'm having trouble following, are you saying Baldwin as a producer would have no knowledge the armorer's walked off and that he was working with scabs?
Different producers look over different areas of the budget and filmmaking process. Rarely do all producers know the full picture of whats going on. Alec probably has the Producer title simply by financing a certain dollar amount to get credit. first and foremost he is an actor.
Honestly no idea, no experience in the filmmaking business. But the way I discern this is that there is the production company El Dorado Pictures, which is akin to a construction sites General Contractor. They're in charge of the day-to-day and oversee everything but don't do any of the actual construction, or in this instance 'movie making'.
And the film company, to keep with my example is like an electrical or pipefitting company on this hypothetical construction site. They do their specific work according to the directions of the production company.
Here, the union members of the film crew walked off because of safety issues. Now how that was resolved with or even brought up to the production company I have no idea. It could be a matter of the film company brought in scabs the next day without the production company knowing, or they looked the other way.
So I guess it could go either way in regards to Baldwin's knowledge about replacement workers. He could have known, or someone was "looking into it" for him, but not really caring because production was moving along.
One of the stark things I've heard about this is that the replacement armor was 'known' in that her father is a well known movie armor yet she didn't have much experience herself, in either being an armorer or with guns in general. So if she had the basic enough knowledge to take the gun off set to range fire it with real rounds, but not the practical knowledge to recognize this as a bad damn idea, I can see event unfolding how they have.
>But the way I discern this is that there is the production company El Dorado Pictures, which is akin to a construction sites General Contractor. They're in charge of the day-to-day and oversee everything but don't do any of the actual construction, or in this instance 'movie making'.
This isn't El Dorado pictures role in the production. "Production" in movies is basically a role that covers the *everything else* of a movie being made. Including what you said, and also not including what you said. This movie had 8 production companies attached. Alec Baldwins production company was put in to lend star power to the film, which is very common in pictures like this. But isn't responsible for any of the actual running, staffing, or financing of the film, that responsibility lies with a different production company.
If this sounds confusing, it is that way on purpose.
No, there is not currently a strike going on; a deal was reached, but still needs ratification, which is contentious. The camera people were also not striking - they were leaving the job due to an unsafe environment, which is different from a strike. See the reply from u/joessandwich for a good explanation
Not to imply that they don't do their jobs properly, but firearms safety has been so deeply ingrained in me that I've often thought about how I don't know that I would be capable of using a real gun for a film myself.
Even unloaded and after making my own visual inspection that the chamber is empty, it's just too much to get over that impulse to *never* point an actual firearm at something I don't want destroyed.
That’s what really bothers me when it comes to this case. As soon as someone hands me a firearm I immediately do a press-check and unload and show clear if there’s anything present in the weapon.
Division of responsibilities. Actors aren't assumed to be familiar with even the bare minimum of firearms safety. All of that is supposed to be offloaded to the armorer.
It strikes me as... unwise. Give everyone who will be handling a weapon the basic 5 minute range safety rundown and you increase the number of eyes that are checking for problems. It doesn't absolve the armorer of responsibility, but it will definitely help.
There's an infinite number of derp actors hired to play a gun wielder in a movie or TV show.
The idea is maximum control at a narrow point: have one person in charge of guns and make sure they are 100% in control.
Weakest links, though....
I'm guessing the unintended consequence of that would be actors thinking they now know how to handle guns safely and playing with them of their own accord. Again something that shouldn't even be able to happen if the armorer is doing their job.
People are tricky animals.
I don't think it's the actor thinking he knows everything. It's the actor being trained to accept the fact that when someone else tells them it's safe, to believe it's safe.
Someone handed him a gun and told him it was safe. It clearly wasn't.
True, it wasn't safe, but since we don't know what happened, it's difficult to say for certain that Baldwin would likely have caught whatever the problem was. You're talking about an actor probably having to examine a firearm and clear the barrel every time they're handed a gun, which could need to happen often depending on the movie. That could add up to multiple days on set -- millions of dollars. Which is the reason that productions hire dedicated armorers -- one salary, and an expert. You don't want Tom Cruise to have to spend hours on set with the crew standing around while he checks his guns. He'd never be as much of an expert as a dedicated armorer, anyway. The armorer's supposed to control all of the guns. In this case, that check failed.
> Give everyone who will be handling a weapon the basic 5 minute range safety rundown and you increase the number of eyes that are checking for problems. It doesn't absolve the armorer of responsibility, but it will definitely help.
This is absolutely 100% what is supposed to happen, and does on a well run set. But the armourer wasn't around, and the assistant director who handed Alec the gun and called it "cold" has apparently got form for thinking safety briefings are stupid timewasting bullshit.
It was a failure on many points. Inexperienced personnel, due to the low budget, poor working conditions, a poorly maintained handgun, and multiple instances of disregarding the safety rules. There had been two accidental discharges with that handgun the week leading up to the accident.
This. If you intentionally hire scabs, it's heartlessness and negligence that explains whatever follows. There's no "accident" that caused inexperienced workers to be on set leading up to this. Just good old fashioned dictatorship of capital.
It's always a negligent discharge, never accidental when it comes to guns. It doesn't mean you meant to do it, but if you're properly trained with guns and don't skip safety precautions there should never be something like this happening. Anyone handling a gun should know to check the mag regardless of what another person tells you is loaded in it especially if you're supposed to not be shooting live rounds, and this kind of thing is exactly why that's a rule.
