Alec Baldwin's shooting accident: What we can learn from it
2021 ж. 25 Қаз.
39 464 Рет қаралды
On the 21st of October 2021, cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot and director Joel Souza was injured on the set of the film Rust after actor Alec Baldwin discharged a firearm used as a prop.
While no detailed information about the accident is available at the time of making this video, some very important considerations can be made, which could help prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future.
I hate how people are calling this a "misfire" and a "faulty" gun. The gun worked just fine. The crew was faulty
Calling the real gun a prop gun. Obviously it fires real bullets, or were they prop bullets?
Yup. The firearm functioned. A chambered round was discharged and set the projectile downrange in the direction the shooter aimed it. This was a negligent discharge as a result of reckless behavior with a firearm. Unless those two shooting victims posed an imminent threat to the health and safety of others a firearm should not have been aimed at them.
@@SpecialEDy Alec is responsible... With that out of the way,,,,,,,The term "prop" is short for "Property", meaning it is to be used in filming. Most are in fact fully operational firearms. LIVE AMMO has NO place on a movie set.
@@SpecialEDy Because prop guns are made from real guns. You should look up on the US prop gun industry...
@@barto6577 I'm wondering if there were some rounds made up with a bullet and a live primer to be used for filming loading the weapon? If one of those gets fired, we all know what happens: bullet gets stuck in the barrel. If you then chamber a blank loaded up to have a big muzzle flash (again, because movies), you now have a deadly weapon.
This was one of the most convincing firearm safety rants I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few.
Yes and this thought me something i didnt know the pump shotgun feed system peculiarity that might have caused safety issue later on the line. Of course i would try to learn everything about that particular weapon, but on the range testing someone elses gun and that person might not be entirely adept to teach about it, so there might be chance for issue to arise. I pride my self being safe when operating firearms, but this was great reminder that you never know everything and you should NEVER break the first rule of firearm safety: "its not loaded? Its ALWAYS loaded, so keep barrel away from anything you do not want to destroy, even if its partially taken apart. Long as there is even tinyest chance for round being somewhere in the gun its considered loaded"
Lil late tho, huh?
you can take that dumb mask off now
@@truthsRsung Better late than never......
@@bertholdschwarz9637 ...Not from my neck of the woods. Firearm Safety comes BEFORE Firearm Handling, then Firing a Single Shot. When "Artists" said that they wanted to put Real Guns and gun powder in situations where people were faking a reality, red flags went up, by people who knew how many different ways humans could screw up. A gun isn't a complicated machine. One end is dangerous. There is only one hiding spot in it for things that go boom and one spot it doesn't like to be tickled. No wonder men fall in love with them. Blanks should have been removed from sets right before the first blemish on an actress was touched out of a frame. Special Effects Save Lives.
I also think part of keeping the gun pointed in a safe direction is a matter of respect; even if you are aware of a gun being safety checked seconds ago doesn't mean that everyone else nearby saw you do the safety check to confirm the weapon's inactive state. Demonstrating proper safety etiquette shows that you respect the safety of everyone around you in addition to your own safety.
It isn't even just respect for the people, it's respect for the weapon.
@@andrewparker5096 that is obviously implied at the most basic concept of the rule.
Sounds just like the airlines and Boeing.....noone wants to properly train other people for dangerous jobs.
firearm safety is layered so one mistake can't kill someone. If gun safety had been followed, it wouldn't have mattered if the gun was *mistakenly* called cold It doesn't matter that you checked it. The time you don't is the only time it takes to end someone's life
Indeed. Swiss cheese to the rescue.
General rule is to make a safety check every time you lose sight of a weapon if you intend to handle it, a point to be particularly stressed when you're around people even if to someone else you may look dumb for looking down the barrel every minute or less. To not look like an idiot I suggest not sitting idly with a gun in your hands in the first place, accidental discharges have proven to be particularly rare when the firearm is stored safely inside its intended holster.
I still maintain that this channel is extremely underrated; every video posted is informative and engaging, truly an asset to the KZhead gun community
"Never put your finger on the trigger until you have got the sights aimed at your target", as they say... I once almost blew my head of with a shotgun while trying to shoot at a bird flying away. My finger got caught inside of the trigger guard and i pulled the trigger trying to shoulder the shotgun in a haste. Of course i was trained to keep the muzzle of the gun in the air in front of me, facing away from me. But the gun still came down when it went off, really scaring me. It was loud! From that moment out, i never wanted to shoot any rifle without it having a pistol grip, so it wont ever happen again. My ears were ringing for 10 minutes even though i had earplugs in and of course my safety glasses were on. It really sucked! Greetings, Jeff
I know a guy who trying to shot a rabbit pointed the shotgun in the direction of his partner an shot him in the head. both were like 16 yo, both families were destroyed
But he wanted to "shoot" them, no? I really don't see how this is applicable.
@@nachorodriguez3017 I can see how that happens. His partner should have been behind him, or if he is a hunter, next to him on the side. I was told not to point the gun anywhere nearer than 45 degrees to anyone, or your head or feet. So as long as you can do that. You should be fine. In a hurry you can still get pressure on the trigger to have the gun go off. I really can advice everyone to get a pistol grip installed on your shotgun. Anything else is just unsafe. I practiced all the shouldering, the following of the birds on the edges of the ceiling and the walls. The foot stance.. Everything... I still got the gun to go bang before it was shouldered, because of the rifle style grip on the gun. Man i felt stupid. I actually blame the sort of way you hold the gun too, because you walk with the gun in front of you, pointing the muzzle upward, and that is really odd. Maybe i should just hunt more.. Greetings, Jeff
@@jeffjefferson2676 It's really telling that the difference between an "assault weapon" and a "non-assault weapon" is that the assault weapon... has more/better safety features.
