Baldwin, gun safety, freedoms and responsibilities


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

I assume that all are aware of the gun accident on the set for "Rust" that resulted from Alix Baldwin's firing of a "prop gun" killing one and injuring another.  I want to insert some thought and ideas into this and other considerations in connection to fire arms and the second amendment - which will include liberties, the use of power and responsibilities in general. 

In my youth the use of firearms was considered important to the development of boys and becoming a "man".  Since my youth feminism has put forward that girls ought to be able to learn and do most anything boys do.  I mostly agree.  I have long held the idea that the safe operation of guns (firearms) are essential to basic needs in education.  Before I was allowed to own a firearm or even use a firearm as a youth my parents insisted that I successfully complete a course in gun safety.  The only realistic course was taught by the National Rifle Association.  To this day I believe that the NRA is the civilian hope and answer to exercising Second Amendment rights is is an essential in the bricks of the fortress for preserving and protecting our freedoms and liberties. 

I was taught by the NRA that I have responsibilities when I take charge of (handle or use) a firearm.  I was taught to assume every gun is loaded and that it will kill anything I point it at.

I was taught to inspect and check ever firearm I tough before it intend to use it.  That I and I alone am responsible for that weapon for everything that happens wile that firearm is in my possession.  

I was taught to never rely on anyone else and what they told me about the firearm - especially concerning its load and readiness to kill.

I have long believed that public education should include the use and responsibility associated with firearms - that this is just as important for conscious objectors.  That no one should be considered educated or capable of citizenship without this knowledge. 

If Hollywood was respectful for the NRA and what they teach concerning gun safety (including Mr. Baldwin) that accidents that happened on the set of "Rust" would never occur.  No one that is not educated and respectful of weapon safety should ever even touch a gun and anyone using a gun is responsible and that such responsibility can never be transferred to anyone else.  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an entertainment writer IRL, I've been doing what I can to follow this story. 

It's... a mess. 

The assistant director, basically the #2 guy on set, has been accused of engaging in dangerous practices before, forcing cast and crew to keep working even after situations became openly dangerous. This includes, allegedly, one incident where an actor was injured and another incident where a member of the production team nearly went into a diabetic coma. 

The armorer responsible for handling the weapons on-set has apparently not been adhering to safety standards either, and it's now being alleged that at least one gun for the set was taken off-set for use in target shooting. 

The film shoot itself apparently racked up *six* citations for safety, with the citations being for things so serious that even one individual citation would normally lead to a project being shut down. 

Apparently, whatever took place happened not just well after filming had finished, but after several members of the production crew had walked out in protest due to the unsafe working conditions. 

The assistant director went onto the set for the scene, declared the gun in question to be "cold", and allowed Baldwin to take it. Baldwin, in turn, presumed that the declaration was correct and did not inspect the weapon himself. 

Reports vary as to whether or not Baldwin was rehearsing a scene or going off on a political rant, but the gist of it is that at the end of it he pointed the gun at the two members of the production crew and taunted them, possibly attempting to joke with them. That's when the gun went off. 

Cue the meme showing a shoebill in the rain angrily glaring at the camera person, with captions about how this is how Brandon Lee is presently reacting from the other side. 

It is presently unknown if the weapon in question had live ammunition, likely the result of it having been used off-set, or if the blank knocked loose some sort of blockage in the barrel (which blanks can do, as they do have a small paper payload and so have tremendous force at point-blank range, enough to mortally injure). Either way, a competent armorer should have inspected every last weapon, including this one, to make sure the barrels were clean and the guns themselves loaded with the required munitions - in this case blanks - before they were on-set. 

Baldwin's defenders are coming up with every excuse they can think of to try and protect him, even going so far as to try and launch a conspiracy as to whether or not someone changed out the ammunition at the last minute to humiliate him. 

At the very least, though, Baldwin failed to personally check over the weapon and pointed it at people he ostensibly never meant to hurt. Those are such basic violations of firearm safety that if this had happened here in Texas his lawyers would already be talking to prosecutors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it the actor's duty/requirement to check a firearm? I would think that in that instance, he would not be responsible--it's the armorer who should check each weapon. Would the actor even know what an actual bullet looks like vs. a blank? I'm not familiar with blanks, but I'm guessing an actor wouldn't be familiar with either. 

If the actor then uses the weapon inappropriately (pointing it at someone), then that falls on him. ALWAYS treat a gun as if it is loaded--regardless if you are "sure" it's empty or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beefche said:

Is it the actor's duty/requirement to check a firearm? I would think that in that instance, he would not be responsible--it's the armorer who should check each weapon. Would the actor even know what an actual bullet looks like vs. a blank? I'm not familiar with blanks, but I'm guessing an actor wouldn't be familiar with either. 