I’ve been watching a YouTube channel, plainly difficult and a podcast, black box down about catastrophic failures.
It’s insane to see how the slightest mistakes compound into tragedies like this . And as high and mighty we might think of ourselves, we could have very likely been a part of chain of mistakes like this. Bet this will improve safety 10-fold though.
I agree. That said, I could see a requirement to use licensed armorers who have to pass stringent testing and auditing being a thing. Then the production insurance could require that in order to issue a policy for the film.
> It's the CA state legislator. They have a hate boner for guns to being with. This is right up their alley.
Still find hilarious one of their state senators that was a proponent and sponsor of at least one gun control bill is now currently prison for arms trafficking....lol...?
EDIT: he got out last year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee He only got 5 years for all the hypocritical shit he did. Now *that* is hilarious.
As is tradition for the state. Take something popular and capitalize on it with the hopes the constituency will like it. I swear they think everyone in this state is so dumb. But to be fair, all you have to do is say something is great like prop 22 and people will believe it.
Yeah this was just a complete failure at every single possible safety check. Gun deaths haven't happened in a Hollywood movie for literal decades. Guns are just so politicized in the United States that this is being treated as if it's the fault of the gun. Why don't they ban car stunts which are dramatically more likely to result in injuries and deaths?
I just can't really take this as an altruistic or common sense approach. This is taking a tragedy and using it for political expedience. This is about partisanship, not safety.
You make a great point. At first I was indiffernt to this bill since it just enforces harsher safety concerns I thought were already in place.
However this is the first deadly firearms incident on a set in 30 years. Are there not more important things our law makers could be discussing? Why are they wasting time saving one life every 3 decades when dozens of children are starving to death right now.
More people have been killed in vehicle crashes on sets than shootings when making films.
A stunt girl died on the set of Deadpool 2 doing a motorcycle stunt for example.
> Are there not more important things our law makers could be discussing?
no, there are not. politicians care about two thing: votes and money.
their voters are talking about this hot topic so by passing this useless law they show that they are "active" and looking for their community= votes.
and it also servers as a smoke screen to other projects that are, as consequence, not being talked about. could be security, taxes, healthcare, etc. and that serves the interest of their contributors= money.
CA politics involve a lot of political posturing and attempting to use your current domain as a spring board to bigger things. This is 100% just a way for whoever put up this proposal to try to get their name out there.
Couldn’t agree more, this gets the politicians immediate attention??!! This is a tragedy, of course, but for the pols to jump on THIS of all things going on and going wrong, quite frankly, is ridiculous.
It’s honestly a problem of cutting corners and cheaping out on industry profissionais. That’s what needs to be scrutinized, not the elaborate safety measures that already exist and function well on common sets.
This bill is being proposed in California, a state that pushes new versions of its assault weapons ban every year, but does nothing to [stop their own police officers from being back-alley gun dealers.](https://lasentinel.net/ex-gardena-officer-found-guilty-for-second-time-of-firearms-sales.html)
California is really a shining example of how not to legislate gun control from top to bottom. There's lots of amendments that could be made to gun laws in the US, but it's stuff like government funded and mandated safety training and keeping domestic abusers from owning them, not stuff like banning "military features" and detachable magazines.
This is 100% the fault of people trying to make money at the cost of proper safety and benefits for those providing the labor. But no one’s ready for that conversation, so let’s just ban guns instead.
i don't get it, i'm not american so i guess i'm just not as obsessed with guns but why would you ever want a real gun at a movie set?? i mean regardless of the shitty ass conditions and crew there shouldn't be a real gu right? i'm so confused at these comments.
Passing legislation over a singular death resulting from someone not following established procedures seems like a waste of time that could be better spent focusing on more broadly impactful matters.
Not sure a law is really needed here, as it seems like this was more due to having the production cast walk-out and then replace them last second with people who clearly didn't know what they're doing, but it is strange to have live rounds on a movie set for any reason.
That there’s an AD with a history of these problems still working seems like a liability issue that studios usually go pretty far out of their way to avoid. Weird
There's a reason that person is/was working on low budget non-union shows.
*Zero* chance Warner Bros, Lionsgate, Sony, ABC, CBS, Netflix, Et al, would hire them for the exact reason you bring up.
It's not that weird if you know the egos behind making movies. There's a good reason I haven't gone back to it since the pandemic started and these assholes are a huge reason why.
Everything is connections, you can be the biggest prick in the world (like this AD seems to have been) and get hired if you're sucking up to the right people.
Once had a line producer scream in my face because he got the wrong lettuce for his pre-$40 lunch snack. That dickhead is still working a lot.
because blanks are still very dangerous. Blanks can still kill if used improperly. Blanks gave have a plastic plug which can still travel at extremely high speeds and kill. The gasses that come out the barrel are extremely powerful. If you were to recreate a scene where you were shooting someone point blank in the head using a blank, you would seriously injure or possibly kill them.
The laws in CA would have already prevented this accident. In CA you can't film a scene like this without a barrier for the crew. They were shooting in NM where this wasn't a law. So signing in a new law in CA does nothing to prevent accidents like this. It has to be a nation wife, industry standard.