@@DSiren Well shotguns do have a safety, which you should only put on fire when you aim down sights. And not before shouldering. Still i think a non assault weapon style without the pistol grip is dangerous to use. The California guns where you can not have a pistol grip on a gun is actually really dangerous to use because of that. I would not want to have that on any gun im going to shoot anywhere else than on a range. Its a hazard. Greetings, Jeff
I've had a negligent discharge in my own home. Nothing but my ego was hurt, and it was an extremely humbling reminder that every time you hold a gun you're making life and death choices.
In Portugal we have a popular saying: "O diabo disparou uma tranca". Literal translation "Il diavolo ha sparato con un bastone". Never trust a gun, always check if it's unloaded and never point it to anyone even unloaded.
how old is it?
The so called firearms expert said that loading blanks in a blank gun was the scariest thing ever. Yeah an "expert" not to mention the numerous accidental dishsrches previously
This was the most staggering in the whole story for me. Saying loading blanks is "scariest thing ever" in interview "expert" confessed of unprofessionalism. For "expert" its time to learn more or consider changing profession, for clients - time to find more expirienced person.
I was an actor in a major film Che (2005) The rules for responsible gun owners do not apply to movie sets. There are a completely different set of rules. As an actor your job is to stand on your mark and do what the director wants when he or she says action. You are not permitted to safety check, tamper or fiddle with the firearm. The firearm has been prepared by the prop master and armorer for the shot. You are not permitted to second guess them or check their work. Even if you do "safety check" a gun they are often loaded specially for the shot, only a trained armorer or prop master can determine if the loaded rounds are blank, dummy or special. Any shot showing an actor loading a gun is usually done with dummy rounds, they are made to look exactly like real bullets for authenticity. If you cause a firearm to come out of battery or drop a gun or unholster at the wrong time, you could ruin the shot and time is money. I was required to point a rifle at other actors in my scene. The rifle was literally handed to me 3 seconds before action. The rules are very strict, the rifle was collected in between each take and for lunch. Being dressed as a cop I could not even walk off the set to craft services.
@@lolo-su6ig I'm surprised Americans don't know that. Ever since that Brandon Lee incident, handling of guns became the job of the armorer who is always on set as per law. If crap happens with guns, they're the first ones liable for the FUBAR...
Thank you so much for pointing this out. The lack of awareness that people have over a case like this is mind boggling.
@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 Hollywood is a long, long, long way away from most of the US. Even those parts of California allegedly adjacent to it.
I understand your point. But as far as my information goes, this fatal error happend at training for a scene, not when the scene was filmed. Why on earth you have to point a gun under these circumstances in the direction of a human being for training? Thats mindblowing for a firearm owner.
@@andik.4235 The director was framing a shot to be filmed.
What we can learn from it? If you don’t follow the #1 rule of gun safety this can happen.
Weird, the only lesson I learned was that water is wet and that anti-gun activists obviously cannot be trusted with a gun.
The rumours are that the movie guns were used for "plinking" with live ammo when not in use on the set. It sounds like they had very unsafe procedures and the people working on the set had been fired for that from another movie. I find it odd how much blame is put on Alec Baldwin, while he was there to do the job of acting, it was up to others to make sure the set was safe. I think a movie gun should never be loaded with live ammo, and especially not because someone is bored between takes. Guns are not toys.
The person who pulls the trigger is the ultimate decider of who will or won't be shot. If the firearm was never aimed at another human being then it doesn't matter if it had 0, 1, or 1000000 live rounds, no one gets shot. The firearm did not aim itself -- even if it magically loaded itself and pulled its own trigger it would only put a hole in the ground if handled safely. If you aim a firearm at someone or something you are explicitly stating you are willing to accept the consequences of that person dying or that thing being destroyed. If you are not ready to accept those consequences then you should not aim a firearm in an unsafe direction.
@@asdfjoe123 By your logic, if a baker sends you a box of cookies to send to a person and that person died due to the cookies being poisoned you are primarily responsible for that person's death because you decided to give that box of cookies to that person...
@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 That is the stupidest analogy I’ve ever read. There’s a direct implication of the dangers of a firearm any reasonable person is fully aware of, on top of that Id imagine the insurance companies and Unions for movies require basic knowledge in forms of training to anyone that is going to handle a firearm. Most likely in all of Alec movies he had probably heard firearms safety briefings numerous times.
@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 cookies are not inherently dangerous. Firearms are. If you point a car at someone and rev the engine, you are responsible if the brakes slip and the car runs into them.
@@ScottKenny1978 Using your example, if a rental car - that the rental said is in fine order - driving near the pedestrian lane (with no intention to run over peds) just swerves without reason and kills a bystander, it is your fault despite investigation finding out that the brakes and steering in the car were defective when the car was given to you. That is my point. Since when is it another person's liability for the screwup of others' job? It is the job of the armorer to make the guns safe, not the actor. It's like saying a homeowner is criminally liable if he does not hear his child getting killed in his own home...
Notification squad!!! Just started watching. This is still one of the most educational firearm content there is. This is BY FAR the BEST video to illustrate the basic firearm safety rules. Shame on hollywood to glorify guns in the most inappropriate way possible, fail to even properly lead by example when gun exposure on mega blockbusters are very high, yet still go hyper political on a very anti-gun stance. Many in hollywood should never be taken seriously.
Yesh!
