Nope. You have to cock the hammer then pull the trigger.

I can't honestly see any way the gun just went off.

"The hatch just blew"

Relevant video

Amigo, the evidence showed Gus did not screw the pooch. You know this,

Quote:

---

"The hatch just blew"

---

A side arm - yes. You have to pull the trigger. (But I don't blame an ******* actor on a set for that screwup.)

Ulrich said:

---

I was handed a revolver the other day. The person handing it to me demonstrated that it was empty by showing light through all six cylinders. I took the revolver and checked again myself. We weren't going to fire it and it was a single action revolver so extremely unlikely to go off by accident even if loaded. Still checked. Those are the rules.

---

You work as an actor in Hollywood?

They literally hire people to take and maintain ownership of the firearms on set, both real and prop.

Saying a revolver (a relatively simple mechanical device) "just went off" is like a mechanical clock suddenly jumping ahead an hour.

Add to the fact, as I'm sure has been discussed, there is ZERO reason to have an operational firearm on set. A replica achieves the same thing in every way.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

In your hypothetical, the brakes failed and did not operate as designed. What happened with Baldwin is the gun was in perfect working order and operated as designed. The operator, not the equipment, screwed up. Not even close to same comparison.

---

Not necessarily true. The gun was loaded with incorrect ammunition. Had it been properly loaded with dummy rounds, it wouldn't have fired a lethal projectile.

It'll be interesting to see what charges are eventually filed both in civil and criminal courts. What a responsible gun owner would or should do with firearms is only one aspect of many at play here.

PatAg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

PatAg said:

---

Ulrich said:

---

I was handed a revolver the other day. The person handing it to me demonstrated that it was empty by showing light through all six cylinders. I took the revolver and checked again myself. We weren't going to fire it and it was a single action revolver so extremely unlikely to go off by accident even if loaded. Still checked. Those are the rules.

---

You work as an actor in Hollywood?

---

Does a gun stop being a gun in Hollywood?

---

Your experience in your free time is not the same as working on a film set.

---

I'm sure you're right and nothing could go wrong just because someone gets sloppy handling guns on set.

Treating the actor as the last line of defense is wrong. The gun handler is the FIRST line of defense; armorers and procedures are extra lines of defense.

If a person isn't responsible or educated enough to handle guns safely without support, then he or she shouldn't be handling guns. If a person deems their time too valuable to spend a few seconds checking the weapon before each use, they shouldn't be handling guns. None of that changes when you replace "person" with "actor" because the gun is still just as deadly.

It's blowing my mind that we're literally on a thread about an actor shooting someone after the experts failed to maintain a safe set, and multiple people are still saying that the experts will handle safety and the actors shouldn't have to worry about it.

There may be nuance to the law, but there's no nuance that explains away the fact that basic safety precautions should be followed.

I'm literally asking this because I'm genuinely curious, not because I'm trying to make a point or argue either side...

... but Baldwin said in the interview that he was told early in his career by an armor/prop master NOT to open/check the gun after it's handed to him, because the actor could end up screwing up/undoing whatever the professional who handed it to him put in place. So... how valid is this claim? Is it really as simple as everyday Joe Actor being able to check themselves real quick, or are there legit issues with blanks that an actor could accidentally screw up? Baldwin gave examples I can't recall, but to this non gun expert, they sounded like legit concerns/things that could go wrong if the actor is the last one to check. That said, I fully admit that Baldwin of course could be lying/exaggerating, trying to cover his own ass, etc.

I just see a lot of posts here essentially saying, "It's simple! The actor should check the gun!" But then we have Baldwin and others claiming that it's not that simple, that they've been told they could potentially make things worse by checking themselves.

I'm not at all doubting the gun experts in this thread. But I'm also not going to discount potential on-set protocols and issues that could arise that those same experts may not be aware of, because they've never been on a movie set.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to understand.

Alright, let's just assume that we're all John Wick level experts with firearms here, because apparently it's very important to some of you that it's known how knowledgeable you are.

That said, the procedures in place seem to be reasonable, because there hasn't been an incident like this in almost 30 years.

With hindsight it's easy to saw Baldwin should've checked the weapon. But there are "experts" that are paid to ensure that firearms are safe on these movie sets. That's where the breakdown was here. To put it on Baldwin or any actor as a last line of defense is a bad idea. And I'm not a fan of his, if that matters.

Honestly it sounds like a made up story that he hopes no one thinks too much about. Blanks are no different than live rounds with the exception they are missing the projectile. Checking the chamber is not going to set them off or cause them to malfunction.

If for some reason he was in an 18th or 19th century period piece and we are talking about muzzle loading weapons that is a much different scenario. Than the revolver we are talking about here or more modern weapons.

Honestly the things being discussed here are things my 9 year old nephew knows to do when we go on hunting trips. Obviously he is not unsupervised around firearms but he knows the basics of gun safety and practices them. Even with his bb gun

I think that's a fair comment.