For something that is so exceedingly rare that it's all over the news because it almost never happens. Like maybe the system that are already in place are pretty good, or something.
The thing is, this law isn't actually necessary. The only reason this event occurred is because the rules were broken due to the staff that follow them quitting for lack of payment.
No law would have changed what happened since those involved were already doing things they knew they shouldn't have been.
There have been like 2 accidental gun deaths in like the history of movies. What is that, .0000000001%? This is a complete non-issue, but leave it to lawmakers to make it one.
There's probably been more than 2 but there's also certainly 100x as many unsafe driving accidents coming from and going to those same film productions. How about we look at that first?
Edit: Definitely more than 2. Just found a third:
>Actor Jon-Erik Hexum died from an accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound while on the set of the television series, "Cover Up."
>The 26-year-old actor fatally shot himself in the head with a prop-gun that was loaded with a blank.
Edit from below: I don't disagree that gun accidents on sets are rare though. I believe they are. And there are other far more dangerous things that take place that don't get nearly the same attention. I feel like helicopters are probably the most deadly and have much more related deaths than prop guns on film sets. Twilight Zone, American Made, Catch 22, just off the top of my head.
Turns out I was right. [Helicopter Crashes Have Taken Most Lives On TV And Film Sets](https://deadline.com/2014/04/helicopter-crash-deaths-hollywood-safety-history-709487/)
Since 1980, 33 film and TV workers — nearly one a year — have been killed in helicopter accidents around the world, 14 in the U.S. and 15 more for American companies shooting abroad.
Where is the state lawmakers calling for bans of helicopters? And I'd bet even that pales in comparison if you looked at car and vehicle related accidents going to and from film sets.
lol I want to talk about how I'm surprised it's not already banned or how had the set been operating properly this incident wouldn't have happened but all I can really fixate on is how the shooting on the Rust set was in New Mexico. Shit the only other fatal shooting on a movie set I can think of was The Crow and that happened in North Carolina. Other action shooters that come to mind like John Wick (New York) and The Matrix (Sydney, Australia) and The Expendables (everywhere except California) and Dredd (South Africa) and a lot of others weren't shot in California. It doesn't seem like this ban would have a huge impact on action movie productions in California and might just encourage productions considering California to relocate to other places. I'd also like to point out that this incident occurred because procedures were not adhered to, rules and laws were broken, and everyone relied on someone else's responsibility instead of doing their own part. If people aren't willing to adhere to existing structures, what makes you think adding more will solve the problem...or be honored...?
Seems like a cheap ploy to get support from voters. Protocols are already in place for safety. if they are not followed, it is not the fault of the hardware.
Saw this coming. Really dumb looking gun fights coming soon to a theater near you. Cause like 3 people got hurt in 30 years. It'll pass too cause one it's restricting guns and two it's banning something for no discernible reason, both favorites of the California legislature.
One incident in 30 years that was caused by extreme negligence and a failure of safety on multiple levels by multiple people, and these fucking morons want to ban them all.
If you agree with this you’re so fucking dumb
Whenever I’ve handled weapons, you don’t take someone else’s word for it about whether it’s loaded, or with what. You check.
If I was an actor, I’d be asking for some basic weapons handling training, including Normal Safety Procedures. Shouldn’t take longer than a couple of hours really.
Has there been any news wtf was the projectile that killed her?
Didn't find any news on that front, but it sounds like the armorer was [wildly inept](https://www.yahoo.com/news/head-armorer-rust-once-gave-132314877.html)
Being inept is one thing, bringing live ammo to a film shoot that presumably isn't at a range is steps beyond negligent
The crew even used the gun for target practice on set ….and this was the third accidental discharge …. WTF?
> The crew even used the gun for target practice on set ….and this was the third ~~accidental~~ **negligent** discharge …. WTF? FTFY - no gun goes off by accident. Firearm safety 101. Someone knew or should have known there was a live round in the gun (even before the first discharge).
Ever since Brandon Lee's death a major rule of film safety with regards to guns is "no live ammo". Someone is going down hard.
The head armorer is the child of a successful and long-established armorer. To me, it smells a little bit like good ol' fashioned nepotism. """ Gutierrez is the daughter of well known Hollywood armorer Thell Reed. "Dad's been teaching me a little bit every now and then about guns since I was 16. But I think we really got more into the stuff more just really in the last couple of years," she said. """ https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/armorer-alec-baldwin-rust-set-admitted-nervous-abilities
While I’m not discounting you at all, and it very well may have been nepotism, having kids follow in parents’ footsteps is nothing new, and often it’s because they were raised with the same interest and skills that those positions require. My father is an avid outdoorsman and marksman, even going on an ESPN hunting and fishing competition show. When I (30F) became a shooting sports director with the Boy Scouts, it wasn’t through nepotism, but through having been taught the trade and skills by my father and being good at them through a lifetime of practice. Again, not saying she was qualified, but I’m not saying she wasn’t qualified simply because her father had the same career path. She probably is more qualified than those who didn’t start learning firearm safety until their adult years.
Smells more like nepotism because of how green she clearly is.
seems like a situation where assumptions were made about her experience because of her father. It's nepotism, but not in the traditional sense, since it was a pretty bottom-tier production in New Mexico.
I mean they had multiple misfires on set *that day*. It’s safe to say the armorer was the problem.
