Alec Baldwin Conspiracy Theories

[p0lka]

What if you are an actor that knows nothing about how guns work?

Do actors need to have firearm safety in their resume or something?

I don't get how an actor should be responsible for props that they might know nothing about, it's not their job to.

 

[The Man]

The crew used the gun to shoot cans in the desert. I should say, some of the crew.

This underlines the lack of professionalism on that set. Live rounds are banned on all movie sets for exactly this reason. Yes, the armorer was was new (only her second job). Yes, Alec Baldwin should have double checked the gun when it was handed to him, which is also STANDARD safety protocol on EVERY movie set.

The Armorer and the production team are responsible for ALL ASPECTS OF SAFETY ON A SET. Hollywood has a long list of safety standards to avoid this kind of thing. So many things can go wrong even with blanks, they can misfire and explode in the chamber, and that's a bad day. Blanks have enough force to injure and even kill at extreme short range. John Erik-Hexum died when he pressed his blank-loaded gun to his head and pulled the trigger. The US Military, and armies around the world inset blank-adaptors into the barrels of their rifles to keep everyone safe.

This accident happened because the gun in question was not secured in between set-ups. It should have been kept in a safe until needed. It wasn't and it had been used for live target practice. It is really as simple and depressing as that.

Technically, as I recall, form filed affidavits, the armorer checked the gun before everyone left the site for lunch. However, he says he didn't, and as far as he knows no one else did after they returned.

Obviously, while they were away the aluminum nanites constructed the required targeting elements in the gun to direct the refracted beam to the intended targets.

 

[The Man]

When I was doing archery, the one thing that was constantly drilled into us was (a). Always point the bow at the ground, even when unloaded. (b). Never point the bow, loaded or unloaded at anything you didn't intend on hitting with the arrow.


It's the same for all projectile weapons.

Yep, what I was always taught. While shooting my rifle, at a range, with a couple of friends who had never used a gun before. One of my first instructions was always keep it pointed down range, even when empty. When done firing one time one of my friends began to point it across the firing line, in my direction. I immediately ducked and took it from him, then chastised him severely and loudly. To let other shooters know someone on the range may be unsafe.

 

[Axxman300]

What if you are an actor that knows nothing about how guns work?

Do actors need to have firearm safety in their resume or something?

I don't get how an actor should be responsible for props that they might know nothing about, it's not their job to.

Safety is everybody's job. Especially with firearms.

Period.

On a set there are only two kinds of guns: a prop gun which doesn't fire anything, and a guns which are real guns loaded with blanks. Everybody on set knows this. There is a chain of responsibility stretching from the armorer/prop master, to the AD, to the actors and stunt people. This wasn't Baldwins first movie where he worked with guns. However it was the armorer's first time working alone on a set.

In other news the Q gang are going nuts about this being some kind of false flag operation to get Hollywood to stop making violent movies and whatever.

 

[Orphia Nay]

This didn't take long, but it never does. I was just browsing the latest Snopes posts.

Halyna Hutchins was assassinated because her next project was a documentary about Hollywood's pedophile underground.




Halyna Hutchins was assassinated because she was about to release information that would lead to Hillary Clinton's arrest.

It’s always information that will lead to Clinton’s arrest. The entire faked up “Clinton Death List” claimed people were killed just as they were about to reveal info that would have the Clintons arrested. Can’t these people come with anything new?

It's basically the golden oldie, "The dog ate my homework".

 

[arayder]

What if you are an actor that knows nothing about how guns work?

Do actors need to have firearm safety in their resume or something?

I don't get how an actor should be responsible for props that they might know nothing about, it's not their job to.

Safety is everybody's job. Especially with firearms.

Period.

On a set there are only two kinds of guns: a prop gun which doesn't fire anything, and a guns which are real guns loaded with blanks. Everybody on set knows this. There is a chain of responsibility stretching from the armorer/prop master, to the AD, to the actors and stunt people. This wasn't Baldwins first movie where he worked with guns. However it was the armorer's first time working alone on a set.

In other news the Q gang are going nuts about this being some kind of false flag operation to get Hollywood to stop making violent movies and whatever.

People can be stupid.

Years ago I saw an old You Tube (which I can't find now) in which two young men had an auto pistol laying on the table in front of them.

One of the guys, who is now a semi-well known actor, picked up the gun pointed it at the other kid's head and pulled the trigger. The gun was thankfully unloaded.

The two went on to rant about how stupid "the gun culture" was.

Duh?

I am assuming there was some person or persons behind the camera and someone around who who had provided the pistol (a high priced Sig, if I recall) has a the prop. I was shocked that nobody stopped the filming and/or set that kid straight on gun safety.

------------------
Dope Clock II: It's been 131 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.

 

[p0lka]

Safety is everybody's job. Especially with firearms.