Train actors in gun safety, regardless of their stance on gun ownership. Everyone handling a deadly device needs to be briefed, trained, reminded of, checked, and accountable for its basic safety protocols. You don’t force an actor who can’t drive to drive a car in a road.
that is an osha requirement, and a requirement of the screen actors guild.
@@vidard9863 apparently, one of the lessons learned from the Brandon Lee incident was that the Talent are not allowed to handle the firearms, *not even to check their condition.* Somehow, all the responsibility was dropped on the head of the gun wrangler to ensure that said firearms are loaded with blanks, loaded with live, or whatever. I'd never make it in Whollyweird, since I literally cannot pick up a firearm without checking it. I can't even pretend to pick one up without checking it.
@@ScottKenny1978 are you sure your not thinking of Jon-Erik Hexum? He was the the guy that was playing with his gun and killed himself. Brandon's Lee's death was caused by a squib load. An actor messing with the gun wouldn't have caused it and clearing the gun wouldn't have prevented it.
@@ScottKenny1978 look, i am not pretending to know all the ways it is handled for every movie production handled under American laws and regulations, but every armorer i have known, met, or heard speak on the subject has required the actors to personally check and confirm every gun handed to them which was not obviously a fake, and i have even seen footage of will smith insisting on clearing a prop gun a reporter had picked up by doing it himself. if will smith is not talent, and everyone i have heard in that industry does it differently, the people are probably just saying that to absolve themselves of responsibility. further anyone who "learned" to remove individual responsibility from a fatal accident wants more fatal accidents. not only would that train actors to be irresponsible with explosive devices, any accident in the prop department would translate to live accidents, and the actor would not inherently know at what range the gun was dangerous. working with explosives is dangerous work, like working with electricity, everyone must confirm for themselves the power is off to prevent accidents, relying entirely on a third party just begets accidents.
@@rodrames2462 I said "apparently." No, I don't know how that makes sense. I don't know how it made it past OSHA. I'm just repeating what another poster said happened on set with a movie they were on. They *were NOT allowed* to do anything to the weapon, other than exactly what the scene required.
The problem is we get distracted, and are forgetful. These actors on this set might be handling firearms for 8-12 hours a day, 5 to 7 days a week. Eventually, an accidental discharge will happen, as long as the rules are faithfully followed as habit, those extremely rare negligent discharges won't actually harm someone.
They really shouldn't be handling them that much. Many movies are filmed with plastic/rubber dummies for most of the scenes, and the armorer hands them the blank guns when gunfire is needed and collects them right after.
At its core, this is 98% the armourers fault and I suspect she's going to jail. Everyone has a job to do and hers was to allow people to do things that are otherwise a no no. Rules like don't point guns at people and no fingers on trigger of course don't work in movies. Practice and rehearsal is a normal process and that's why a whole job exists. That said, if something goes wrong, it eventually also goes to who hired the armourer. It looks like the armourer was the child of a famous one. Which isn't exactly an uncommon issue in many many industries.
BS. The responsibility of prop guns falls on specific people. There is no reason whatsoever to have a ND on a set. That there were multiple ND before this fatal ND and NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT is the problem. There should NEVER ever be an ND on set. Ever. If you expect an eventual ND you're doing it wrong.
@@letsburn00 no, the trigger man is at fault
@@chrismemphis8062 If this was an event that occurred at a gun range, I'd say absolutely. But in a film set, having a weapon that appears to be completely loaded with real bullets but its actually totally fake bullets is a normal event. Plus, an actor is working an enormous number of hours during which they are "on". An armourer has a schedule that is much less demanding on time, but is highly demanding on safety. I personally dislike Baldwin (I think the public persona he has is a jackass, not just the characters he plays), but the issue is seperate, acting like people we dislike get different rules is childish, so I try not to do it. Films have extremely strict rules for a reason and all information I've seen is that normally only the armourer and the Actor should ever touch the gun and the armourer takes responsibility. You're putting a bunch of untrained idiots next to dangerous equipment. Much like doing a tandem skydive or going on a rollercoaster. The idiot pays a person who is drastically more responsible to ensure that things are safe while they remain an idiot. They are literally pretending that they have a dangerous item when they should have a completely safe item. The actors responsibility is to get confirmation that the system is safe. Which appears to have been done. Baldwin's responsibility I'd say is primarily that when the union people walked off set, he should have as well. It reminds me of a case in my home town where the union crane guys were booted from a lift. They all lined up to film it and as a response we got some footage of a crane falling over because the idiots who replaced them didn't do it right. The rules are onerous and annoying, but often an annoying rule was added because someone got killed.
I find it very strange it happened more than once on the same set and there was strife with set workers. Also the set armorer was not experienced. I fear it’s going to turn into a criminal case.
aparently she was working two jobs and the second job took time (and her focus) from her armourer job. Fucking stupid whoever let that happen.
This is not a Accident it is a Negligent discharge.