If the actor then uses the weapon inappropriately (pointing it at someone), then that falls on him. ALWAYS treat a gun as if it is loaded--regardless if you are "sure" it's empty or not.

I care not whose "responsibility" it is.  I was taught to check every firearm I'm handed and have instilled the same in my children.   I can think of very few times, mostly military related, where I didn't check a firearm immediately after assuming possession of it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a very simple principle guiding my thoughts on the subject.  There is no such thing as a gun accident.  Only gun negligence.  Owning, holding, handling a firearm carries with it a responsibility.  And people either live up to that responsibility or they don't.  Any negligent discharge, whether it does harm or not, is the fault of at least one human, sometimes more.

Whether Baldwin is totally to blame, partially to blame, or blameless, doesn't alter the type of dead the victim finds herself.  The person or people who share the blame, will carry that truth with them for the rest of their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not present so I must be careful in my judgement but there is a question that stand out to me.  The person killed was not an actor nor intended to be any character in any seen but rather a member of the production crew.  Was the particular firing of the weapon that caused the death part of the script?  Or was the firearm being used off script?

I understand that accidents can occur - particularly as @NeuroTypical expressed.  Though I was well taught in my youth I witnessed and participated in several "accidents".  I would like to say that no one was hurt but that is not true - I was standing next to a person that unintentionally shot themselves in the foot while falling with gun in hand.   I was not present but my brother was when a shotgun was accidently discharged in a home - the discharge opened a hole in three walls - the last hole was large enough to craw through.

I have also stated that regardless of the circumstance - I would rather be shot and killed than to shoot and kill someone but I would not hesitate if it was necessary to protect someone else.  It is my sincere prayer that I will not be required to ever use a weapon in defense of others or for any reason take someone's life.  Never-the-less I am of the notion that when convinced that something is necessary that I own it; publicly if necessary.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not had a negligent discharge in my life with a firearm despite spending many numerous hours shooting.  The reason for this I attribute to the over 90 hours of professional firearm courses I took on pistol and long gun training.

If you are going to own firearms learn how to use them safely.  (A good one or two day course will generally teach you the basics.  But you need to refresh yourself if you have not handled a loaded firearm for over six months.)  Firearm accidents are rarely "accidents."  A firearm accident is when the gun malfunctions, such as going full automatic with a single pull of the trigger or the firearm exploding or discharging without the trigger being pulled.  99% of firearm accidents are because of negligence/ bad behavior. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest reports are that the armorer and a few other people were using some of the prop guns - likely including the one Baldwin had - to go target-shooting with live ammunition. 

The assistant director has also admitted that he didn't stop to check the entire cylinder, and made his "cold" declaration just off of what he could see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to change a possible view I had earlier in this thread.  I could not figure out how the cinematographer was shot during the filming of a seen.    It was pointed out to me that often a effect is used in filming that when a firearm is fired that the camera perspective looks down the barrel of the firearm.  This would put the cameraman and the person setting up the angle directly down range and in the line of fire.

I do remain of the mind that any person handling a firearm is responsible for it.  I do not mind others on a filming set being responsible as well because that eliminates single point of failure but in the end the last clear responsibility lies with the person holding the weapon.

All said and done - I think Murphy's Law applies.  If anything can go wrong it will and accidents do happen - unfortunately  when an accident happens with a firearm (or at times even with a car) the result is the loss of a life.  I think that is plenty of punishment all by itself for anyone but a sociopath. 

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I want to change a possible view I had earlier in this thread.  I could not figure out how the cinematographer was shot during the filming of a seen.    It was pointed out to me that often a effect is used in filming that when a firearm is fired that the camera perspective looks down the barrel of the firearm.  This would put the cameraman and the person setting up the angle directly down range and in the line of fire.

I do remain of the mind that any person handling a firearm is responsible for it.  I do not mind others on a filming set being responsible as well because that eliminates single point of failure but in the end the last clear responsibility lies with the person holding the weapon.

All said and done - I think Murphy's Law applies.  If anything can go wrong it will and accidents do happen - unfortunately  when an accident happens with a firearm (or at times even with a car) the result is the loss of a life.  I think that is plenty of punishment all by itself for anyone but a sociopath. 

 

The Traveler

Just because you need a camera to go looking somewhere doesn't mean that the camera itself has to be manned. 