Period.

On a set there are only two kinds of guns: a prop gun which doesn't fire anything, and a guns which are real guns loaded with blanks. Everybody on set knows this. There is a chain of responsibility stretching from the armorer/prop master, to the AD, to the actors and stunt people. This wasn't Baldwins first movie where he worked with guns. However it was the armorer's first time working alone on a set.

In other news the Q gang are going nuts about this being some kind of false flag operation to get Hollywood to stop making violent movies and whatever.

Knowing about guns is part of an actors job then? Is that what you are saying?

I don't really see why actors would need to learn about guns at all, they are working with props.

 

[arayder]

You dirty rat. . .

Jimmy Cagney talked about doing scenes early in his career in which live ammo was shot on set, often right next to his head.

One day he said he just wasn't going to go along such a thing any more.

Of course having Cagney say, "I ain't doing this any more." with his characteristic sneer carries a lot of weight.

------------------
Dope Clock II: It's been 131 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.

 

[Axxman300]

Knowing about guns is part of an actors job then? Is that what you are saying?

I don't really see why actors would need to learn about guns at all, they are working with props.

There is another thread discussing this topic.

But the short answer is yes, and most HAVE to learn about the firearm they are working with in whatever scene they are in. They have to know how it works and how to check to ENSURE THE WEAPON IS SAFE.

If they are working on a film where they never fire a weapon then they do not have to because there will be no real guns on set. The holidays are upon us so Die Hard is all over cable TV for the next three months, so pay attention - if the gun in the scene is not being fired it is a rubber gun. Try and spot them

Here is Keanu Reeves training at a quality gun range for John Wick:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jLTSzf-5p4

The irony is there are no live weapons used in any of the John Wick movies. All the gunfire and shell casings are CGI.

 

[Venom]

This new moral panic is no less dangerous since "Pizzagate", but it's getting a bit stale at this point.

*yawn*

 

[arayder]

Many actors work hard to look natural when throwing a punch, handling a gun, riding a horse, driving a truck, using a sword or doing any number of things in films.

There is nothing worse than seeing a scene ruined because the actor looks like a dufus at the beginning of a fight while rest of the footage shows the athleticism of the stunt double.

if you think I am kidding here watch an episode of the TV show "The Equalizer" and you will see Queen Latiffa's character looking like a un-athletic middle aged woman throwing a pansy punch only to have rest of the fight footage show the stunt double use a nifty judo throw to toss a 200 pound bad guy across the room.

My wife watches "Days of Our Lives" and it is not unusual for an actor to point a hand gun (everyone in town owns the same black PPK) in such a way as to make it clear they don't have clue about handguns. Sometimes they put the pointer fingers of both hands on the trigger.

My point is that in the real world actors can't be counted to know everything they need to know about the scenes they are doing and the weapons they are handling.

--------------
Dope Clock II: It's been 134 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.[/QUOTE]

 

[Mongrel]

My point is that in the real world actors can't be counted to know everything they need to know about the scenes they are doing and the weapons they are handling.

No one's asking for them to know everything about the weapons, just how to use them safely within the context of the set, which is entirely in the purview of an actor.
It's no worse than a factory worker having to be trained on the choppy-crusher machine to be in compliance with the local Health & Safety\OSHA\risk management rules.

 

[arayder]

My point is that in the real world actors can't be counted to know everything they need to know about the scenes they are doing and the weapons they are handling.

No one's asking for them to know everything about the weapons, just how to use them safely within the context of the set, which is entirely in the purview of an actor.

It's no worse than a factory worker having to be trained on the choppy-crusher machine to be in compliance with the local Health & Safety\OSHA\risk management rules.

I don't disagree.

But the analogy doesn't completely hold because the factory worker in question wasn't hired because he/she looks good and is going to put eyes on the screen.

I have a relative in film making and a couple of times he's asked me to take him and one of his actress girl friends to the range to "get familiar with guns". Gun handling skills were considered a skill they needed to know something about. I think they thought that after one range trip the actors could say they knew a lot about guns when interviewing for a part.

One of the ladies was a natural athlete, grasped the rules and shot well right away. She said her father had taken her shooting a couple of times. The other young woman was a physical klutz with a strong startle reflex and was so distracted by the gun's recoil and report (and we were using a .22) that she couldn't follow the safety rules we'd gone over verbally and during dry fire practice.

If I was doing a film I would not trust either young woman, especially the second one, to handle a gun on set without maximum supervision. I would think it is accepted in the industry that you can't count on any actors to show perfect gun handling skills on set.

I suspect that actors get hired for their looks and acting talents and any inability to look natural (and be safe) while throwing a punch, driving a truck, riding a horse or handling a gun gets dealt with by the production crew.

