That's kind of a moot question. Because in a normal film set for that purpose they likely would be given a super-fake gun that can't be fired (with or without blanks), and the barrel and the magazine would probably be welded shut. In effect, it would be a gun-shaped piece of steel.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Baldwin kills cinematographer.
- Thread starter Rafagon
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
While I was an extra in one film I don‘t have any experience to draw from. But color me skeptical that what you say is true. And if true then Baldwin is even more behind the eight ball.
I've spent thousands of hours on film sets. Not as an armourer, but also in a position where things can go very wrong. These things are normally talked scene by scene and arranged well in advance, permits need to be submitted to the local cops, risk assessment documents, method statements... "For this scene, on this day two months from now, we will need to use this weapon with serial number ######, and here's the paperwork for it". I know that armourers here often use replicas for extras, and weapons that have been rendered inert (eg that had a steel rod jammed into the barrel and are unable to be loaded) because they wouldn't require the same paperwork. For a scene with a Russian roulette where they point it at their heads I assume that's what they'd use because of course it would never shoot on camera. For when they absolutely need to have weapons shoot, there are weapons machined to slightly different calibers that can't shoot real ammo, etc. I guess the US has so many guns that real weapons are cheaper than controlled dedicated weapons, so they are more lax about it. It also seems that movie set was like the Wild West when it comes to using weapons, but if it's anything like Europe (and from reading industry guidelines it is supposed to be) the armourer still bears most responsibility. The actor is just expected to act, not to take care of the weapon safety. Here pretty much everything points in the direction of the armourer. Who pulled the trigger (and maybe even who gave him the weapon) is pretty much irrelevant: at the end of the day, there was a weapon with live ammo on set, and that's on the armourer. Here's it's unlikely that will be considered an accident, because the person in charge of weapon safety apparently was negligent (and the production company in charge should have fired them).
Last edited:
I agree that the ultimate responsibility is going to lie with the armourer unless they can prove that their authority was overridden (or ignored) by someone else, possibly the Assistant Director in this case.
It also shows the need for "defence in depth", with improved protocols for safety checks at every stage. I still like my idea of "proving clear" to the final user (the actor) because that closes the loop on any doubt. Personally, if someone handed me a firearm (on a range, at a gun show, in a store, or even in their own home) I would automatically treat it as if loaded, with a round in the chamber and the safety off and act accordingly - i.e. point in a safe direction, finger away from trigger, open the action, check the mag/chambers.
It's not completely unreasonable to expect actors using real firearms to have some basic firearms safety training, even if only to know how to recognize a loaded gun, and maybe this tragic incident will increase awareness of firearms safety for theatrical use.
I see several articles indicating real guns routinely in use on sets. Yes, where authenticity isn’t necessary plastic, wood, and firearms rendered inoperable are surely used. Clearly many filmmakers insist on using live prop guns, saying they more closely capture the sound and look of a weapon firing than computer-generated imaging. Not any more, I wager. We will see Halyna‘s Law ending it. And it’s long overdue.
Striving for Authenticity, Films Often Use Real Guns on Set (Published 2021)
Safety protocols for firearms on set are well established and straight forward, and injuries of any kind are rare.
Pressure mounts for ban on real guns in Hollywood after Baldwin set tragedy
The fatal shooting accident on the set of an Alec Baldwin movie has prompted calls for a ban on the use of real guns in TV shows and movies, with two producers already saying they will stop the practice.
Why use guns in making movies and TV show? Some in Hollywood are asking after Baldwin tragedy
One cinematographer calls the practice ‘archaic’ in the age of ‘readily available and inexpensive computer graphics.’
chicago.suntimes.com
I can see a "Director's Cut" à la Steven Spielberg's ET, with all the guns replaced by walkie-talkies, or other innocuous objects. Imagine Dirty Harry pulling out his cell-phone from his shoulder holster...."dial my number, punk!"I see several articles indicating real guns routinely in use on sets. Yes, where authenticity isn’t necessary plastic, wood, and firearms rendered inoperable are surely used. Clearly many filmmakers insist on using live prop guns, saying they more closely capture the sound and look of a weapon firing than computer-generated imaging. Not any more, I wager. We will see Halyna‘s Law ending it. And it’s long overdue.