In this instance CV19 safety issues and budget were apparently put ahead of weapon safety issues.....and working back through the timeline, the events appear negligent and reckless beyond imagination. 1. The weapon Baldwin used was a fully functioning .45 Long Colt revolver pistol, and not some sort of stunt gun. Apparently prior to lunch break the armorer had laid out three revolvers on an unsecured cart at the church location to be used as needed. There is also an alternate version of events where the revolvers were secured over lunch, and then put on the cart by the armorer after lunch. The revolvers were believed to be loaded with blanks. The cast and crew had returned from a separate lunch location to the church location. The Assistant Director apparently picked one of the revolvers from the cart (and not directly from the armorer) and did not clear the weapon. Again, there is an alternate version of events where the armorer cleared the weapon for the AD, and a third version of events where the armorer partially cleared the weapon for the AD... in the third the AD only recalls seeing three blanks and not seeing all of they cylinders. Regardless of the version of events the AD called the revolver "cold" and passed it to Baldwin, who also did not clear the revolver as it was passed to him. The camera was being reset and not active, and Baldwin was sitting in a church pew practicing his cross-draw and aiming of the revolver when it discharged. Baldwin says he aimed at the revolver at the camera, while the point of impact of the round from the revolver was Halyna's upper body. Halyna would not normally be behind the camera for this shot, however the camera was being re-set due to shifting light which temporarily placed her behind the camera, and Halyna was there to kill. In this process of events numerous normal procedures of weapon handling were not followed. The AD broke RULE #1, and Baldwin broke all four, of the FOUR RULES OF GUN HANDLlNG: #1 RULE Treat every weapon as if it's loaded, even if you're told it isn't. #2 RULE Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to kill or destroy. #3 RULE Never put your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to kill or destroy something. #4 RULE Know where your target is, and what is behind it. 2. The cart is where the CV19 issue comes in. Normally the armorer would secure the weapon until it was called for. At the time the weapon was called for the armorer would produce the revolver, clear the revolver and verify it was empty, and load the blanks in front of the AD/actor/whomever was going to handle it or was interested in the revolver on set. This process should have been repeated at every exchange of the revolver, from the armorer to the AD, and from the AD to Baldwin. With responsible gun handling Baldwin would have cleared and verified the revolver each time he picked it up. If Baldwin felt he was not competent to clear the revolver he would have asked the armorer to do do for him. The reputed use of the cart and casual handling of the revolver at each exchange and after lunch apparently defeated the normal two-party verification checks. Supposedly because of a CV19 protocol intended to minimize human to human contact, the weapon handling procedures were modified with the three revolvers pre-loaded with blanks and set on a cart to be available for use as needed. If this is true, and if the weapons were not securely maintained between uses as props, or proven by the exchanging parties to be secure at each exchange, this is an extraordinary breach of set protocol where CV19 protocol was placed ahead of weapon safety issues. As far as budget cost-cutting issues, another armorer reports "I turned the job opportunity down on Rust because I felt it was completely unsafe..." as the producers of the film combined two separate jobs into one -- prop master and armorer -- to save money. “... there were great concerns about that, and they didn’t really respond to my concerns about that.” “You never have a prop assistant double as the armorer... Those are two really big jobs.” 3. This still leaves the significant issues of both the revolver being loaded, and of where the live round came from. Live rounds are never supposed to be on a set. There were over 500 rounds of ammunition on the set and the authorities are verifying what is live. There are 3 or more initial paths where the revolver could have loaded with live ammo: A. The armorer mis-loaded the gun, mistaking live ammunition for blanks, which is very unlikely as the physical differences are immediately apparent. B. There are stories some of the crew had been using the unsecured revolver for target practice with live ammunition, and loose live ammunition supposedly has been recovered by law enforcement. There may be some chain of events whereby target practice by some of the crew led to the live round being in the revolver at the time Baldwin used it for cross-draw and point to shoot practice. C. There have also been insinuations the prior disputes may have contributed to the live ammunition on the set, as, if there was easy access to a cart used to store ammunition or provide access to the weapons, the easy access to the cart could have provided a temptation for anyone wanting to make a point of lax gun handling procedures.
There are live rounds looking props, remove the bullet, pour out the powder, deactivate the primer then put the bullet back in, or just put an empty primer on empty casing then load the bullet, looks exactly like a real live round. I'd put those fake rounds in a very separate container and weigh every single one of them before any scene that they would be used in though.
That's a long ass rant that on the end despite the legitimate arguments is shadowed by your "CV19 safety bad" statements through the text
Thank you for calling out the bad trigger discipline in movies
1:48 Shotguns have an extremely varied manual of arms, and it seems like whenever you pick up a new one you need to learn how to shoot again. Maybe a good video idea would be one explaining the different ways they're designed to operate, and the thinking or engineering requirements behind the different designs. It might stop someone from making a mistake like you demonstrate at that timestamp.
I'd like to see that too. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a boatload of different shotguns in Italy.
About 45 years ago I pointed a revolver at my friend. I'll never forget it. I like to clean guns, and I was busy cleaning the revolver (S&W 19 357 mag). I HAD REMOVED THE GRIPS, and, in my mind I had "disassembled" it, so safety rules about pointing didn't apply. He was just entering the room, so I was kidding around -- he said "That's the first time you ever pointed a gun at me!" Of course he was correct, but I never forgot my error. I have EXCELLENT gun safety habits, but even I made that mistake (the gun, of course, WAS unloaded -- but that doesn't make it OK to point at someone. Again, I only pointed because I "thought" is was "disassembled.").
I've heard a family story that my dumbass uncle once blew up his house's TV by "pretending" to shoot a host of a program he didnt like while cleaning the gun 🤦♂️
Can't understate how often bullets end up places you don't expect them to be, either in or out of the chamber. It really is like some black magic teleportation shenanigans are going on at times. If I had to guess I'd reason that it's maybe the excitement of holding/shooting a gun itself that causes us to be distracted or forgetful.
They say men unload and the devil reloads
I think it should be pointed out that firearms usage in movies are different from normal firearms use, thanks to the Brandon Lee incident. Actors aren't allowed to fiddle with the gun even for a safety check as that job was of the armorer's. Any screw-ups with the guns are the armorer's liability. To say Baldwin was primarily responsible for this is plainly wrong in the context, it's like saying the delivery guy is primarily responsible if the package they delivered was defective and exploded, killing the receiver...