There are remote cameras and such that can be set up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were talking about this in a law enforcement forum.  Here are some relevant comments.


 

Quote

 

Additionally, a real gun should not be brought anywhere near prop guns, or blank guns. That's the exact reason we don't bring guns to training that involve simmunition guns. One article I read was the armorer was a 22 year old kid. Like you said,  probably had no idea what he was doing.

 

My commentAgreed. Additionally, having done a lot of simunition training, I relentlessly press checked those sims gun before each scenario...just to be sure.


 

 

Baldwin owns some responsibility.  He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Just because you need a camera to go looking somewhere doesn't mean that the camera itself has to be manned. 

There are remote cameras and such that can be set up. 

I want to correct what I was implying - that the gun was fired outside of the script - I wanted to make sure if anyone was mislead (as I was in my thinking).  As a note - there are shields that can also be used.  Obviously there are many things that could have been done - that were not - both by the shooter and the person shot.  When I was working as a consultant dealing with critical issues (none of which involved firearms) I would focus, not on what went wrong or who was to blame but what needs to be done (best practice) by everyone involved in the future.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

We were talking about this in a law enforcement forum.  Here are some relevant comments.


 

 

Baldwin owns some responsibility.  He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.  

I agree - how ever it has been my experience when something this serious happens any responsible person will make sure that such a thing will never happen again in their presents.  But I am interested in your very critical perspective.  What should happen to those that failed to execute their responsibility?

 

The Traveler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I though to add a story.  I do not remember the date of the story but I heard the story somewhere around 1968 to 1971.  The story takes place sometime before I heard it (obviously) but I do not remember how long but I doubt it was over 15 years before.  

As the story goes there was a string of armed robberies in the northern Utah, southern Idaho area in the Bear Lake region.  The robber had fled off road into a wilderness area and the local sheriff has pursued with a posse on horse back.  As the day was turning to evening the sheriff was somewhat frustrated that they has been unable to stay on the trail and catch their man.  Then a rabbit ran in front of the posse.  Somewhat annoyed, the sheriff drew out his revolver and followed the running rabbit in his gun sights, made a comment about the foolish rabbit and pulled the trigger intending to drop the rabbit in it tracks.  Instead of hitting the rabbit he shot his horse in the back of its head and dropped it underneath him.  The story quickly got out and so embarrassed the sheriff that he resigned and ended his carrier in law enforcement.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2021 at 2:02 PM, mirkwood said:

We were talking about this in a law enforcement forum.  Here are some relevant comments.


 

 

Baldwin owns some responsibility.  He pointed the gun and pulled the trigger.  

 

 

 

 

She.

The armorer is a woman. 

There is actually a lot of heat going right now because of this, with people asking if she was hired because she was a woman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ironhold said:

She.

The armorer is a woman. 

There is actually a lot of heat going right now because of this, with people asking if she was hired because she was a woman. 

Yes, but Baldwin pulled the trigger.  I was not referring to the armorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Yes, but Baldwin pulled the trigger.  I was not referring to the armorer.

I agree the person holding a firearm have the greatest responsibility for it but the more I learn about all this - the more I am impressed that very few in our society or sufficiently educated about firearms - not just in handling them but having intelligent opinions about weapons and the use of weapons.  

I am grateful for your post in this thread and believe your input (opinion) to be of perhaps the greatest value - or should I say an expert opinion.  In short, I define an expert opinion as an opinion based in training, ability and application.  It is interesting (somewhat discoursing) with so many things; how it is that opinions are so often made and expressed with no training, education, experience or successes dealing with the question at hand.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2021 at 2:01 PM, Ironhold said:

She.

The armorer is a woman. 

There is actually a lot of heat going right now because of this, with people asking if she was hired because she was a woman. 

I think that it was more WHO she was related to than that she was a woman.   I think her father is pretty well known, and thus she was hired as a result of this...from what I have heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/25/2021 at 1:15 PM, Traveler said:

I assume that all are aware of the gun accident on the set for "Rust" that resulted from Alix Baldwin's firing of a "prop gun" killing one and injuring another.  I want to insert some thought and ideas into this and other considerations in connection to fire arms and the second amendment - which will include liberties, the use of power and responsibilities in general. 

In my youth the use of firearms was considered important to the development of boys and becoming a "man".  Since my youth feminism has put forward that girls ought to be able to learn and do most anything boys do.  I mostly agree.  I have long held the idea that the safe operation of guns (firearms) are essential to basic needs in education.  Before I was allowed to own a firearm or even use a firearm as a youth my parents insisted that I successfully complete a course in gun safety.  The only realistic course was taught by the National Rifle Association.  To this day I believe that the NRA is the civilian hope and answer to exercising Second Amendment rights is is an essential in the bricks of the fortress for preserving and protecting our freedoms and liberties. 