In the end unsafe gun handling on set is no more tolerable than an actor backing a truck over a fellow actor.

--------------
Dope Clock II: It's been 135 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.

 

[Mongrel]

I don't disagree.

But the analogy doesn't completely hold because the factory worker in question wasn't hired because he/she looks good and is going to put eyes on the screen.

They appear to remarkably resilient about the warm bodies. Remember when they removed Kevin Spacey from All the Money in the World? Or when they removed Chris D'elia and digitally reinserted Tig Notaro into Army of the Dead?

If someone's a liability (and I'm sure part of the armourers job is assessing this) they'll either get kicked off the set, not get the job in the first place, go with another method of using guns on set and let post work it's magic or squeeze in a stunt double.

Handing someone a tool that allows the user to kill other people, when they're unable to follow basic safety protocols is a great way for insurance to nope out

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Handing someone a tool that allows the user to kill other people, when they're unable to follow basic safety protocols is a great way for insurance to nope out

That's what I keep wondering about. Is it common for insurance to allow productions like this to just do whatever they like when it comes to safety? You'd think they would be up their asses with supervision whenever they became aware they were insuring a production using real firearms.

As an example, OSHA has never set foot in the facility I work in, but our insurer comes out at least once a year for inspections. Their money is on the line, you'd think they would care.

 

[The Man]

They appear to remarkably resilient about the warm bodies. Remember when they removed Kevin Spacey from All the Money in the World? Or when they removed Chris D'elia and digitally reinserted Tig Notaro into Army of the Dead?

I don't recall any of that at all. My surmise is a reverse Mandela effect ray or field. Where instead of recalling something that never happened, you never recall something that did happen.

Well that and I don't recall ever seeing those movies.

 

[The Man]

That's what I keep wondering about. Is it common for insurance to allow productions like this to just do whatever they like when it comes to safety? You'd think they would be up their asses with supervision whenever they became aware they were insuring a production using real firearms.

As an example, OSHA has never set foot in the facility I work in, but our insurer comes out at least once a year for inspections. Their money is on the line, you'd think they would care.

OSHA comes by here every couple of years or so. It was part of some site certification process where the site is designated as extra special super safe. Didn't do a thing for day to day safety.

When the company started using a different kind of shipping box that could outgas hazardous fumes when burnt the insurance company wouldn't underwrite them until they put in high flow sprinklers and active smoke detecting systems where those items are stored and also limit where those items could be to those areas.

 

[Axxman300]

I will say it again: If the gun is not fired in the scene the gun in the actor's hand is NOT A REAL GUN.

A Prop-Gun doesn't have bullets because it is INCAPABLE of firing bullets. They are either gas-powered replicas or rubber replicas painted to match the real weapons.

An actor who is not going to handle a real gun on set doesn't need to know anything about guns, and it often shows.

When a REAL GUN is brought onto set the actor gets a safety briefing IN FULL VIEW OF THE AD AND CREW about how to work the gun, how to load the gun, how to handle/not handle the gun. and how to CHECK THE GUN TO MAKE SURE IT IS LOADED WITH BLANKS.

People who work on sets where this basic safety requirement is not met often walk off, shutting down production until the director gets the entire crew on the same page. The union crew walked off the set of this movie for this exact reason.

And yes, the insurance company underwriting this film will probably balk at any payout, and the producers will end up eating it because they had cut corners which violated basic safety protocols, and thus negating their insurance coverage.

I'm not sure what the confusion is on this subject. An actor being familiarized with the firearm they are using is not the same thing as weapons training or marksmanship. Guns are simple to use, two year-old children kill people every year with guns because they are simple tools on the functional level. Four year-olds have been known to load magazines of 9mm or .45 caliber handguns, insert the magazine into the weapon, figure out the safety, and blow someone (or themselves) away. We're not talking about landing a 747 here.

There is no reason any actor cannot be successfully instructed in the basic safe handling and use of a firearm on set.

 

[dudalb]

What if you are an actor that knows nothing about how guns work?

Do actors need to have firearm safety in their resume or something?

I don't get how an actor should be responsible for props that they might know nothing about, it's not their job to.

Have a two hour basic course in the safe handling of firearms for everybody..from the gofers to the star of hte film...on any film where guns are to be used.
And it;s is part of an actor's job to know how his props work. He won;t know how to believably use them if he does not.
If you are going to do Shakespeare, you had damn well better know the basics of how to handle a sword,Doing prep work is am much as part of an actor's job as rehersals.

 

[dudalb]

Knowing about guns is part of an actors job then? Is that what you are saying?

I don't really see why actors would need to learn about guns at all, they are working with props.

If he plays a charecter who uses guns a lot, yes. He has to know how to handle them beleivably.
And you need to handle a prop gun just like you would a real one when using it on screen to be beleivable.