That makes no sense...different safety standards indeed!
This channel, and the analytic process used, is one of the best firearms related channels on KZhead. Please do more videos.
For a young Feller you are very intelligent... You have plenty to teach these people on this Earth , please please continue.
The main reasoning I have behind why you should always treat a gun as if it were loaded is because a gun with a round in the chamber looks exactly the same as one with an empty chamber. Plus, it shouldn't feel good pointing an unloaded gun at someone anyways. Knowing if the gun is empty doesn't mean you can now just point the muzzle recklessly. That's not the point of why you check.
A big problem is in movies they often want you to point the gun at the camera with your finger on the trigger while the director cinematographer looks through a viewfinder to make sure it looks right, accident waiting to happen.
What we can learn hmmmmm Whenever someone gives you a gun and says it's cold, It's still hot till you show clear for yourself Never aim at anything unless you mean to take its life Some of the very basics
Thank you for making this video, and encouraging firearms safety; I can agree with your two rules, but the big point one to learn is much more basic. Point one - there should have been no live rounds on the set at all, and I cannot see any argument for them being there. Live rounds belong on the range under range safety conditions, on the hunt under whatever hunt safety conditions exist, or for military/police useage 'for real'. Forgotten Weapon's interview with a Canadian armourer popped back into my feed - and those are his rules: no live rounds needed on set. Point two - if you do feel the need to take this risk to have live rounds in weapons that can fire them, then your armourer should control that weapon until it is placed in the actor's hands, and they are responsible for briefing the handler, and making sure any necessary safety precautions are observed, from safe back stops to making sure eye/ear protection is worn where necessary. Lethal weapons should remain under the control and direction of a competent armourer. Point three - anyone who picks up a firearm is responsible for its use, whether it live or a blank firer. To take an unattended firearm and assume it is safe is recklessness. To leave a loaded firearm so someone can pick it up is recklessness. These three points are all precursors to who you point it at, and where your trigger finger is, and are much more basic ways of ensuring safety. This was not an accident in any case - it is the outcome of a series of mistakes and misjudgements - and the sad part of it is, entirely preventable.
I’d like to point out, not only does that armourer usually not have live ammo, but his guns usually have plugged or semi plugged barrels too. Can’t remember but I wouldn’t be surprised if he also had custom shallow chambers that can’t accept live rounds
@@thomasa5619 Yes, the barrel is made unusable for prop guns - often by legal reasons, much easier to own blank or CO2 gun instead of live one.
My dad always taught me to keep my action open on my pump while traveling in the car. He used a autoloader and always transported it with the action locked open. One day when we got home, his action was closed, so he racked it open and a 12 Guage birdshot round fell on the living room floor. This happened on Thanksgiving day about 45 years ago in a house full of family. I was the only one who saw it happen, beside my dad. I remember the look on his eyes...
If you stop paying strict attention to an unloaded gun, the ammo gnome will appear and load it, without you noticing. Thus, you should never ,ever, assume that a gun in not loaded, unless you literally just checked.
I’m sick and tired of people saying “ITS THE ARMOURERS RESPONSIBILITY” Just like any of us, you pick up a gun, it’s your responsibility.
I remember my buddy and I went into an indoor shooting range, because I'd been there before with my family, and wanted to have him try out shooting a gun for the first time ever in his life (we did 3 types of pistols: a 9mm H&K P30 variant, .38 Special snub, and a .45 ACP M1911). While we enjoyed it all and I informed him on good etiquette and safety while in the range, he was still new to handling REAL guns...unfortunately, he had good common sense, but little to no gun discipline. He never brought the gun around to point directly at me, but when he was amidst explaining a jam (being a rental pistol), or was "done" shooting, he turned around pointing the pistol in my direction. I immediately recoiled and told him to keep it down range, to which he immediately responded appropriately. He kept it pointed down range, and I came over and assisted him accordingly. I unloaded it, and set it safely down on the table. So, although he donked up and freaked out a bit, he was able to respond appropriately and timely without a range officer coming over and kicking us out. So we both learned something that day: I learned that anyone can have a split-second loss of good judgement and handling, and he learned not to be careless when handling a gun ANYWHERE at ANYTIME. This instance among other times (he wasn't the only one) is why I am glad I have gone hunting and such with my dad and brother: it has taught me good gun discipline and handling/care. When in the field, in your house, at the range, at the store (to buy/fix/change one), etc.: whether loaded or not, you ALWAYS treat the gun as a force that will destroy and take a life if pointing at something living. Equally, you never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire. Thanks for this informative video for people who may not be aware of these necessary tips and pointers when handling any firearm.
I have just stumbled onto your channel and watched a couple of videos. Now I'm watching this one and could not agree more with your presentation. Any time I pick up any gun, even airsoft gas or electric, I apply those 2 rules of safety because I realize there is no "mulligan" with a projectile. Once it's fired, it's gone, there's no do over. It is actually scary if you think about the consequences of that event. I think people have a very cavalier attitude with guns 'cause they see so much disrespect of firearms on the media, movies, tv, video games etc. Anyway, I liked your channel and subbed after this blog. Thanks.