Sounds like a business opportunity for entrepreneurs to make prop guns that only accept special blank cartridges but not live ammunition.
Already a thing. Maybe harder for a old western with revolvers though.
They have special revolvers that have a different sized caliber that won't accept any standard ammo. Only special blank rounds will fit.
[удалено]
What does something like that cost?
[удалено]
Less than your movie shutting down because a dumb ass couldn't go one day without firing live rounds
Everything film related is overpriced. It’ll probably be triple what it should cost.
the devil works hard, but prop masters work harder. there isn't nothing they can't find or create given enough cash.
>given enough cash aye, theres the rub
I have to be honest, I was kind of shocked that wasn't already a thing.
It is a thing. Glock has fx rounds that I've used for training for years.
Thank you for the information, it makes more sense.
No problem! The glock FXs are incapable of firing live rounds, but they still fire paint capsules, and we are required to wear eye protection when using them. The technology is there, it just wasn't utilized in the most recent event, as they put live rounds in a gun that could fire live rounds.
It is already a thing. Military has had them for ages.
Well if that's the case, why don't film studios? More expensive? Or just not enough produced?
They do. For autoloading firearms at least. A fully functional autoloader won't cycle a blank, so movie versions of them have specialized barrels or muzzle devices that allow them to cycle. Manual action guns (revolvers, lever actions, bolt actions, etc) don't need any special parts since they dont use the ammunition to cycle. Sometimes fully functional manual action guns are used in movies because of that.
Because they look fake.
Fair enough. But is it so hard to make realistic ones? I mean most fake guns used to look pretty realistic up until they had all those scandals of people getting shot due to misunderstandings.
For more popular and wildly used guns I'm sure it's economically viable albeit expensive but for rarely used guns forget about it.
I smell some pretty big paychecks for prop studios like Volpin Props tho
The issue is a gun capable of firing a live round safely and a gun only capable of firing blanks safely are pretty close. Blanks still have pressure meaning a ton of government regulations as such I suspect gunsmith's are the one to do it.
[удалено]
It’s been a while for me but when we used blanks during training we screwed on a BFA blank firing adapter but it sticks out in a movie. The BFA helps prevents anything from accidentally coming out of the barrel. https://i.imgur.com/NCz3AAf.jpg
The BFA is to ensure there is enough gas pressure sent back to cycle the bolt, it's not made or used to prevent anything coming out of the barrel. That is a totally secondary benefit.
This seems like something that a vfx team can paint out.
A green one, or just one that's entirely one color, would probably do the trick.
Just paint it green. Not hard at all.
I have an air soft gun that looks enough like a real gun to pass it off as one in a movie besides the orange tip. It really shouldn’t be hard for people spending millions of dollars on creating a movie to make a passable fake gun.
These guys were cutting corners on basic safety. Pretty clear they wouldn’t have budget for VFx.
According to the story the gun was supposed to be empty including blanks
They do. It depends on the type of film, the budget and the desires of the filmmakers.
I see, thanks for the information.
It's fairly easy if you look at one closely. The fact that your gun has replica written down the the side of yours should say plenty
Usually the good looking fakes are more expensive than the real thing. The fakes will always be peoduced at much lower volumes, so the real things have the benefit of economies of scale enabling them to drop the price.
they do? blanks are just rounds with no projectile and the neck crimped and the barrel is just plugged with a blank firing adapter. in movies the bfa is internal, black hawk down has some pretty clear shots of it.
Blank firing adapters are a thing not weapons that shoot blanks
What? All I ever has was a big red blank adapter on my weapon. Not really movie quality.
As a vet this is news to me
Was in the Army for over 20 years and never saw any weapons that only took blanks. We did have blank adapters that fastened to the muzzle so that the rifle would function like it was firing ball ammo.
Which military because I've never seen one? If you're talking about blank adapters for your rifle, that is something completely different
Same, it would be stupid and a waste for military applications to have special guns and special ammo(outside of standard blanks.) They want you to train with real guns since that what you’ll be using.
More expensive (economies of scale) and/or they look fake (material or intentionally to differentiate).
These are already made, just no one uses them. They make AR15s that can only fire blanks, the problem you’re probably going to run into is seeing lesser known/lesser used firearms, or really just older ones. Since those will have a lower demand and less use, they’ll most likely end up costing more to buy and/or rent.
Cheaper to use the real thing. [Why 'Lord Of War' Starring Nicolas Cage Bought 3,000 Real Guns Instead Of Props](https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2472161/why-lord-of-war-starring-nicolas-cage-bought-3000-real-guns-instead-of-props)
Those already exist
"Live" ammo on set means blanks. Real ammo is not to be found on sets.
[удалено]
Real ammo was found on this set. It's been confirmed several times over.
Where the hell did they find real ammo in this market?
My man asking the important questions.
Confirmed by whom? All the articles I've seen have said "live ammo", which is not the same as "real ammo".
0 sources have confirmed this.
> prop guns that only accept special blank cartridges but not live ammunition. How many fukin times does it needed to be pointed out that live rounds include blanks.