Most of the things I can think of that could go wrong while checking the weapon have to do with poor training. For example, leaving a finger on the trigger and inadvertently firing. They could also leave the hammer on a loaded chamber instead of an empty one. I don't view those as good reasons to skip safety checks, but rather reasons to ensure that people handling the weapon are well trained.

If the gun is not supposed to be loaded with live (propellant and projectile) rounds, I don't think there's any valid reason to prevent the actor from performing his own check. This is the situation of no nuance.

I think it would be very sensible to have the actor check the weapon under the supervision of the armorer given the unusual circumstances of a movie set (presence of blanks / dummy rounds, people near the line of fire). But again, that's a reason for more caution, not less. It's not clear whether the armorer was actually present, there's some he-said she-said going on there. And if the weapon is supposed to be loaded with live rounds, the actor watching as the weapon is loaded and checked can count as the final safety check but then you obviously would never be pointing the muzzle anywhere but down an unobstructed firing range. I am not sure why they would need to do that on a movie set though.

I don't know exactly what happened on set because the stories are conflicting, but if someone told me to trust that a gun is safe and go ahead and wave it around or fire it toward people without checking it, I would not let that person handle weapons around me. Perhaps that will cut short my promising career as an actor, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.

Baldwin was not the last line of defense, he was the first line.

AgStuckinLBK said:

---

The actors are different. It's a prop to them and the gun did something that it wasn't supposed to do and I think, in their minds, it couldn't do.

---

The live ammo on set is a huge breakdown. That is where the armorer's culpability comes in.

The quoted above is absolutely a breakdown in procedure and protocol. A gun is a gun no matter if it used as a prop or not. If it is functioning it can be deadly. That is a training issue that should absolutely never be overlooked in an environment where functioning guns are present. That is the point we have all been trying to make.

Ulrich said:

---

I think that's a fair comment.

Most of the things I can think of that could go wrong while checking the weapon have to do with poor training. For example, leaving a finger on the trigger and inadvertently firing. They could also leave the hammer on a loaded chamber instead of an empty one. I don't view those as good reasons to skip safety checks, but rather reasons to ensure that people handling the weapon are well trained.

If the gun is not supposed to be loaded with live (propellant and projectile) rounds, I don't think there's any valid reason to prevent the actor from performing his own check. This is the situation of no nuance.

I think it would be very sensible to have the actor check the weapon under the supervision of the armorer given the unusual circumstances of a movie set (presence of blanks / dummy rounds, people near the line of fire). But again, that's a reason for more caution, not less. It's not clear whether the armorer was actually present, there's some he-said she-said going on there. And if the weapon is supposed to be loaded with live rounds, the actor watching as the weapon is loaded and checked can count as the final safety check but then you obviously would never be pointing the muzzle anywhere but down an unobstructed firing range. I am not sure why they would need to do that on a movie set though.

I don't know exactly what happened on set because the stories are conflicting, but if someone told me to trust that a gun is safe and go ahead and wave it around or fire it toward people without checking it, I would not let that person handle weapons around me. Perhaps that will cut short my promising career as an actor, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.

---

The bolded feels like a great compromise, if only in terms of this thread/discussion. As a "last look" the actor should either check under the supervision of the armor, or the actor should watch as the armor checks. It just seems weird to me that we're apparently entrusting the actor to check on his/her own, unsupervised, after the expert does his thing. But the idea of the armor doing his thing, and then checking *with* the actor definitely seems like the way to go.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

Honestly it sounds like a made up story that he hopes no one thinks too much about. Blanks are no different than live rounds with the exception they are missing the projectile. Checking the chamber is not going to set them off or cause them to malfunction.

If for some reason he was in an 18th or 19th century period piece and we are talking about muzzle loading weapons that is a much different scenario. Than the revolver we are talking about here or more modern weapons.

Honestly the things being discussed here are things my 9 year old nephew knows to do when we go on hunting trips. Obviously he is not unsupervised around firearms but he knows the basics of gun safety and practices them. Even with his bb gun

---

I've shot a real gun - a shotgun - maybe twice in my life. I'm not anti-gun by any means, or any kind of animal rights activists, I'm just not into hunting, and shooting guns wasn't something I grew up doing. So I'm sorry if this discussion isn't up to your Billy Badass standards, but some of us are trying to learn/understand.

(That said, I *was* arrested for shooting a BB gun at a car when I was 16. Had a mugshot, was fingerprinted, had to do community service, attend a Positive Steps program with other juvenile delinquents, and work as trash man on a trash truck that summer to pay for the damage.)

That is all I was explaining. Nothing "Billy badass" about it. I included that point to show how foundational we are talking. You say you want to learn/understand...there you go. That is how foundational that knowledge is.

