RUST murder By accident? / Did NRA training Cause the Rust Accident?

[Steve]

The post you are replying to explained why that is looking at the problem from the wrong direction. The set safety procedures are intended to prevent any actor handling a lethal weapon in the first place, whether it's a light sabre, a hand grenade, stick of dynamite or whatever. The fact that in this case the prop was supposed to look like a loaded gun without really being one, and that on a gun range there are procedures to safely accept real guns seems to be a red herring.

What if the prop had been a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse? Or a car, which might potentially have faulty brakes or innumerable other unsafe parts?

Do you think there should be mandatory cuts for safety checks every time one movie character picks up a gun or hands a gun to another character?

I think that when a movie character picks up a gun that character should, in character and as part of the movie, follow the safe procedure and provide a check of the gun before doing anything else with it. Likewise a character who receives a gun from another character. Then a whole lot more gun nuts who love violent movies would be exposed to procedures that they are likely not aware of. A small number might even learn something from it.

The "set safety procedures" are proven to be inadequate. Additional procedures are required.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think that when a movie character picks up a gun that character should, in character and as part of the movie, follow the safe procedure and provide a check of the gun before doing anything else with it. Likewise a character who receives a gun from another character. Then a whole lot more gun nuts who love violent movies would be exposed to procedures that they are likely not aware of. A small number might even learn something from it.

The "set safety procedures" are proven to be inadequate. Additional procedures are required.

Are the procedures inadequate when they are not followed?

 

[theprestige]

Fine. But maybe the analogy is overstretched. My point is that the safety rules on movie sets don't appear to rely on each actor having expertise with whatever prop they're pretending to use. It's someone else's job to ensure they don't, for example, get handed a real hand grenade.

I can't sustain my belief in the right to bear arms, except on the principle that everyone is and should be responsible for their own basic gun safety. Even an actor on set should be responsible enough to not point guns at people. Even if he has complete faith in the armorer to be competent in their specialty.

So I'm not saying it was on Baldwin to expertly examine the gun, correctly identify the details of the trigger mechanism, and properly ensure it was not loaded with live ammo. I am saying it was on Baldwin to treat every gun that ends up in his hand as potentially loaded, and not put his finger on the trigger while there's people downrange.

I am also saying that it was on Baldwin to use his star power to refuse to rehearse while there were people downrange, just in case.

And I am also saying that as a producer of the film, it was on Baldwin as "management" to do due diligence in hiring a competent armorer, and due diligence in hiring senior production staff who were oversee the armorer's proper discharge of her responsibilities.

I don't expect Baldwin to know all the details of how to make a working firearm safe for a film set. I just expect him to practice basic gun safety at all times.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Personally I think all the accidents from people concealed carrying prove that there are not sufficient restrictions to promote proper safety of that. More constant paperwork is clearly the answer.

 

[ZiprHead]

The post you are replying to explained why that is looking at the problem from the wrong direction. The set safety procedures are intended to prevent any actor handling a lethal weapon in the first place, whether it's a light sabre, a hand grenade, stick of dynamite or whatever. The fact that in this case the prop was supposed to look like a loaded gun without really being one, and that on a gun range there are procedures to safely accept real guns seems to be a red herring.

What if the prop had been a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse? Or a car, which might potentially have faulty brakes or innumerable other unsafe parts?

Do you think there should be mandatory cuts for safety checks every time one movie character picks up a gun or hands a gun to another character?

All good points.

I happened to catch Django Unchained on the TV the other day. Lots of scenes of actors handing weapons to each other, lots of scenes of guns being fired directly at the camera. None of those things could be done on a gun range but were essential parts of the story-telling of the movie.

Movie sets are not gun ranges and asking numerous actors, both big and small names, to be expert in firearm handling is unreasonable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

All good points.

I happened to catch Django Unchained on the TV the other day. Lots of scenes of actors handing weapons to each other, lots of scenes of guns being fired directly at the camera. None of those things could be done on a gun range but were essential parts of the story-telling of the movie.

Movie sets are not gun ranges and asking numerous actors, both big and small names, to be expert in firearm handling is unreasonable.

Also gun safety rules for the public are clearly inadequate as evidenced by the thousands of accidental deaths per year. We need to take away everyone's guns until we can come up with a fool proof system.

 

[theprestige]

All good points.

I happened to catch Django Unchained on the TV the other day. Lots of scenes of actors handing weapons to each other, lots of scenes of guns being fired directly at the camera. None of those things could be done on a gun range but were essential parts of the story-telling of the movie.

Movie sets are not gun ranges and asking numerous actors, both big and small names, to be expert in firearm handling is unreasonable.

How many of those scenes of "guns being fired directly at the camera" involved working guns? How many of the scenes involved working guns, with competent armorers on set doing their jobs?

I don't think it's too much to ask, even of an actor, that they insist on only handling firearms under the direct supervision of the production armorer.

 

[theprestige]

I get that we all want to save Baldwin's reputation, and throw the armorer under the bus. I just can't figure out why we all want this.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's 2022. If a low budget horror movie can deep fake 60 lines of dialogue to remove the "F" word to get a PG-13 rating, any movie can just give actors static prop guns and CGI in the muzzle flash later.