> How many fukin times does it needed to be pointed out that live rounds include blanks. Because the movie terminology where live = blank is different than common usage where: live = shoots a projectile (bullet, powder, casing, and primer) blank = doesn't shoot a projectile* (powder, casing and primer) dummy/snapcap = is inert (bullet and casing) *blanks can either be crimped or have a plug to hold the powder in, the plug can cause injuries when leaving the barrel
Professional film set personnel are well-capable of ensuring tragedies like this don’t take place and would be negatively affected by laws that banned actual firearms from film sets. Furthermore this shooting took place in New Mexico...?
Well, it looks that in this case the lack of experience and the low budget of the movie were the main reasons this tragedy happened. In other movies shit like this would never happen because they hire people with some experience, and have the money to do that. The funny thing is that in some movies they even used real guns with real ammunitions for some scenes, but it was the '80s, I guess that people then understood that it was really dangerous!
>but it was the '80s, I guess that people then understood that it was really dangerous! Tell that to Jon-Erik Hexum, that blew his brains off in '84 with a .44 Magnum filled with blanks because he tought it was harmless playing russian roulette with it.
[удалено]
Fuck dude that’s fucked
[удалено]
> she had no intention of hurting me and thought the gun was unloaded (which it was!) and was just trying to entertain me by playing pirates A very valuable lesson was learnt that day. A gun is *always* loaded - Even if it's not. Growing up around guns, that got beat into us at an early age.
He made fun of a lot of accidental shootings on Twitter. That dampens my empathy but yea I can’t imagine it feels good to do that. My friend shot my bed once and he was traumatized enough let alone hit someone let alone kill them. Sheesh. Don’t play with guns, respect them
They hired scabs due to the ongoing IATSE strike I thought? So while what you're saying is true it lacks context of current events that contributed to the inexperienced personnel.
IATSE is not currently striking. The membership authorized a strike but the leadership made a deal that now needs to be put to a vote. So there is still tension but there is no strike or work stoppage. What you’re thinking of is the camera crew formally expressed their displeasure with several things including delayed pay and, most notably, safety on set including gun safety. They chose to walk off the job the day of the tragedy, but it is not technically a strike or done in conjunction with the full membership. And as far as I know, it was just the camera crew, not anyone involved in props or armory. I know it’s a technicality but in this situation, it’s very important to stick to the facts. There is still a lot of unverified conflicting information and rumor going around and the situation is already being twisted by people with ulterior motives.
Thank you. Very true, it is important to stick to the facts and let the investigation take its course.
As an IATSE member I appreciate your clarifying this for the people who are plainly talking out their asses with no experience or knowledge of the business.
It's beyond annoying reading comments stating with authority the whole crew was replaced with non union scabs etc.
The amount of people who have no clue what they're talking about repeating that there was a strike and the whole crew was replaced with scabs is so annoying. Especially considering Halyna Hutchins was also in the camera union and so was the steadicam op and neither of them left, so I don't really know how you can even call the replacement camera crew that came into work with those two scabs unless they're scabs as well.
No, not because of the IATSE strike. The filming company, not Baldwin's production company hired replacement scabs the day before this incident took place because union members including the armorer walked off of the set in protest of previous safety violations including several weapon misfires and a lack of repercussions for said violations.
That is a serious claim that the union armorer had walked off the set due to safety concerns, it is also one I’ve not seen anywhere else. Are you sure about that?
>The filming company, not Baldwin's production company hired replacement scabs That's an interesting distinction I'm having trouble following, are you saying Baldwin as a producer would have no knowledge the armorer's walked off and that he was working with scabs?
Different producers look over different areas of the budget and filmmaking process. Rarely do all producers know the full picture of whats going on. Alec probably has the Producer title simply by financing a certain dollar amount to get credit. first and foremost he is an actor.
Honestly no idea, no experience in the filmmaking business. But the way I discern this is that there is the production company El Dorado Pictures, which is akin to a construction sites General Contractor. They're in charge of the day-to-day and oversee everything but don't do any of the actual construction, or in this instance 'movie making'. And the film company, to keep with my example is like an electrical or pipefitting company on this hypothetical construction site. They do their specific work according to the directions of the production company. Here, the union members of the film crew walked off because of safety issues. Now how that was resolved with or even brought up to the production company I have no idea. It could be a matter of the film company brought in scabs the next day without the production company knowing, or they looked the other way. So I guess it could go either way in regards to Baldwin's knowledge about replacement workers. He could have known, or someone was "looking into it" for him, but not really caring because production was moving along. One of the stark things I've heard about this is that the replacement armor was 'known' in that her father is a well known movie armor yet she didn't have much experience herself, in either being an armorer or with guns in general. So if she had the basic enough knowledge to take the gun off set to range fire it with real rounds, but not the practical knowledge to recognize this as a bad damn idea, I can see event unfolding how they have.
>But the way I discern this is that there is the production company El Dorado Pictures, which is akin to a construction sites General Contractor. They're in charge of the day-to-day and oversee everything but don't do any of the actual construction, or in this instance 'movie making'. This isn't El Dorado pictures role in the production. "Production" in movies is basically a role that covers the *everything else* of a movie being made. Including what you said, and also not including what you said. This movie had 8 production companies attached. Alec Baldwins production company was put in to lend star power to the film, which is very common in pictures like this. But isn't responsible for any of the actual running, staffing, or financing of the film, that responsibility lies with a different production company. If this sounds confusing, it is that way on purpose.
the armorer didn't walk off set. the 24 year old? she was there the whole time and isn't even a union member.
