Prop weapons & personal responsibility

[MurderousCrow]

I'd like to make clear - this post is not intended to get into the specifics of the deeply unfortunate incident involving Alec Baldwin. It's a sensitive topic and there's much that's not known. What does seem clear however is that there was a poor safety culture in play on set, and that the wider film industry has failed to learn from previous lethal events.

I'm posting because I'm interested in what the discussion is revealing on other forums and media. I'm mystified at the level of feeling (in the UK at least) that he as an actor was not responsible in any way for the incident.

My instinct is that when a potentially lethal object / material / process is in use in a workplace, the system needs to be robust and include a requirement of basic competency on the end user. Many, many others disagree with me. I am ex-Forces and don't think it's an onerous expectation for the end user to be competent enough to differentiate between live rounds, cosmetic rounds, blanks and squibs.

What do people here feel?

 

[Donald72]

There's a number of issues in play here.

Alec Baldwin's outspoken political opinions make him deeply unpopular with about 38% of the population. And that 38% of the population is also the same segment of people who really like guns and really like talking about personal responsibility.
This is hardly the first fatal gun accident on a movie set. But AFAIK it is the first that involved someone who was already a political target. I suppose for we can pretend that John Wayne always verified that every single round in his Winchester/Colt .45/M1 was a blank before pointing it at another actor and pulling the trigger. And never mind that blanks are capable of killing people too.

I am assuming there will be an accident investigation report at some point and we'll know what happened. In the meantime all we can do is blame whoever we already don't like.

Second - Is it a "prop gun" if it can chamber and fire a live round that is capable of killing someone? Doesn't that just make it a "gun?"

 

[FarmerTan]

I'd like to make clear - this post is not intended to get into the specifics of the deeply unfortunate incident involving Alec Baldwin. It's a sensitive topic and there's much that's not known. What does seem clear however is that there was a poor safety culture in play on set, and that the wider film industry has failed to learn from previous lethal events.

I'm posting because I'm interested in what the discussion is revealing on other forums and media. I'm mystified at the level of feeling (in the UK at least) that he as an actor was not responsible in any way for the incident.

My instinct is that when a potentially lethal object / material / process is in use in a workplace, the system needs to be robust and include a requirement of basic competency on the end user. Many, many others disagree with me. I am ex-Forces and don't think it's an onerous expectation for the end user to be competent enough to differentiate between live rounds, cosmetic rounds, blanks and squibs.

What do people here feel?

Can't add anything to that.



Pray for her son and her husband. Ugh.

 

[Lightcs1776]

A top rule in firearm safety is to always verify the firearm is not loaded as soon as one takes possession. No exceptions. None. That is all I plan to say regarding this issue, as I don't know that anything further is needed.

 

[FarmerTan]

A top rule in firearm safety is to always verify the firearm is not loaded as soon as one takes possession. No exceptions. None. That is all I plan to say regarding this issue, as I don't know that anything further is needed.

You are correct. I'm deleting my unnecessary response.

 

[Lightcs1776]

You are correct. I'm deleting my unnecessary response.

I always appreciate opposing or validating opinions. In fact, as long as it is not presented in a spiteful or angry manner, I am open to listening to a variety of opinions. However, that said, I would be surprised if we disagree on much in life. You have my respect, my friend.

 

[AZBronco]

A top rule in firearm safety is to always verify the firearm is not loaded as soon as one takes possession. No exceptions. None. That is all I plan to say regarding this issue, as I don't know that anything further is needed.

I agree. Anyone who picks up a weapon capable of firing live rounds is responsible to know exactly what they have in their hands. In real life, there's no such thing as a "cold" weapon--all weapons should be assumed to be loaded and capable of firing until you've confirmed it yourself. I was also always taught to never point a weapon at another human being even if I believed it to be empty.

 

[FarmerTan]

I always appreciate opposing or validating opinions. In fact, as long as it is not presented in a spiteful or angry manner, I am open to listening to a variety of opinions. However, that said, I would be surprised if we disagree on much in life. You have my respect, my friend.

Ha! Yes, we do agree on the One thing that matters most.

This whole incident with my least favorite of the Baldwin Brothers made me drag my own soul out through my bellybutton and examine it.

I think the things I dislike about him are exactly the personality traits I most despise about myself.

This whole thing just proves we are all humans, and all humans are a heartbeat away from life as we know it here on Earth changing in an instant, in the blink of an eye.

