I'm just amazed that live ammo is allowed near a location, and that this massive industry doesn't have color indications on dummy rounds and blanks. And to go further, I'm also surprised there isn't more done to prevent live rounds from being loaded/fired from these weapons. Whether it's through magazine modifications and/or other means, sure, it would be an investment. But you likely make it up on the back end
Accidental shooting on movie set
45,855 Views |
505 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Decay
Yeah, you and I obviously disagree there. Lol.
The only safe way currently that I can see for an actor to be able to tell the difference in ammunition loaded into a gun they're handed on the set is to unload it, check the ammo, and then reload it (assuming they're not involved in the initial preparation of the firearm for a scene, which seems pretty rare). This seems like a step liable to cause a host of other problems that can be avoided by having a firearms expert handle the procedures themselves (which was not happening in this particular case sadly).
Dummy rounds, blanks, and lethal rounds all look pretty identical from the tail, which is the only part of the cartridge you can see when looking at the back end of a loaded revolver. Dummy rounds have the same nose shape as lethal rounds. And honestly you can't see the nose (where the easiest discernible differences between dummy/lethal and blanks are) in most magazines either. Someone mentioned earlier that some actors like to oversee the loading process to double-check what they're being given. That's awesome and kudos to them for being educated on the subject of firearm safety. It'd be awesome if all actors were similarly conscious, but they're not, so we rely on expert armorers to take over those responsibilities.
The only safe way currently that I can see for an actor to be able to tell the difference in ammunition loaded into a gun they're handed on the set is to unload it, check the ammo, and then reload it (assuming they're not involved in the initial preparation of the firearm for a scene, which seems pretty rare). This seems like a step liable to cause a host of other problems that can be avoided by having a firearms expert handle the procedures themselves (which was not happening in this particular case sadly).
Dummy rounds, blanks, and lethal rounds all look pretty identical from the tail, which is the only part of the cartridge you can see when looking at the back end of a loaded revolver. Dummy rounds have the same nose shape as lethal rounds. And honestly you can't see the nose (where the easiest discernible differences between dummy/lethal and blanks are) in most magazines either. Someone mentioned earlier that some actors like to oversee the loading process to double-check what they're being given. That's awesome and kudos to them for being educated on the subject of firearm safety. It'd be awesome if all actors were similarly conscious, but they're not, so we rely on expert armorers to take over those responsibilities.
DannyDuberstein said:
I'm just amazed that live ammo is allowed near a location, and that this massive industry doesn't have color indications on dummy rounds and blanks. And to go further, I'm also surprised there isn't more done to prevent live rounds from being loaded/fired from these weapons
I think that's exactly the massive cluster that led to this incident. There ARE strict guidelines and standards about having lethal ammunition on sets... but those were ignored. Maybe they'll start making the types of ammunition more easily recognizable after all this is said and done.
Hollywood has the muscle to ask vendors to stamp "DUMMY" or "BLANK" on the back so it can be seen while loaded in a revolver. If they refuse to work with ammo without those stamps, then vendors would be stamping them the next day (I wouldn't be surprised if they are already stamped that way). They also have the muscle to require magazines that have clear plastic (like I have at home) or some other mechanism to allow the rounds to be seen while still in the magazine.
No they don't, but most blank round are stamped as such.aTmAg said:
Hollywood has the muscle to ask vendors to stamp "DUMMY" or "BLANK" on the back so it can be seen while loaded in a revolver. If they refuse to work with ammo without those stamps, then vendors would be stamping them the next day (I wouldn't be surprised if they are already stamped that way). They also have the muscle to require magazines that have clear plastic (like I have at home) or some other mechanism to allow the rounds to be seen while still in the magazine.
Sure they do. If they can spend $300M plus on a movie, they can call up an ammo vender and order ammo with whatever they want stamped on it.powerbelly said:No they don't, but most blank round are stamped as such.aTmAg said:
Hollywood has the muscle to ask vendors to stamp "DUMMY" or "BLANK" on the back so it can be seen while loaded in a revolver. If they refuse to work with ammo without those stamps, then vendors would be stamping them the next day (I wouldn't be surprised if they are already stamped that way). They also have the muscle to require magazines that have clear plastic (like I have at home) or some other mechanism to allow the rounds to be seen while still in the magazine.
As tragic as this was, does the history of firearm usage in film suggest an additional step is necessary in the grand scheme of things? I mean, this never happens. The only other one I'm aware of in the last 30 years is Brandon Lee, and that involved a blank and a lodged projectile, so checking the "ammo" wouldn't have stopped that either.aTmAg said:AGAIN, I'm not sayin get rid of that process. But add one last step where the actor himself checks prior to pulling the trigger. Sorta like how pilots still walk around their aircraft even though there are mechanics that know 1000X more than they do working on the aircraft and that aircraft are a gazillion times more complicated than a gun.jeffk said:
Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.
Life is full of risks. We could reduce a lot of deaths by reducing speed limits, going back into COVID lockdowns, etc. There's lots of dangerous professions that exist purely for entertainment (Formula 1 racing comes to mind). As some point, you have to find the acceptable level of risk (but it's still some risk). By its historical track record, it seems like this risk has been sufficiently mitigated if the proper protocols are followed. Looks like they weren't here and that was the problem.
Just read on Fox News that there were 3 accidental discharges with live ammo in the Days leading up to the murder.