Striving for Authenticity, Films Often Use Real Guns on Set (Published 2021)
Safety protocols for firearms on set are well established and straight forward, and injuries of any kind are rare.www.nytimes.com
Pressure mounts for ban on real guns in Hollywood after Baldwin set tragedy
The fatal shooting accident on the set of an Alec Baldwin movie has prompted calls for a ban on the use of real guns in TV shows and movies, with two producers already saying they will stop the practice.www.reuters.com
Why use guns in making movies and TV show? Some in Hollywood are asking after Baldwin tragedy
One cinematographer calls the practice ‘archaic’ in the age of ‘readily available and inexpensive computer graphics.’
Seems like an odd double standard? Why a non-functional prop for an actor to point towards him/herself yet not require that for pointing towards another person?
I don't have a problem with "real guns" on a film set.
But I do have a problem when someone brings "real bullets" to a film set. It's careless and unnecessary.
I used to work at a wild-west theme park with a train robbery show. Cowboys and indians, all that jazz.
Gun safety was very important. Everyone who handled guns went through training... the guns were checked out in the morning and locked back up at night... you never gave your gun to someone else... etc.
These were real guns.
But guess what... NO REAL BULLETS. Only blanks.
Thousands of blanks were shot every day. At a children's theme park.
But I do have a problem when someone brings "real bullets" to a film set. It's careless and unnecessary.
I used to work at a wild-west theme park with a train robbery show. Cowboys and indians, all that jazz.
Gun safety was very important. Everyone who handled guns went through training... the guns were checked out in the morning and locked back up at night... you never gave your gun to someone else... etc.
These were real guns.
But guess what... NO REAL BULLETS. Only blanks.
Thousands of blanks were shot every day. At a children's theme park.
Or Dirty Harry in a foot chase down Lombard yelling, “STOP….or i’ll….I’ll…I’ll yell stop again ... and really mean it!”
The problem with proving clear that many gun owners aren't acknowledging is that often the guns are supposed to be loaded when handed to the actor. Either with blanks in a hot gun or dummies in a cold gun, so again, the usual rules of gun safety aren't adequate. When using dummies or blanks the cast and crew have to trust the armourer, otherwise everyone's unloading and reloading all the time, increasing the chances of a mixup.
We don't know if Baldwin's gun was supposed to have dummies, so it's possible that an extra check would have saved lives in this case, but what also would have saved lives is a ban on live ammo, and a requirement that the armour check any weapon before it goes on set. Those rules exist already - the armourer evidently ignored them and the AD might have known that.
Last edited:
What the common safety practice is on the Rust set is yet to be determined but it seems the safety practice of a few actual actors conflict with your vast professional experience and statement.
Kirstie Alley
@kirstiealley
No AD yells “COLD GUN” The armourer or prop person is supposed to PERSONALLY show you the gun so you can see it is empty for yourself. Then I dry fire it into the ground. I have NEVER been handed a gun by an AD & I’ve been handed 100 guns & I’ve never heard “COLD gun” in 40 years
Carl Marino
@carlmarino1
I used a a handgun every day on the set of my show for 9 years. No one ever used those terms. The actors always checked their weapons themselves no matter what anyone on set told them.
Adam Baldwin
@AdamBaldwin
“Cold Weapon/s! Cold Weapon/s On Set!” is most common declaration made when practical firearm/s brought on set. It is at this time when the bearer of weapon/s displays it/them with open, empty breach/es or cylinder/s and flashlight shone through barrel/s.
Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times. “There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member said. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”
That's what I've been saying from the beginning: that the armourer is always supposed to give the weapon directly to the actor, not the AD or anyone else. Why Baldwin accepted it from the AD, I don't know. As for the practice of dry firing it, it's good if they work with real weapons (although I guess with a revolver it could still pose a problem). Alley also says she's never heard "cold gun", whereas Adam Baldwin says it's common, so I guess YMMV and practices vary between sets/states. In any case, the person responsible for having a loaded gun on set is again the armourer.What the common safety practice is on the Rust set is yet to be determined but it seems the safety practice of a few actual actors conflict with your vast professional experience and statement.
Kirstie Alley
@kirstiealley
No AD yells “COLD GUN” The armourer or prop person is supposed to PERSONALLY show you the gun so you can see it is empty for yourself. Then I dry fire it into the ground. I have NEVER been handed a gun by an AD & I’ve been handed 100 guns & I’ve never heard “COLD gun” in 40 years
Carl Marino
@carlmarino1
I used a a handgun every day on the set of my show for 9 years. No one ever used those terms. The actors always checked their weapons themselves no matter what anyone on set told them.
Adam Baldwin
@AdamBaldwin
“Cold Weapon/s! Cold Weapon/s On Set!” is most common declaration made when practical firearm/s brought on set. It is at this time when the bearer of weapon/s displays it/them with open, empty breach/es or cylinder/s and flashlight shone through barrel/s.
Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times. “There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member said. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”
Last edited:
I’m trying to recall a show where Alley handled a gun. I only remember her in Cheers.
Maybe she was handed 100 guns in deleted scenes of Look who's talking?
In any case, Marino too says that no one has ever said those terms, so who knows.
A report today says he was handed a gun, described as “cold” by the Armorer (in charge of weapons on a set) so he could practise drawing it from a holster to shoot it. He just happened to be pointing it in the direction of the cinematographer. What got my attention, according to Hollywood Set Rules, there is to be no live ammo on a set. This will probably weigh on him. Now if I had been him, I would have checked it myself before pointing it in anyone’s direction. ?
Last edited:
I still think there is no reason that an Actor should be held responsible for an accidental discharge of a weapon onset, period (unless they brought their private weapon and that is the weapon that discharged).
I work in the healthcare industry, and we model our safety protocols off of the aviation industry. A failure like this is a systems issue. There never should have been a gun that can actually fire onset. If for some silly reason there has to be actual weapons (I see this changing as a result of this terrible outcome), there should never be ammo that can fire from that weapon on the same set.
There are too many different guns out there, an Actor should not be responsible in anyway for ensuring a gun is not loaded with live ammo. If you add that to a safety checklist, they now have to be an expert on that specific weapon (make, customizations, ammo).
What happens if there is an accidental discharge (leading to an injury) during an Actor's ammo check?
Don't setup the system to fail... The human factor needs to be a large part of all processes, Actors are not weapons experts, and should NEVER be put in a situation where they are responsible for becoming one.
Even if the Actor IS an expert, while they are working onset, they are an employee of an industry, that industry should treat them like they are not an expert, and NEVER allow a system to exist where they need to be...
I work in the healthcare industry, and we model our safety protocols off of the aviation industry. A failure like this is a systems issue. There never should have been a gun that can actually fire onset. If for some silly reason there has to be actual weapons (I see this changing as a result of this terrible outcome), there should never be ammo that can fire from that weapon on the same set.
There are too many different guns out there, an Actor should not be responsible in anyway for ensuring a gun is not loaded with live ammo. If you add that to a safety checklist, they now have to be an expert on that specific weapon (make, customizations, ammo).
What happens if there is an accidental discharge (leading to an injury) during an Actor's ammo check?
Don't setup the system to fail... The human factor needs to be a large part of all processes, Actors are not weapons experts, and should NEVER be put in a situation where they are responsible for becoming one.
Even if the Actor IS an expert, while they are working onset, they are an employee of an industry, that industry should treat them like they are not an expert, and NEVER allow a system to exist where they need to be...
In case anyone is wondering how Mr Baldwin is - he recently retweeted a NYT story regarding the release of the second search warrant affidavit.