Backyard ballistics is always on point
The, always treat it as if it is loaded. And never point at a person. Is inturn the same thing to me as a nurse that starts an IV on a person that is about to be put to death. They still wipe the area with alcohol. Why? So they do not get out of practice. If you always use the do not point rule with either a loaded or unloaded gun. It will never be pointed at a person. Until it is the correct time to do so. Indeed you are very informative and skilled at what you do. Also about finger in the trigger hole. If you look. The ones that use trigger finger rule. Those are more than likely true gun people. Alec Baldwin is a very large anti gun democrat. Yet makes a lot of his money with a gun in movies. In any case. Either you like guns or not. If you are going to use them in a movie. Prop or not. You should be required to take a gun safety class if you are not a gun person and if a gun person, you should demonstrate to the set managers or what ever. That you know what you are doing with a firearm. Dynamite is some very dangerous stuff, unless in the proper hands. Guns are the same way. Neither one cares what color you are, how much money you make or how popular you are. Pull the trigger or lite the fuse and it does it's job.
As the Alec Baldwin case progresses please keep us informed with your expertise and knowledge Thank You BB
"...reckless beyond any imagination." Two years on now, we know what happened, and we know that you were quite correct. And two of the three who are responsible are getting off essentially scott-free, while the third is going to take the fall for then entire incident. Whether or not she sees any jail time, I can't say at this point, but the person who set the safety rules on set and actually pulled the trigger has cast himself as a victim in all this and isn't even facing charges any more. Travesty.
I summarize and order the four rules thus: Trigger Discipline, Target Verification, Weapon Verification, and Aiming/Pointing Discipline. Aiming Discipline is a redundancy for Trigger Discipline and Weapon Verification and helps cover gaps in compliance, and also helps project an image of safety, responsibility, and non-threat to others.
Finally some expert to quote from. I've already told the same to anyone who did or did not want to hear it but it's still better if I can point to a real source thumbs up.
I’m glad you said never point a gun at something you aren’t ready to kill or destroy. Not enough people understand that. I personally feel that particular wording is very important as it emphasizes how dangerous firearms can be
Always professional. Love your content.
Was on a range for IDPA training. A person was told to put the magazine in the weapon and lock and load.... The person had their finger on the trigger and thankfully, the pistol discharged down range and not at the rest of us. They were banned from the range after that. I always practice keeping my finger off the trigger. When doing daily chores, like using a squirt bottle to clean windows, I keep my finger to the side until I go to clean something, then dirt and grime are my enemy. The same can be applied to firearms.
This is why i like your channel. Always to the point.
You Are Absolutely 100 % + Right on this point. it is imperative and Crucial to be Aware of what you do at all times. and keep your Mind ahead of your hands by 2 steps as you should. good work.
Great video ! Really informative and well explained. I wish everyone, but really everyone, would look at it ! Complimenti !!!
Not a misfire. Not a prop gun. Not a "failure" This is a negligent discharge and involuntary homicide. That was a real gun used as a prop, not the other way. This was negligence, not a failure.
This was a very informative and interesting video, thank you. I would be interested to know your thoughts on the potential dangers of blank cartridges, I'm not sure if you've touched on it before. I live in the UK and run a living history group where most members have no firearms experience. At some point we're likely to use blank firing weapons and I know at short range the discharge can be harmful, I think both from crimped and wadded cases. What are your thoughts on this? Usually I advise for any demonstration members of the group never cross ahead of another without making them aware first and never without say 10m between them. I have no idea if that's good advice or not, and as we're yet to work with blanks, I've not been in a position to ask the armourer.
this was my second thought when hearing about this after "how in the world did live rounds even get on set" was "why was he pointing the gun at her anyway even if he thought it was firing blanks"
1:40 I personally feel as though this was the pivotal element in Baldwin's case - he was using a type of firearm he was unfamiliar with prior to this film (a fixed cylinder loading gate revolver) and lacked sufficient instruction and/or diligence in proper inspection. This doesn't mean that all of the contributing facts aren't relevant or important, just that this element of the case is the most proximate to the given outcome.
I recently watched Heat and something I noticed was the trigger discipline. The actors were absolutely great at it. But in a few scenes they seem to have forgotten and I instantly noticied it every time. I have not even shot a gun before but seeing that was so strange when comparing it to what they were doing moments before. Though, unfortunately, if one is making an period piece and wants to be completely accurate they can not have proper trigger discipline…but in that case they should make sure that several people have checked and cleared the firearm and that it is only ever pointed in a safe direction when not being fired. Or just have trigger discipline and do not care about historical accuracy when it comes to safety.
Good video :) At about 4:05 there's a good example of trigger safety...Gibsons correct, Glover not so much
What’s to learn? For those of us familiar with guns and gun handling, follow the 4 precepts and nobody gets hurt. If those had been followed on the movie set, no one would be reading this. As it is, one person won’t so much “Rust” as “mold.”
My thoughts exactly thanks for covering this!
To me the mistake was made by the On Set Armorer that put in the hand of an actor (usually untrained about how a really gun works, and he does what the director tells him what to do) a loaded gun with live ammo. On a movie set should NEVER EVER allowed to be real ammo, but only blanks and dummy cartridges. Also a good Armorer should train the actors not to point the guns to each others but to point them at an angle, so on camera will look like they are pointing a gun but in reality isn't, so the gasses and flames that come from the muzzle of the gun will not hurt the skin or face of the acror. Anyway I really like your videos. A fellow gun enthusiast from the same country - Italy. Ciao!!!
According to some reports members of the crew were using the same gun for plinking - with live ammo - during breaks in the filming.
@@R32R38 do you have a source? That would be interesting
There are times that directors want to point a gun directly at a camera. With a revolver, you can see the bullets at the front of the cylinder when you do that, so you need some dummy rounds that look real. Also for any scene loading a firearm.
@@ScottKenny1978 Which is why ANY non-armorer approved ammo have no place in set, and he has to verify type of ammo EVERY time gun is used or transfered to someone else, as well as check it every time it was left alone, loaded or not. Actors dont have to know how to use guns, so someone else (armorer) is here to do it for them.