 

[theprestige]

It's 2022. If a low budget horror movie can deep fake 60 lines of dialogue to remove the "F" word to get a PG-13 rating, any movie can just give actors static prop guns and CGI in the muzzle flash later.

Exactly.

 

[Steve]

It's 2022. If a low budget horror movie can deep fake 60 lines of dialogue to remove the "F" word to get a PG-13 rating, any movie can just give actors static prop guns and CGI in the muzzle flash later.

You mean the "actors" should actually "act"? Preposterous! We have been told that this would not look real enough.

 

[ZiprHead]

I get that we all want to save Baldwin's reputation, and throw the armorer under the bus. I just can't figure out why we all want this.

Because that's exactly the armorers job, to make sure the weapons on the set are safe to use.

"You tosser! You had one job!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

You mean the "actors" should actually "act"? Preposterous! We have been told that this would not look real enough.

I mentioned this in the other thread, the original about this incident.

If the "real feel of recoil" is THAT important you can make something akin to The Mill Blackbird.

The Mill Blackbird is a device to simulate cars in car commercials. Funny fact in the last 10 years or so you've probably rarely seen an actual real car driving in a car commercial. Ironically you sometimes have to start shooting a car commercial before the car is production ready so all you have is a static model and production specs.

So you get the Mill Blackbird. It's basically just a stripped chassis that adjust its length and width to the dimensions of most any road car and it has a 360 camera and bunch of reference points for CGI on it. You film the Mill Blackbird driving along your mountain roads and your wet highways at night and all that, you just CGI the car over when the design is finalized. The car you see people sitting in and putting the children in are almost always static mockups.

So just do that but for guns. Have a pistol, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, etc mockup that you adjust the size of to fit any gun (advantage you could make fake or sci fi guns a lot easier this way). It can simulate recoil, you could put a light to simulate muzzle flash to make the CGI guys work easier since they would have a lighting reference. You could then motion track a photorealistic gun model over it later. It just couldn't shoot anything ever.

Again, to keep all my cards face up and on the table, I'm still sorta on team "3 deaths, really 2 of this type, in 70+ years is actually a pretty good safety record given how much gunplay is in modern fiction" but the solution isn't that hard either.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Again, to keep all my cards face up and on the table, I'm still sorta on team "3 deaths, really 2 of this type, in 70+ years is actually a pretty good safety record given how much gunplay is in modern fiction" but the solution isn't that hard either.

Also both revolve around basic failures on the part of the armorer to follow procedures.

 

[junkshop]

Fine. But maybe the analogy is overstretched. My point is that the safety rules on movie sets don't appear to rely on each actor having expertise with whatever prop they're pretending to use. It's someone else's job to ensure they don't, for example, get handed a real hand grenade.

Indeed. Or, perhaps, a loaded ******* gun.

 

[theprestige]

Because that's exactly the armorers job, to make sure the weapons on the set are safe to use.

"You tosser! You had one job!"

My view is that basic gun safety is everyone's job, including screen actors.

And hiring competent armorers, and competent senior production staff to oversee them, is specifically a producer's job.

And insisting on the presence and due diligence of the armorer on set, is the job of everyone else on the set, cast and crew alike.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I get that we all want to save Baldwin's reputation, and throw the armorer under the bus. I just can't figure out why we all want this.

I see Baldwin as jointly culpable based on his producer and marquee star status. He was in a position of power to make the set safe and he failed to do so. Even if another actor had been holding the gun I think Baldwin would share responsibility. Along with the armorer.

My hesitation with making an actor liable for production failings is that an actor could be a toddler like the one I saw in a gun safety billboard pointing a revolver like a play toy. Or a nine year old. Or an adult who knows less about guns than the nine year old. Or a teen who thinks he knows everything about guns. Hell, I can’t even figure out which of those examples is most dangerous.

I don’t need actors to know anything about guns if the production is run properly.

Just like I don’t need Matt Damon to know algebra to film Good Will Hunting. I just need him to act.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect even actors to abide by the basic gun safety principle of not pointing guns at people.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to expect actors specifically to insist on only handling guns under the supervision of the production armorer.

 

[dudalb]

I think that when a movie character picks up a gun that character should, in character and as part of the movie, follow the safe procedure and provide a check of the gun before doing anything else with it. Likewise a character who receives a gun from another character. Then a whole lot more gun nuts who love violent movies would be exposed to procedures that they are likely not aware of. A small number might even learn something from it.

The "set safety procedures" are proven to be inadequate. Additional procedures are required.

Or maybe the procedures were simply not followed.
What additinal procedures do you recommend?
ANd yes, I fear that some rogressives won't be satified until every single action an indvidual can do is reglated by the government.
BTW your total contempt for anybody who owns a gun is noted.

 

[Myriad]

From John Wick V: Shooting the Fourth Wall

JOHN WICK and MOOK simultaneously pick up pistols from among the weapons scattered on the floor during the previous action scene.

JOHN WICK "Hey, is that gun safe?"

MOOK Checks gun.

JOHN WICK Shoots MOOK in the face. "Mine isn't!"