 

[ChiefHA]

I always appreciate opposing or validating opinions. In fact, as long as it is not presented in a spiteful or angry manner, I am open to listening to a variety of opinions. However, that said, I would be surprised if we disagree on much in life. You have my respect, my friend.

I agree that one of the top rules in firearm safety is to verify if a firearm is loaded or not. However, in the instance of movie sets most of the actors assume they are using "prop" guns and probably do not understand the different types of "rounds" that are used depending on the scene. The responsibility lies with the armorer or prop-master verifying each type of round or load and instructing the actor on the safety aspects of each load. As a former Swat member who did fire arms safety checks during training evolutions I cannot understand the need for any live rounds on a set (our officers were required to secure all live rounds including extra magazines in their vehicles before entering the training/area). There are a number of actors who are proficient with fire arms and are very public about it (Halle Berry, Keanu Reeves) but there are others who are anti-gun and have no desire to learn about real firearms or training to use them. No matter who is responsible, at the end of the day a tragic event occurred that will alter a number of lives. The best we can hope for is a thorough investigation that determines the events that lead to the tragedy, so industry rules regarding weapons on sets can be changed to prevent the same tragedy for occurring again.

 

[Multum in parvo]

As someone active in shooting sports it is clear and well ingrained to check the condition of one’s arms before usage and going by Mr. Coopers rules. Being an actor (= sock puppet) - saying lines and acting /doing stuff one can not ascertain the same standards as for a shooting range be it hot or cold.

So there should be people to look at that stuff in order that the actor can do his job. Something in this line went wrong and soon we will know what happened. I have absolutely no opinion about Mr. Baldwin positive or negative but I wouldn’t judge him for not checking the condition of his weapon in such a specific case.

 

[nikonNUT]

Truly tragic. I feel for the poor cinematographers family and the director that is in critcal condition (yes... 2 people were shot) and that is all I am going to say...

 

[MurderousCrow]

There's a number of issues in play here.

Alec Baldwin's outspoken political opinions make him deeply unpopular with about 38% of the population. And that 38% of the population is also the same segment of people who really like guns and really like talking about personal responsibility.
This is hardly the first fatal gun accident on a movie set. But AFAIK it is the first that involved someone who was already a political target. I suppose for we can pretend that John Wayne always verified that every single round in his Winchester/Colt .45/M1 was a blank before pointing it at another actor and pulling the trigger. And never mind that blanks are capable of killing people too.

I am assuming there will be an accident investigation report at some point and we'll know what happened. In the meantime all we can do is blame whoever we already don't like.

Second - Is it a "prop gun" if it can chamber and fire a live round that is capable of killing someone? Doesn't that just make it a "gun?"

Re: your last point, I should have put prop in quotes.

On Baldwin's politics, that's not something I'd really considered too much - I don't follow Hollywood and US politics only affect me tangentially. I'm far from right-wing, but still don't see how there's no personal responsibility for the shooter. It just doesn't feel right to me.

 

[luvmysuper]

There's no reason on earth a firearm capable of chambering a live round should ever even be on a movie set.
"Realism" is the excuse that is used, but if you can suspend belief and imagine a well known actor as a spy, or a cop or a cowboy, you can suspend belief when there are no rounds visible in a wheel gun.
CGI technology is so advanced, there's no reason to have a functional firearm in an entertainment venue.

 

[MurderousCrow]

I agree that one of the top rules in firearm safety is to verify if a firearm is loaded or not. However, in the instance of movie sets most of the actors assume they are using "prop" guns and probably do not understand the different types of "rounds" that are used depending on the scene. The responsibility lies with the armorer or prop-master verifying each type of round or load and instructing the actor on the safety aspects of each load. As a former Swat member who did fire arms safety checks during training evolutions I cannot understand the need for any live rounds on a set (our officers were required to secure all live rounds including extra magazines in their vehicles before entering the training/area). There are a number of actors who are proficient with fire arms and are very public about it (Halle Berry, Keanu Reeves) but there are others who are anti-gun and have no desire to learn about real firearms or training to use them. No matter who is responsible, at the end of the day a tragic event occurred that will alter a number of lives. The best we can hope for is a thorough investigation that determines the events that lead to the tragedy, so industry rules regarding weapons on sets can be changed to prevent the same tragedy for occurring again.