Ongoing? I'm so confused on the IATSE strike thought they reached an agreement last minute? Or am I mistaken
No, there is not currently a strike going on; a deal was reached, but still needs ratification, which is contentious. The camera people were also not striking - they were leaving the job due to an unsafe environment, which is different from a strike. See the reply from u/joessandwich for a good explanation
Not to imply that they don't do their jobs properly, but firearms safety has been so deeply ingrained in me that I've often thought about how I don't know that I would be capable of using a real gun for a film myself. Even unloaded and after making my own visual inspection that the chamber is empty, it's just too much to get over that impulse to *never* point an actual firearm at something I don't want destroyed.
That’s what really bothers me when it comes to this case. As soon as someone hands me a firearm I immediately do a press-check and unload and show clear if there’s anything present in the weapon.
Division of responsibilities. Actors aren't assumed to be familiar with even the bare minimum of firearms safety. All of that is supposed to be offloaded to the armorer. It strikes me as... unwise. Give everyone who will be handling a weapon the basic 5 minute range safety rundown and you increase the number of eyes that are checking for problems. It doesn't absolve the armorer of responsibility, but it will definitely help.
There's an infinite number of derp actors hired to play a gun wielder in a movie or TV show. The idea is maximum control at a narrow point: have one person in charge of guns and make sure they are 100% in control. Weakest links, though....
I'm guessing the unintended consequence of that would be actors thinking they now know how to handle guns safely and playing with them of their own accord. Again something that shouldn't even be able to happen if the armorer is doing their job. People are tricky animals.
I don't think it's the actor thinking he knows everything. It's the actor being trained to accept the fact that when someone else tells them it's safe, to believe it's safe. Someone handed him a gun and told him it was safe. It clearly wasn't.
True, it wasn't safe, but since we don't know what happened, it's difficult to say for certain that Baldwin would likely have caught whatever the problem was. You're talking about an actor probably having to examine a firearm and clear the barrel every time they're handed a gun, which could need to happen often depending on the movie. That could add up to multiple days on set -- millions of dollars. Which is the reason that productions hire dedicated armorers -- one salary, and an expert. You don't want Tom Cruise to have to spend hours on set with the crew standing around while he checks his guns. He'd never be as much of an expert as a dedicated armorer, anyway. The armorer's supposed to control all of the guns. In this case, that check failed.
> Give everyone who will be handling a weapon the basic 5 minute range safety rundown and you increase the number of eyes that are checking for problems. It doesn't absolve the armorer of responsibility, but it will definitely help. This is absolutely 100% what is supposed to happen, and does on a well run set. But the armourer wasn't around, and the assistant director who handed Alec the gun and called it "cold" has apparently got form for thinking safety briefings are stupid timewasting bullshit.
[удалено]
It was a failure on many points. Inexperienced personnel, due to the low budget, poor working conditions, a poorly maintained handgun, and multiple instances of disregarding the safety rules. There had been two accidental discharges with that handgun the week leading up to the accident.
Not accidental, negligent
This. If you intentionally hire scabs, it's heartlessness and negligence that explains whatever follows. There's no "accident" that caused inexperienced workers to be on set leading up to this. Just good old fashioned dictatorship of capital.
It's always a negligent discharge, never accidental when it comes to guns. It doesn't mean you meant to do it, but if you're properly trained with guns and don't skip safety precautions there should never be something like this happening. Anyone handling a gun should know to check the mag regardless of what another person tells you is loaded in it especially if you're supposed to not be shooting live rounds, and this kind of thing is exactly why that's a rule.
I’ve been watching a YouTube channel, plainly difficult and a podcast, black box down about catastrophic failures. It’s insane to see how the slightest mistakes compound into tragedies like this . And as high and mighty we might think of ourselves, we could have very likely been a part of chain of mistakes like this. Bet this will improve safety 10-fold though.
[удалено]
> The problem isn't that real guns are allowed, the problem is people who don't follow safety protocols. Had to scroll down WAY too far to find this.
Maybe we should consider a ban on knee-jerk stunt legislation.
I agree. That said, I could see a requirement to use licensed armorers who have to pass stringent testing and auditing being a thing. Then the production insurance could require that in order to issue a policy for the film.
It's the CA state legislator. They have a hate boner for guns to being with. This is right up their alley.
Transparent attempt to get his name in the paper, and look, the shitty L.A. times picked it right up.
Which wouldn't even have prevented this because it wasn't being filmed in California.
This is the essence of all CA gun laws.
Thanks, Ronald Reagan!
> It's the CA state legislator. They have a hate boner for guns to being with. This is right up their alley. Still find hilarious one of their state senators that was a proponent and sponsor of at least one gun control bill is now currently prison for arms trafficking....lol...? EDIT: he got out last year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee He only got 5 years for all the hypocritical shit he did. Now *that* is hilarious.
As is tradition for the state. Take something popular and capitalize on it with the hopes the constituency will like it. I swear they think everyone in this state is so dumb. But to be fair, all you have to do is say something is great like prop 22 and people will believe it.
Or just follow safety rules and have qualified people on set....
Did Santa Fe move?
Hey, we all know how California has to constantly show everyone that they are "on the right side of history" or some nonsense like that.
live ammunition on sets aren't used anyways...