Why is there a live round on a film set at the first place?
great video, those are the golden rules to prevent accidents, sadly there is people that doesnt practice them. from my experience one time i was shooting a pistol and i thought that i used all the bullets, then just for safety I make a last shot and for my surprise there was still a bulet on the chamber, lesson learnd never be overconfident because of your experience.
From what I've seen, people with extensive experience with firearms will follow the 'finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target' rule with anything that has a trigger, and even some things that just have a pistol grip, all out of sheer habit. I have a slingshot with a pistol grip and my index finger stays flat against the frame, even though it doesn't have a trigger. The rule is so ingrained in me that any other way of holding it feels uncomfortable and unnatural. I've seen other people display the same habit. For example, while working retail, some of my coworkers would keep their finger off the trigger of the scan-gun between uses and those things don't even have a trigger guard.
Jep, I always look like a total idiot when walking around the lab, holding the heat gun with my finger straight along the side. Or the electric drill at home for that matter.
One of those videos that definitely should be seen by way more people.
"he was handed the gun and told it was cold." I was handed the keys to an e-car. I was told the battery was dead. I willfully aimed the car at someone. The battery was in fact charged. Had I not aimed the car at someone, in violation of the rules for safely operating a motor vehicle, the result would not have been harmful. I am in fact responsible for the harm caused by me aiming a motor vehicle at a person. "nobody gives out a gun except the Armorer, but in this case[,] the AD handed it out" Also, the person who handed me the keys was not authorized to use the car nor to approve others to use the car, but I violated industry safety standards and accepted the car keys. I knowingly and willfully violated safety protocols for access to the car. I willfully aimed the car, which I was not authorized to use, at another person. I am at fault.
Simple and straight to the Point. Nice
A well-written and presented explanation, well done.
Thanks for a much needed PSA. I could not agree more.
Excellent video. 🤠
One thing a lot of people miss: Rust was going to be a western. That means it's likely Baldwin also had to bull back the hammer in addition to bad trigger handling. SA/DAs existed, and cheap Belgian examples would likely have been more common than civilian SAAs historically, but I doubt a low budget film (as Rust is reported to have been) would bother when SAA replicas are plentiful and pre-1900 DA revolvers are not (excluding the Model 10 that barely makes pre-1900 and has been updated enough it doesn't count anyways).
Hmm, yes, not many double-action revolvers in 1880s Kansas. Not zero- apparently DAs were available from the 1850s- but not popular and outnumbered by single action.
Great video!
Thank you!
Real Firearms capable of firing real cartridges have absolutely no place in the film industry.
i cant believe Alec isnt being charged with manslaughter.. he was handing the gun so he was ultimately responsible to make sure it was safe and handled correctly regardless of what he was told about the safety state of the gun.. and from what ive read it wasn't the first or even second accidental discharge on the set
Well done, thank you.
100% agree with your educated guess, but one nuance about firearms safety filming movies - sometimes pointing a gun ("prop" or otherwise) at someone you're not willing to kill is the goal. This means further precautions need to be taken for those scenes to replace that rule. Now pointing a gun at someone to practice a scene...
Those should be practiced with rubber dummies. Think "blue guns" like people use for training. Just not blue so you can use them in the backgrounds of films.
'prop' literally means 'theatrical property'. it is not a reference to a fake, no matter how msm is trying to spin it.
@@michelguevara151 i think that some of the confusion is because most of the guns you see in movies are not real (especially something like Star Wars). They're rubber or resin copies in the correct shape. Again, think of the blue guns for training, but imagine it's black so you can use it in a background shot.
I was looking forward to this, thank you! I still don't get how far (or close) a prop gun is to a real gun. I read a couple of articles but they mostly mention ammunition, I see no difference from an actual gun.
A prop gun can be several different things with varying relationships to "real" firearms. Very quick summary 1. A rubber/wood/foam 'chunk of stuff' in the shape of a gun, painted to look somewhat real. Often used when running with guns as falling on metal hurts (also when using it as a striking weapon for obvious reasons). 2. A mixture of actual firearm parts and "artistic" additions, see Han Solo's laser pistol for an example. These sometimes also fit into category 3 (IE, they may still be able to chamber and fire some form of cartridge). 3. What are, for all intents and purposes, fully functional firearms designed to fire blanks, often with modifications to allow cycling with such low backpressure. Some of these are really just 100% functional weapons but being used in a movie with blanks makes them a prop gun by usage rather than design, if that makes sense. It's this category which leads to accidents on set (not just this incident, Brandon Lee (squib bullet left in barrel propelled by a blank) and Jon-Erik Hexum (too-expertly mimicking suicide with a blank firing gun) are other notable examples.
Prop is a word used in film (and I believe theater) for anything needed for the show that isn't clothes or set. Clothing falls under "costume department" and sets falls into another department that i forget the name of. It can be a live firearm. Why? They're a lot cheaper than a purpose built can-only-fire-blanks gun. Order of magnitude cheaper. They can also have a bunch of stuff added to them, like all of the original trilogy Star Wars blasters, but they're still live firearms. It can be airsoft. I believe that most of the scenes in John Wick were filmed with airsoft guns. It can be a purpose built can-only-fire-blanks gun. Some "machine guns", usually stuff from WW2 because of the reenactors, is set up so that it takes .22 blanks but are loaded backwards or something so it cannot be used to fire live ammo. And it can be a chunk of rubber painted to look like a gun. Obviously, in this case it was a live firearm.
for me, the reason why you should treat any gun as if it's loaded is to build a habit.
I could not add another word. You said it all and said it well.
Thank you.