Is it unreasonable / disproportionate to ask that actors using 'prop' weapons fulfil a basic firearms competency that will let them understand the type of weapons & ammunition they are using, what to look out for, and to be generally safe on set? The military and police train thousands of civilians to a good basic standard of firearm safety every year (recruits) so why can't actors be expected to attend a 2-day course every couple of years?

 

[MurderousCrow]

On the issue of deferment to expertise I think this needs closer examination. There's a correct place for expert input and oversight, but it can't negate the moral responsibility you hold (whether you like it or not) when you are operating something potentially lethal. Humans have a worrying tendency to conflate expertise with authority - in this context they are different in subtle but important ways. The infamous Milgram experiments in the early '60s showed how easily we can defer to authority. And the 1977 Tenerife airport crash is an example of failure to act in the absence of authority (dozens of people on the Pan-Am flight stayed frozen in their seats while escape was possible, and were consumed when the fire reached the main fuel tanks). The common factor is that authority can be so hard-baked into our consciousness that the concept of personal responsibility for oneself and others is diminished or lost.

There's a reason the people involved in such incidents feel so awful and will never be able to forget such a thing - it's because morally we all understand that the shooter or the driver or whatever holds a fundamental responsibility.

 

[ChiefHA]

Is it unreasonable / disproportionate to ask that actors using 'prop' weapons fulfil a basic firearms competency that will let them understand the type of weapons & ammunition they are using, what to look out for, and to be generally safe on set? The military and police train thousands of civilians to a good basic standard of firearm safety every year (recruits) so why can't actors be expected to attend a 2-day course every couple of years?

I do not disagree that it is not unreasonable / disproportionate to ask that actors using 'prop' weapons fulfil a basic firearms competency, but it is the responsibility of the producers directors of the project to provide that education and the willingness of actors to participate. That is why most employ armorers to handle there weapons to provide this training and education, But unfortunately depending on the willingness of the actors and the producers providing a budget to do this, it will never "always" happen. If you look at the training involved in the making of John Wick 3 you will see it goes above and beyond minimum familiarization.

 

[Multum in parvo]

Is it unreasonable / disproportionate to ask that actors using 'prop' weapons fulfil a basic firearms competency that will let them understand the type of weapons & ammunition they are using, what to look out for, and to be generally safe on set? The military and police train thousands of civilians to a good basic standard of firearm safety every year (recruits) so why can't actors be expected to attend a 2-day course every couple of years?

I’m far away from understanding how a movie is made but it is definitely not a continuous flow where you get your prop in the morning, shoot (the film) all day and hand it back in the evening. It might change numerous hands from scene to scene and take to take. So yes, in my personal view it would be disproportionate to check the gun at every scene as as an actor.

Personally I will check such a piece every time I get it into my hands but I’m not an actor. As @luvmysuper said, it’s hard to understand the need for a real weapon on a movie set. And yes blank firing guns are something to be carful about as well.

 

[MurderousCrow]

in my personal view it would be disproportionate to check the gun at every scene as as an actor.

Sorry but I don't agree on this point. I had to handle a firearm with live rounds as a routine part of my work. And yes unloading and loading and making safe multiple times a day was all a bit of a pain. But I didn't mind for the same reasons you don't. Lives are at risk.

 

[Multum in parvo]

Sorry but I don't agree on this point. I had to handle a firearm with live rounds as a routine part of my work. And yes unloading and loading and making safe multiple times a day was all a bit of a pain. But I didn't mind for the same reasons you don't. Lives are at risk.

Then it looks like we agree to disagree. The main point of an actor’s job is acting not gun handling as your job was definitely not „acting“ but „doing/preventing“ stuff.

If this would be about Moby Dick we would be discussing throwing a real harpoon vs. one with a rubber point. Yes it would be more obvious for the actor but a prop is a prop until it is the real thing.

 

[Anu]

Without daring to politicise a seemingly abstruse subject, the matter is quite simple. Due process and rigourous oversight should be mandatory regardless of subject's background, knowledge or understanding, particularly when firearms are involved. It is quite clear that that if a said process was in place, those responsible for all the above are guilty of deleriction of duty. How on Earth a live round 'slipped' unchecked -in what was supposed to be- propped scene boggles the mind. And I believe that we could all agree that in such circumstances, there shouldn't have been a live round available on set at all. A lackadaisical approach to a potentially life threatening set of circumstances can -and ultimately will- provide the statistical framework for disaster.