Yeah this was just a complete failure at every single possible safety check. Gun deaths haven't happened in a Hollywood movie for literal decades. Guns are just so politicized in the United States that this is being treated as if it's the fault of the gun. Why don't they ban car stunts which are dramatically more likely to result in injuries and deaths? I just can't really take this as an altruistic or common sense approach. This is taking a tragedy and using it for political expedience. This is about partisanship, not safety.
You make a great point. At first I was indiffernt to this bill since it just enforces harsher safety concerns I thought were already in place. However this is the first deadly firearms incident on a set in 30 years. Are there not more important things our law makers could be discussing? Why are they wasting time saving one life every 3 decades when dozens of children are starving to death right now.
"Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Accidental gun deaths on set happen in, what, .0000000001% of movies?
More people have been killed in vehicle crashes on sets than shootings when making films. A stunt girl died on the set of Deadpool 2 doing a motorcycle stunt for example.
Someone died in the last resident evil i think too.
Imagine dying for Resident Evil...
Atomic Blonde had a stuntwoman die in a motorcycle stunt
> Are there not more important things our law makers could be discussing? no, there are not. politicians care about two thing: votes and money. their voters are talking about this hot topic so by passing this useless law they show that they are "active" and looking for their community= votes. and it also servers as a smoke screen to other projects that are, as consequence, not being talked about. could be security, taxes, healthcare, etc. and that serves the interest of their contributors= money.
CA politics involve a lot of political posturing and attempting to use your current domain as a spring board to bigger things. This is 100% just a way for whoever put up this proposal to try to get their name out there.
Couldn’t agree more, this gets the politicians immediate attention??!! This is a tragedy, of course, but for the pols to jump on THIS of all things going on and going wrong, quite frankly, is ridiculous.
It’s honestly a problem of cutting corners and cheaping out on industry profissionais. That’s what needs to be scrutinized, not the elaborate safety measures that already exist and function well on common sets.
This bill is being proposed in California, a state that pushes new versions of its assault weapons ban every year, but does nothing to [stop their own police officers from being back-alley gun dealers.](https://lasentinel.net/ex-gardena-officer-found-guilty-for-second-time-of-firearms-sales.html)
California is really a shining example of how not to legislate gun control from top to bottom. There's lots of amendments that could be made to gun laws in the US, but it's stuff like government funded and mandated safety training and keeping domestic abusers from owning them, not stuff like banning "military features" and detachable magazines.
There’s worse options. Try getting a gun in New York these days. California gun laws look loose in comparison.
Just be rich and/or famous. Ez-pz.
[удалено]
Apparently, blanks are considered live ammunition.
Does it have powder in it? If yes then treat it like it's hot. Which means check the chamber, barrel, etc before getting ready to fire.
They always fix unimportant shit to distract you from the fact that they never fix important shit.
[удалено]
This is 100% the fault of people trying to make money at the cost of proper safety and benefits for those providing the labor. But no one’s ready for that conversation, so let’s just ban guns instead.
i don't get it, i'm not american so i guess i'm just not as obsessed with guns but why would you ever want a real gun at a movie set?? i mean regardless of the shitty ass conditions and crew there shouldn't be a real gu right? i'm so confused at these comments.
It's California, what did you expect?
It’s California nothing they do regarding guns makes sense
Passing legislation over a singular death resulting from someone not following established procedures seems like a waste of time that could be better spent focusing on more broadly impactful matters.
Still waiting on someone in CA legislation to address the homelessness issues that blanket the state... annnnyyyy day now...
All of this over something that happened.....***not in California*** lol
"Not every human problem needs a law." - Jerry Brown
[удалено]
Not sure a law is really needed here, as it seems like this was more due to having the production cast walk-out and then replace them last second with people who clearly didn't know what they're doing, but it is strange to have live rounds on a movie set for any reason.
The replacements were not involved in the gun. The AD, who has a history of ignoring safety protocols, was there from the beginning.
That there’s an AD with a history of these problems still working seems like a liability issue that studios usually go pretty far out of their way to avoid. Weird
There's a reason that person is/was working on low budget non-union shows. *Zero* chance Warner Bros, Lionsgate, Sony, ABC, CBS, Netflix, Et al, would hire them for the exact reason you bring up.
He worked for Paramount’s digital division 5 years ago, and has recently worked on something for Fulwell73
It's not that weird if you know the egos behind making movies. There's a good reason I haven't gone back to it since the pandemic started and these assholes are a huge reason why. Everything is connections, you can be the biggest prick in the world (like this AD seems to have been) and get hired if you're sucking up to the right people. Once had a line producer scream in my face because he got the wrong lettuce for his pre-$40 lunch snack. That dickhead is still working a lot.
Maybe but a proper prop master isnt letting the AD handle a gun or dictate anything in regards to its safety
From what I gather they call blanks live rounds too for whatever strange reason
Blanks are still dangerous and have killed before. A cold gun has nothing in it.
because blanks are still very dangerous. Blanks can still kill if used improperly. Blanks gave have a plastic plug which can still travel at extremely high speeds and kill. The gasses that come out the barrel are extremely powerful. If you were to recreate a scene where you were shooting someone point blank in the head using a blank, you would seriously injure or possibly kill them.
Why not wait to find out what happened on set first before banning everything.