This was not an accident, it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the armorer, the director, producer, and the star! Safety first!
But money firster
It’s been a while. Hello again
thank you
My late grandmother had a saying,"Always treat a gun as loaded, even if you did make it safe and never left your person, ie holding it, as the devil will always find a way to load it."
The armorer and propmaster are responsible for the firearms used in a film production. There should only be two kinds of ammunition on the set: blanks and dummies. Live rounds don't belong. The actors hit their marks and deliver their lines and follow the directions in the script and try to make it look convincing, they are not responsible for checking what the firearms are loaded with. Again, that's the job of the armorer and propmaster. You may have some other ideas about how this works, but you'd be wrong.
I've heard it said that having live ammunition anywhere near a movie set is gross negligence. That's one more layer of common sense that had to be ignored for this to happen.
I am from the UK so most of my experience is .22LR and shotguns. But if this happened in the UK the armorer responsible for the guns on set would be charged for manslaughter and would immediately loose any firearms related license they own and all the weapons they have. Whoever was the armorer clearly was grossly incompetent.
Very well said
Very well said!
update on this now that more info has come out?
Some great advice I once heard that I don't hear repeated enough. Don't "treat every gun as if it were loaded." Instead, understand that every gun _is_ loaded. Loaded is not a state dictated by whether or not the gun has bullets in it, it's a state dictated by whether or not you have _personally_ and _thoroughly_ ensured that it doesn't have bullets in it. If you have a gun in your hands, no matter who gave it to you or what they said, that gun _is_ loaded until you have personally made sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are no bullets in it. People keep saying not to blame Alec Baldwin but he literally pointed a loaded gun at someone. He did not personally check it therefore _it WAS loaded_ and he should have understood that it was loaded.
" accidents " can be useful 👌
What is that watch?
"...about as reliable as a chocolate teapot" I think I'm gonna start using that expression
Fantastic explanation of firearm safety rules! Outstanding!
2:55 Cumin and, in a separate instance, Cayenne in Oatmeal instead of Cinnamon XP
This guy's thinking is super-clear and his logic is extremely sound. He is well-spoken to boot (in a language that isn't even his first). Great video all the way around.
"You can't prevent something you don't know is exists." Very true
Unfortunately, movie sets use different safety rules/protocols because there are instances where the actor is to point the weapon at the camera to really "involve" the audience in the scene. That does mean pointing at who's behind the camera. Even though there are remotely operated cameras that would be able to avoid that, low budget movies would cut that corner. It sounds like this was one of those, as well as they were behind production, so all of Hollywood's safety rules were violated, as well. The armorer/weapons master didn't follow storage rules, weapons check rules, weapons labeling rules and the prop master violated the final check rule before giving it to him and declaring it "cold". Actors are not supposed to do a weapons check because the prop master hands it to the actor as the prop master wants it configured for the scene, unlike what we know of safety rules off the movie set.
Good one, mate.
Great video. Kudos for making it.
Good representation as always. Finger inside trigger guard is not uncommon on historical photos and footage. 100 years ago safety rules was different, not sure if movie set in different era will look more realistic with everyone following modern rules. But the first rule still must be always followed: never point weapon in direction, where you dont want to shoot. This kind of rule applies to any dangerous machinery, the only difference with firearm is distance where it still dangerous. I still do not understand how filming crew could possibly bring live ammunition to the set. Want to film loading sequence - use specially inert cartriges. Im sure inert cartriges with non-functional primers and no powder is not too hard to obtain or made. Also there are blank-only guns with barrel plugged and chambers modified to take blank ammuniton only. They are pretty safe outside of point-blank range. If armorer scared of her own equipment (check interview) its good point to stop and find more professional person. Was helping to film short clip some time ago, had less-lethal Makarov on set. In sequence where actor was pointing gun to another person pistol had striker removed just to be sure.
"Reckless beyond imagination" is also supported by reports from the set BEFORE the shooting - the main crew was actually on strike at the time, citing poor pay, exhausting hours and - crucially - lacking safety. The producers, rather than listen to the union, hired non-union crew, including the armorer, for those same fatiguing shifts that inherently breed mistakes. Alec Baldwin, as a producer, is culpable in the sense he refused to listen to the concerned crew. This also threw the film industry into a debate on whether guns that can fire real bullets should even be allowed on-set, and honestly, I agree that they shouldn't considering it's part of a film set to point these things at people. Even blank-fire-only guns can be fatal, and CGI muzzle flashes are ridiculously easy to do - and cheap considering the shots are usually touched up anyway (including often replacing real muzzle flashes cause they weren't caught on camera properly). All the guns in John Wick are non-firing replicas and airsofts, so even on lower budgets they can easily be done well.
The problem with purely CGI shots/muzzle flashes are that the actors can never get close to a realistic representation of recoil. Most of the time it looks like a child with a finger gun. Before this I thought they only ever used blank only firearms for some fairly obvious reasons. But alas it is Hollywood, what can you expect?
@@clarkdl1997 Blanks don't have anywhere near the right amount of recoil as real shots either, though. Newton's third law. I think airsofts have very comparable recoil to blanks, in fact. Really, that's just an issue of actor training, or lack thereof. I think that's why John Wick mostly just forgoes fake recoil, just holding the guns still-ish is less distracting and Keanu did a ton of action match-style shooting to prep for the role.
@@Tedris4 Keanu apparently decided that the action match stuff is so fun he has a range at his house now.
there is an old saying in my neck of the woods which roughly translates to "the devil might load it"
0:58 i sottotitoli sono più pignoli: Aggiungono anche "have been" prima di 'violated' 😊