I was taught by the NRA that I have responsibilities when I take charge of (handle or use) a firearm.  I was taught to assume every gun is loaded and that it will kill anything I point it at.

I was taught to inspect and check ever firearm I tough before it intend to use it.  That I and I alone am responsible for that weapon for everything that happens wile that firearm is in my possession.  

I was taught to never rely on anyone else and what they told me about the firearm - especially concerning its load and readiness to kill.

I have long believed that public education should include the use and responsibility associated with firearms - that this is just as important for conscious objectors.  That no one should be considered educated or capable of citizenship without this knowledge. 

If Hollywood was respectful for the NRA and what they teach concerning gun safety (including Mr. Baldwin) that accidents that happened on the set of "Rust" would never occur.  No one that is not educated and respectful of weapon safety should ever even touch a gun and anyone using a gun is responsible and that such responsibility can never be transferred to anyone else.  

 

The Traveler

I was taught that every gun IS loaded, until proven otherwise by checking it. When someone checks a gun right in front of me and hands it to me, I immediately check it myself, just to make sure. I am also very careful to point it in a save direction at all times. This is what happens when you play it loose with the rules of gun safety. I feel for the victims and their families and I hope the law holds Baldwin and the weapon master fully responsible for this tragedy. I find it amazing that everyone in the media is talking about how sad it is for Baldwin, that he will have to live with it, but that is the key word, live, he lives and Hutchins is dead, because he did not check the weapon.

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come to the conclusion that I live in a slightly different world that certain others.  I started this thread in an effort to establish certain points and to allow as many opinions in the matter an opportunity to respond.  There are not very many opinions defending Baldwin here on this forum.  About a decade ago I was brought into the Hollywood circle (a little) as a consultant.  I established a friendship with a director and others.  To be honest I am not impressed in the culture that provides us with our motion picture entertainment but they are people and like any industry there are good and not so good individuals.   I contacted my director friend to specifically discuss this topic.  Before I go into what I learned I would provide a little background.

One aspect of the motion picture industry that bothered me the most has to do with actors getting into character.  Some actors (very few) seem to do this instantly like some kind of a switch was thrown.  Most go through a ritual that can take hours or even days.  Regardless of the time or method - I would compare the change in the person to being possessed by another spirit.  This is why and how I was personally effected by character acting.  Once an actor is in character a lot of what happens on set is designed specifically to maintain actor's character.  Anything that disrupts many actors can cause a lot of problems and tensions - including loss of time.  Time is perhaps the most valuable item - especially when a seen is live and being filmed. 

All props that are essential and critical to a seen are handled by "experts" that are responsible for that prop.  Each seen is prepared and the actor is expected to take their place in the seen in character (including the emotions of the character specific to the seen) so that cameras can immediately roll.  I was told by my director friend that the proper protocol would or should be something like this:  Lights, roll cameras, armorer hand actor the gun, action.  Do you get the picture?

I know we all have our opinions - I certainly have my opinion.  Directors are planning and dealing with all kinds of things during filming.  They also have experts and laws that deal with how things are legally done.  Unions and guilds have much to say about responsibilities and protocols that are fiercely defended.  I am not saying that I agree that things should be run this way - I am trying to represent the interests involved as best as I understand. 

With all this under consideration - I think that if I was on the jury - I would not hold Mr. Baldwin legally responsible nor open to any civil responsibility - both of which is counter to my personal beliefs and opinion.  I do not like any person handling a gun and not being responsible - but in this case the culture and laws do not support my opinion and at this point I am not sure what should be changed moving forward that is compatible  with the film making culture.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

With all this under consideration - I think that if I was on the jury - I would not hold Mr. Baldwin legally responsible nor open to any civil responsibility - both of which is counter to my personal beliefs and opinion.  I do not like any person handling a gun and not being responsible - but in this case the culture and laws do not support my opinion and at this point I am not sure what should be changed moving forward that is compatible  with the film making culture.

 

The Traveler

Mr. Baldwin is also one of the producers.  He is the one who, ultimately, is in charge of who is hired and other items such as safety on the set.  There had been several such incidents already on the set and much of the techs and groups had walked off in protest to the safety going on. 

I think with that in mind, a manslaughter charge probably should have been considered (though not necessarily prosecuted until everything is investigated), but I am not the one who is in charge of such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share