Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
28,733 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So Alec Baldwin's negligent shooting of a woman on-set is still burning up the internet. I'll let other people debate Baldwin himself and his actions is some other thread (not this one). But one thing is clear, there is a lack of training and understanding of the 4 basic rules of gun safety. Let's take this opportunity to review them. They're easy.







Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,090 Posts
To paraphrase
1. Every gun is loaded. Period
2. Booger hook off the bang switch
3. Don't sweep me (or anyone else)
4. Know what yer shootin at and what's behind it.
Lather, rinse, repeat. It ain't rocket science
 

·
King of you Monkeys
Up down
Joined
·
20,093 Posts
Its a tragedy that was so easily avoidable. As the shooter he is completely to blame. Welcome to the world of killers Alec you got your wish.
Sleeve Font Electric blue Photo caption Event
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,185 Posts
So. You are all saying no more action movies, no more westerns, no more military movies?

Seriously.....someone want to explain how you’re supposed to make a movie that involves pointing guns at people and pulling the trigger, without violating at least one of those rules.....which were NEVER meant to apply to movies or toy guns in the first place?

I’m really tired of the brainwashed Fudd blame game. Those rules are not and never will be the answer to this situation.

Not saying the asshat isn’t responsible. But the FACT is, it is LITERALLY his JOB to violate one of those rules.

The safety rules for a movie set are NOT those rules. It’s possible that he, and it’s CERTAIN that his employees, failed to follow the standards or rules of the profession. He, at a minimum, bears responsibility for hiring incompetent help to supervise the guns.

But the idea that Cooper’s rules of gun handling apply here is utterly ridiculous, and the fact that people keep taking that superior tone as they pretend that toy guns and movies should follow the Gospel of Saint Cooper is doing the gun community no small disservice, and making us look like the hypocritical bigots the left says we are.

In the entire history of guns in movies, over almost 100 years, there have been 3 deaths. The Fudds kill or injure more that that every hunting season, and the rules actually DO apply to them.

So let’s stop the sanctimonious repetition of the dogma, and think for a moment.

Those rules don’t apply.
It’s stupid to repeat the false idea that they do.
Concentrating on a falsehood gets in the way of the TRUTH, and makes it harder to get justice, or to fix the “problem”, which is barely a problem as long as competent people are hired.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,090 Posts
@ajole - "which is barely a problem as long as competent people are hired." Which is perhaps the biggest problem here. I do, however, disagree with you idea that the rules of firearm safety don't apply on movie sets. First, keeping your finger off the trigger will in no way I can think of interfere with the realism (if that even exists) in a movie. As for pointing movie guns at people, there are two solutions, both of which were apparently violated here. 1) Don't point the gun at people - right, left, high - movie makers use this all the time. 2) If the scene calls for - MUST have - a gun pointed at a person, use a dummy gun, an inert replica. I also see no problem in treating every movie gun as if it is loaded, which, indeed, is the idea in most movies. So,no, it is not "LITERALLY his JOB to violate one of those rules", nor was it his job to have live ammunition on the set. He may not be guilty of murder, but negligent homicide or manslaughter should certainly be on the table
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rerun

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,185 Posts
@ajole - "which is barely a problem as long as competent people are hired." Which is perhaps the biggest problem here. I do, however, disagree with you idea that the rules of firearm safety don't apply on movie sets. First, keeping your finger off the trigger will in no way I can think of interfere with the realism (if that even exists) in a movie. As for pointing movie guns at people, there are two solutions, both of which were apparently violated here. 1) Don't point the gun at people - right, left, high - movie makers use this all the time. 2) If the scene calls for - MUST have - a gun pointed at a person, use a dummy gun, an inert replica. I also see no problem in treating every movie gun as if it is loaded, which, indeed, is the idea in most movies. So,no, it is not "LITERALLY his JOB to violate one of those rules", nor was it his job to have live ammunition on the set. He may not be guilty of murder, but negligent homicide or manslaughter should certainly be on the table
I have to disagree. I notice all the time when fake guns don’t cycle, or safeties are on but the gun “fires”. So yes...not having a finger in the trigger will make a difference.
And fake inert guns pointed at people is nifty....unless you want the gun to cycle as you shoot the person you are pointed at.

And yes...it IS his job to perform the scene. If the scene is to point a gun at someone....he has to actually do so. That’s his job. It’s done countless times in movies and TV shows, and 99.9% of the time, it’s not a problem, because of the fake guns, the ways they cut scenes, and the excellent work done by good prop masters and armorers.

But tell me....how are you going to film John Wick without breaking Coopers rules? You can’t do it.