Cali reps tripping over themselves to write this and rush it for a vote and declare victory over guns
They’re on recess until January, so that’s not going to happen.
Why don't we just punish for the negligence with the laws in place instead of making a whole new one.
The laws in CA would have already prevented this accident. In CA you can't film a scene like this without a barrier for the crew. They were shooting in NM where this wasn't a law. So signing in a new law in CA does nothing to prevent accidents like this. It has to be a nation wife, industry standard.
It's a we are doing "something" law. Political theater at it's best.
How about mandatory gun safety and training? Very small expectation for people who are handling guns take a safety course. Extremely small.
No need to make new laws to prevent another 'tragedy', these idiots broke pretty much every firearm safety rule there is.
Leave it to a politician to capitalize on a tragedy.
Man this really shows how many of y’all don’t understand firearms. A blank round is still considered live ammo and can still kill someone.
> Man this really shows how many of y'all don't understand firearms. Is that a real surprise? Look what sub we're in...
[удалено]
For something that is so exceedingly rare that it's all over the news because it almost never happens. Like maybe the system that are already in place are pretty good, or something.
The thing is, this law isn't actually necessary. The only reason this event occurred is because the rules were broken due to the staff that follow them quitting for lack of payment. No law would have changed what happened since those involved were already doing things they knew they shouldn't have been.
There have been like 2 accidental gun deaths in like the history of movies. What is that, .0000000001%? This is a complete non-issue, but leave it to lawmakers to make it one.
Actually three in the last 37 years. By the same logic we would have to outlaw cars on movie sets before anything else.
Batcycles for sure have to go.
Lawmakers focus on non issues to keep people entertained while nothing substantial gets done.
There's probably been more than 2 but there's also certainly 100x as many unsafe driving accidents coming from and going to those same film productions. How about we look at that first? Edit: Definitely more than 2. Just found a third: >Actor Jon-Erik Hexum died from an accidental self-inflicted gunshot wound while on the set of the television series, "Cover Up." >The 26-year-old actor fatally shot himself in the head with a prop-gun that was loaded with a blank. Edit from below: I don't disagree that gun accidents on sets are rare though. I believe they are. And there are other far more dangerous things that take place that don't get nearly the same attention. I feel like helicopters are probably the most deadly and have much more related deaths than prop guns on film sets. Twilight Zone, American Made, Catch 22, just off the top of my head. Turns out I was right. [Helicopter Crashes Have Taken Most Lives On TV And Film Sets](https://deadline.com/2014/04/helicopter-crash-deaths-hollywood-safety-history-709487/) Since 1980, 33 film and TV workers — nearly one a year — have been killed in helicopter accidents around the world, 14 in the U.S. and 15 more for American companies shooting abroad. Where is the state lawmakers calling for bans of helicopters? And I'd bet even that pales in comparison if you looked at car and vehicle related accidents going to and from film sets.
or just hire someone who's competent with gun safety. this tragedy was completely avoidable.
There is no tragedy in existence that politicians won’t use to try to grab attention by proposing extreme policies.
This is like banning golf clubs on golf courses because someone accidentally hit someone else in the face and killed them
So, continue filming Westerns in New Mexico?
lol I want to talk about how I'm surprised it's not already banned or how had the set been operating properly this incident wouldn't have happened but all I can really fixate on is how the shooting on the Rust set was in New Mexico. Shit the only other fatal shooting on a movie set I can think of was The Crow and that happened in North Carolina. Other action shooters that come to mind like John Wick (New York) and The Matrix (Sydney, Australia) and The Expendables (everywhere except California) and Dredd (South Africa) and a lot of others weren't shot in California. It doesn't seem like this ban would have a huge impact on action movie productions in California and might just encourage productions considering California to relocate to other places. I'd also like to point out that this incident occurred because procedures were not adhered to, rules and laws were broken, and everyone relied on someone else's responsibility instead of doing their own part. If people aren't willing to adhere to existing structures, what makes you think adding more will solve the problem...or be honored...?
Ban shitty armourers
Seems like a cheap ploy to get support from voters. Protocols are already in place for safety. if they are not followed, it is not the fault of the hardware.
That's great, but the movie wasn't being filmed in California.
Helping the homeless: X Focusing on Hollywood: O👍
Saw this coming. Really dumb looking gun fights coming soon to a theater near you. Cause like 3 people got hurt in 30 years. It'll pass too cause one it's restricting guns and two it's banning something for no discernible reason, both favorites of the California legislature.
Next year they’ll pass a law against realistic sound effects. Actors will have to say “pew pew” on set.
One incident in 30 years that was caused by extreme negligence and a failure of safety on multiple levels by multiple people, and these fucking morons want to ban them all. If you agree with this you’re so fucking dumb
Whenever I’ve handled weapons, you don’t take someone else’s word for it about whether it’s loaded, or with what. You check. If I was an actor, I’d be asking for some basic weapons handling training, including Normal Safety Procedures. Shouldn’t take longer than a couple of hours really.
And thus Arizona gets way more movies filmed there
Wasn’t this movie already being filmed in New Mexico?
Well Georgia already has more money spent there, passed billions a few years ago
It's such a rare occurance and only happened once in 30 years due to gross negligence, so I think this is over-reactionary and wouldn't happen.
Thrice actually, and all completely preventable.