TCTTS said:

---

I'm literally asking this because I'm genuinely curious, not because I'm trying to make a point or argue either side...

... but Baldwin said in the interview that he was told early in his career by an armor/prop master NOT to open/check the gun after it's handed to him, because the actor could end up screwing up/undoing whatever the professional who handed it to him put in place. So... how valid is this claim? Is it really as simple as everyday Joe Actor being able to check themselves real quick, or are there legit issues with blanks that an actor could accidentally screw up? Baldwin gave examples I can't recall, but to this non gun expert, they sounded like legit concerns/things that could go wrong if the actor is the last one to check. That said, I fully admit that Baldwin of course could be lying/exaggerating, trying to cover his own ass, etc.

I just see a lot of posts here essentially saying, "It's simple! The actor should check the gun!" But then we have Baldwin and others claiming that it's not that simple, that they've been told they could potentially make things worse by checking themselves.

I'm not at all doubting the gun experts in this thread. But I'm also not going to discount potential on-set protocols and issues that could arise that those same experts may not be aware of, because they've never been on a movie set.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to understand.

---

Has anyone backed up Baldwin's claim? Because it sure sounds like an easy defense to invent this. Who told him this? What written procedures in place by armory and safety experts state that he is not to check the gun, and if those exist why have others like Clooney basically said this is BS? In a world that is so unionized and where safety is such a priority, there is a 0% chance the written procedures do not exist.

Also this doesn't even begin to question other things. Why was a real gun in use at all? My understanding is that muzzle flashes and the sound of the weapon are all added/modified in post even if a real gun is used. And if a REAL gunshot is necessary, you can load blanks into a weapon that literally doesn't have a hole in the barrel. Having a real gun on set seems like the most idiotic part of this whole thing.

Also, the civil suit claims the script didn't even call for the gun to be fired. Another thing that should be pretty easy to verify.

Do they have the incident on video?

AliasMan02 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm literally asking this because I'm genuinely curious, not because I'm trying to make a point or argue either side...

... but Baldwin said in the interview that he was told early in his career by an armor/prop master NOT to open/check the gun after it's handed to him, because the actor could end up screwing up/undoing whatever the professional who handed it to him put in place. So... how valid is this claim? Is it really as simple as everyday Joe Actor being able to check themselves real quick, or are there legit issues with blanks that an actor could accidentally screw up? Baldwin gave examples I can't recall, but to this non gun expert, they sounded like legit concerns/things that could go wrong if the actor is the last one to check. That said, I fully admit that Baldwin of course could be lying/exaggerating, trying to cover his own ass, etc.

I just see a lot of posts here essentially saying, "It's simple! The actor should check the gun!" But then we have Baldwin and others claiming that it's not that simple, that they've been told they could potentially make things worse by checking themselves.

I'm not at all doubting the gun experts in this thread. But I'm also not going to discount potential on-set protocols and issues that could arise that those same experts may not be aware of, because they've never been on a movie set.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to understand.

---

Has anyone backed up Baldwin's claim? Because it sure sounds like an easy defense to invent this. Who told him this? What written procedures in place by armory and safety experts state that he is not to check the gun, and if those exist why have others like Clooney basically said this is BS? In a world that is so unionized and where safety is such a priority, there is a 0% chance the written procedures do not exist.
The tweet thread I posted a couple pages back seems to potentially back his claim up. Hard to say, though. Again, I'm not claiming what Baldwin is saying is fact. I've acknowledged that multiple times. I'm simply asking if there's any merit to the logic of it according to the experts here.

Also this doesn't even begin to question other things. Why was a real gun in use at all? My understanding is that muzzle flashes and the sound of the weapon are all added/modified in post even if a real gun is used. And if a REAL gunshot is necessary, you can load blanks into a weapon that literally doesn't have a hole in the barrel. Having a real gun on set seems like the most idiotic part of this whole thing.
From what I gather, CGI is hardly used at all in these situations. Filmmakers want the realistic kick/reaction of a real gun. That said, it does seem insane that there isn't some kind of prop gun that feels/looks real but can't actually shoot a real bullet. The craziest revelation for me in this whole thing is that they actually use real guns.

Also, the civil suit claims the script didn't even call for the gun to be fired. Another thing that should be pretty easy to verify.
Watch the interview. This has been addressed multiple times. Baldwin was simply aiming the gun in the direction of the camera, cocked it, and claims it then somehow went off.

---

jeffk said:

---

Do they have the incident on video?

---

It wasn't a live take, unfortunately. It was a rehearsal where the cinematographer was attempting to get the proper angle of the gun, on the monitor, asking that the gun be pointed in the direction of the camera.

Thanks, knew they were working on a scene/shot, but hadn't seen if the camera was rolling.

I mean, I guess it could have been recording for some reason, without it being an actual/official take, but I figured that news would have made its way out by now, as it would literally be... forgive me... smoking gun evidence.