And Colion Noir is full of crap on this as well. Yeah, he’s a lawyer. But he’s simply parroting the dogma.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,185 Posts
Every single person who handled that gun that day was inexperienced.
Any actor who handles guns on movies, even for just one scene, should go through a safety course to learn to respect them.
Yep. That might have helped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
... And Colion Noir is full of crap on this as well. Yeah, he’s a lawyer. But he’s simply parroting the dogma.
Nah. He's right. If Baldwin had simply taken and followed the rules of an NRA Basic Gun Safety Course this woman's life would have been spared. But he is so rabidly anti-gun he couldn't even do that. IMO that is going to be the main lesson taken from this tragedy. The rest of the legal stuff will take years of trials and big money lawyers to sort out. But the lesson is that Baldwin didn't personally clear the weapon. He may skate on this and certainly he's retained big dollar lawyers to make that happen, but I don't care if Lord Jesus himself handed me a revolver, semi-auto, or single shot scattergun, basic gun safety dictates that I personally check and/or clear the weapon for my own and others safety. If you don't people can die. Case in point.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
28,733 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
So. You are all saying no more action movies, no more westerns, no more military movies?

Seriously.....someone want to explain how you’re supposed to make a movie that involves pointing guns at people and pulling the trigger, without violating at least one of those rules.....which were NEVER meant to apply to movies or toy guns in the first place?
Sure. Apparently you don't actually point the pop guns at people, at least according to the movie professionals who get paid to do this stuff.

Here's a link to Tom Gresham's "Gun Talk" show where, "A gun handler with credits on several movies explains the safety protocols used, and speculates on what happened with the Alec Baldwin tragedy."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rerun

·
Administrator
Joined
·
28,733 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
He may not be guilty of murder, but negligent homicide or manslaughter should certainly be on the table
According to Self Defense attorney Andrew Branca, he could potentially be brought up on charges because it fits the statutory definition.

Here's the yootoob video of his discussion about it:

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
I think people just lose sight of how dangerous firearms can be. It's natural to view them as just another object, I think even most anti-gun people do this, but they aren't. When you are around them all the time, even for a few days, weeks, months, they lose a lot of their mystery and people tend to start disregarding the most basic precautions. It's no different than when you first learn to drive a car and the first few times you're so nervous because you're concerned about hitting something/someone, or being hit. After a few days or weeks, you're a borderline habitual reckless driver. Apparently it was a revolver and I saw a statement that the guy who gave Baldwin the gun failed to check all of the cylinders before handing the gun to him. The main failure of standard gun safety rules I see in this situation is that they all failed to assume the gun was loaded until proven otherwise.

The entire time I've been in military the official procedure has been to clear out a weapon every time it changes hands, or to treat it as though there is a live round in the chamber. I think the rest of the rules are nice (and certainly mandatory in the case of active range use), but ajole is correct, in some circumstances it isn't reasonable to not point firearms at other people you don't plan on shooting, etc. We do it for training all of the time. The difference is that we take precautions at every step to verify that the weapon is clear... that didn't happen in this case.

The armorer for this movie was inexperienced as far as her role in the film, but she apparently grew up within some form of "gun culture" (whatever that term means anymore). Someone on her team, maybe her, allowed those firearms to be used with live ammo off set (this has been confirmed) and then they were placed in a location where they could be accessed without having been properly cleared. The director(?) picked up the gun, didn't inspect the cylinder, declared it to be clear and handed it to Baldwin. Baldwin didn't clear it and took the word of the person who handed it to him that it was not loaded. No one else around stopped the activity and suggested that the weapon be properly cleared either, so it was a group failure... I suspect due to complacency since they had been regularly exposed to these guns while filming and they failed to take them any more seriously than they would any other prop on set.

Negligent discharges and unintentional shootings occur all the time, even in less gun friendly countries, this one just happened to be a celebrity I think most of us strongly dislike. But some risks are assumed with the job of filming a movie with live firearms, blanks or not. Other than reducing complacency, enforcing proper custodial procedures, and not contaminating the set with live ammo, I'm not sure what would have been effective at preventing this incident.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,499 Posts
For me, it’s as simple as the person touching a firearm (assumed fake or not) is responsible for making sure it’s not loaded with real ammo.

He failed to do that.

Once that’s done, go ahead and use it as a movie prop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rerun

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,059 Posts
I suspect the Armorer girl will have a lot to answer for. Seems she screwed up on her last film with Nicholas Cage also.

Face Cloud Sky Musician String instrument




 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,185 Posts
According to Self Defense attorney Andrew Branca, he could potentially be brought up on charges because it fits the statutory definition.

Here's the yootoob video of his discussion about it:

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Sure. And according to other legal experts, the Kyle Rittenhouse obvious self defense case fit the statutory definition of a few different illegal things.

Except....it doesn’t. Even Colion Noir knows that.

And again...”brought up on charges” is a pretty nebulous term. He should OBVIOUSLY be brought up on charges or at least castigated in the industry for hiring an inept armorer and allowing people on his project to break lots of industry standards. Maybe even negligent homicide or manslaughter in the courts. Civil suit for darned sure.

But unless there is something we don’t know, it wasn’t murder, and I still say you cannot apply the gospel of Cooper to every single situation.
 

·
ROLL wif Da MOLE!
Joined
·
26,665 Posts
Ajole, rarely do you make disagree, but I totally do on this one. The 4 RULES STILL APPLY until the Director yells ACTION and the clacker thing is clicked.

I also read where the Hollywood firearms expert said the 4 rules of Cooper apply too, amd he's in the industry.

This heffing thing here: View attachment 74058
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top