Don’t worry, it’s doubtful Baldwin the actor will be criminally charged.
It’s also doubtful, although slightly less, he will be criminally charged as a producer.
Assuming there will be a civil case, Baldwin the actor and producer is in jeopardy. The insurance companies had better prepare.
Lastly, I disagree with you on “…there is no reason that an Actor should be held responsible for an accidental discharge of a weapon onset…“.
Criminal charges depend on the specific facts of each situation. All that can be said here is you don’t feel Baldwin (the actor) is criminally responsible based on the specific set of facts in this incident as you know them. The next on set accident will have a different set of facts warranting an independent review along with a thorough and legally defensible conclusion.
Last edited:
I disagree with this part.
The actor is handed the weapon and should only be expected to "act".
Having a minimally trained actor trained to "check, unload and clear a firearm" will encourage this action on set. This will lead to double loaded rounds and possibly many more injuries at worst or at best tons of wasted money when the gun does not go off as expected during filming a very expensive action scene due to a failure to charge the weapon properly.
KISS is best, leave the experts to do their jobs. Actor acting, directors directing, craft services making the incredible guacamole, ect.
I cannot agree more with this.
As you say, there shouldn't be live ammo on-set, so that should never happen, right? Particularly since the proper process for checking a firearm is that it is pointed away from anyone as it's being checked.
So if an actor doesn't follow the process - accept firearms only from the armorer as has been described by others - they bear no responsibility at all for the result of ignoring the process?
If there are no weapons that can fire onset, it doesn't matter who hands the Actor the weapon... (Either mock guns, or no live ammo). It is a system issue.
The process should be ensuring there are no other weapons available for the Actor to touch, and monitoring all items brought on set.
The system should never allow for an actor to touch a fire'able weapon. If there is a way for it to happen, the system protocols were not adequate.
It would not be that hard to check the load of a revolver. And my understanding is that blanks look distinctly different than regular bullets that have a bullet projectile sticking out of the end of them. This is just one example:
Blank
Hurt you bullets
Last edited:
Proper process design for avoiding adverse events:
- acknowledges that humans are human and that we make errors
- acknowledges that humans sometimes think we needn't follow process "just this one time"
Therefore - no matter what policies you put in place, there exists a real risk of a fully functioning firearm being substituted for an inert replica either by error or by intent.
A proper process surrounding these firearms/replicas would ensure that any substitution (break from proper process) is identified and corrected before someone is injured/killed.
Since you've stated you don't think the actor need be a participant in identifying if he or she is handed a loaded fully functional firearm, what is the process you envision that would ensure the safety of whomever the actor is pointing the supposed replica towards when the trigger is pulled?
Last edited:
Yes, blanks are very distinct, as you picture. They're also not completely safe as there's often wadding which can cause injury if the blank is fired too closely to someone.
With a revolver you might also need to use dummy bullets for some scenes since you want the "business end" to look right in the open end of the cylinder. These are also very easily distinguished by the lack of a primer. No primer = nothing can go bang. Exception being 22cal rimfire cartridges with the primer in the rim, those dummy rounds tend to have a hole in the middle as well.
Last edited:
I'm not a film expert. So, I'm not the best person to ask this to. I just think that if we are relying on or allowing the failure point to be an Actor, the system will fail.
If it is simply that only one person should hand the Actor a gun, and someone else hands it to the Actor, the failure point is how was someone else able to hand the Actor the weapon?
An Actor should be acting, they should not be responsible for who hands them something, or should not be expected to be knowledgeable about a weapon, IMHO the process failed.
I bet if I was walking on set and trying to walk up to Bladwin, I would have been stopped... So obviously they do have some control on who has access to him...
People who's careers involve them carrying live guns, typically have extensive training on that specific gun. They get annual recertification, and have to demonstrate proficiency with that gun. If you are going to expect an Actor to do this with each weapon they touch, then and only then should they be responsible for verifying the weapon.