If this is true, going to be quite a few manslaughter charges. Evidently there is a text that was sent to one of the directors complaining of safety lapses...
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-cutting-corners-hollywood-sets-weapons-armorer
Virtually all major accidents resulting in death had many near misses or poor management decisions that eventually lead to a fatality. This "accident" appears to be no different than a bridge failure or space shuttle incident.
*Poorly trained experts ($$$)
*live ammunition on set
*no safety training for actors
*accidental discharges of live ammunition! This should have lead to an operations shut down with top level mgmt involvement!
*others? I'm sure there are other issues that haven't been surfaced yet
All of this will show a culture of piss poor safety compliance and this is what a DA will use to prosecute Baldwin.
If this is true, going to be quite a few manslaughter charges. Evidently there is a text that was sent to one of the directors complaining of safety lapses...
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-cutting-corners-hollywood-sets-weapons-armorer
Virtually all major accidents resulting in death had many near misses or poor management decisions that eventually lead to a fatality. This "accident" appears to be no different than a bridge failure or space shuttle incident.
*Poorly trained experts ($$$)
*live ammunition on set
*no safety training for actors
*accidental discharges of live ammunition! This should have lead to an operations shut down with top level mgmt involvement!
*others? I'm sure there are other issues that haven't been surfaced yet
All of this will show a culture of piss poor safety compliance and this is what a DA will use to prosecute Baldwin.
It happens a lot more than we think, it seems: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048295916/props-gun-death-injuries-rust-movie-set-rareJCA1 said:As tragic as this was, does the history of firearm usage in film suggest an additional step is necessary in the grand scheme of things? I mean, this never happens. The only other one I'm aware of in the last 30 years is Brandon Lee, and that involved a blank and a lodged projectile, so checking the "ammo" wouldn't have stopped that either.aTmAg said:AGAIN, I'm not sayin get rid of that process. But add one last step where the actor himself checks prior to pulling the trigger. Sorta like how pilots still walk around their aircraft even though there are mechanics that know 1000X more than they do working on the aircraft and that aircraft are a gazillion times more complicated than a gun.jeffk said:
Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.
Life is full of risks. We could reduce a lot of deaths by reducing speed limits, going back into COVID lockdowns, etc. There's lots of dangerous professions that exist purely for entertainment (Formula 1 racing comes to mind). As some point, you have to find the acceptable level of risk (but it's still some risk). By its historical track record, it seems like this risk has been sufficiently mitigated if the proper protocols are followed. Looks like they weren't here and that was the problem.
I'm sure we heard about a lot of these, but it's easy to forget when someone famous isn't involved
That's a horribly written headline. If you click the AP link on which the article is based, it's clear that the total is for all onsite accidents that result in fatalities. It's not just accidental gun discharges.bluefire579 said:It happens a lot more than we think, it seems: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048295916/props-gun-death-injuries-rust-movie-set-rareJCA1 said:As tragic as this was, does the history of firearm usage in film suggest an additional step is necessary in the grand scheme of things? I mean, this never happens. The only other one I'm aware of in the last 30 years is Brandon Lee, and that involved a blank and a lodged projectile, so checking the "ammo" wouldn't have stopped that either.aTmAg said:AGAIN, I'm not sayin get rid of that process. But add one last step where the actor himself checks prior to pulling the trigger. Sorta like how pilots still walk around their aircraft even though there are mechanics that know 1000X more than they do working on the aircraft and that aircraft are a gazillion times more complicated than a gun.jeffk said:
Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.
Life is full of risks. We could reduce a lot of deaths by reducing speed limits, going back into COVID lockdowns, etc. There's lots of dangerous professions that exist purely for entertainment (Formula 1 racing comes to mind). As some point, you have to find the acceptable level of risk (but it's still some risk). By its historical track record, it seems like this risk has been sufficiently mitigated if the proper protocols are followed. Looks like they weren't here and that was the problem.
I'm sure we heard about a lot of these, but it's easy to forget when someone famous isn't involved
Edit-Briefly skimming the remainder of the article, it looks like Brandon Lee is the only gun mishap they cite in the last 30 years.
Interesting read, thanks. The article says from 1990-2016, there were at least 43 deaths and 150+ injured by ACCIDENTS OF ALL TYPES (edit) on tv or movie sets. But then later they say that Brandon Lee was the last person killed accidentally by a prop gun on a movie set in 1993.
Edit - Weird way to write an article about gun deaths.
Edit - Weird way to write an article about gun deaths.
If there has been 1 accidently shooting since 1993, that's a pretty pretty good track record. How many guns have been fired in movies since then? 1 billion?
Outside of Hollywood (aka, the sane world), if somebody hands you a gun and tells you it's safe, do you blindly shoot? Even if he looks to be an expert? Of course not. You check the gun yourself to make sure it's okay. And a good expert would tell you (and show you if necessary) to check it yourself.JCA1 said:As tragic as this was, does the history of firearm usage in film suggest an additional step is necessary in the grand scheme of things? I mean, this never happens. The only other one I'm aware of in the last 30 years is Brandon Lee, and that involved a blank and a lodged projectile, so checking the "ammo" wouldn't have stopped that either.aTmAg said:AGAIN, I'm not sayin get rid of that process. But add one last step where the actor himself checks prior to pulling the trigger. Sorta like how pilots still walk around their aircraft even though there are mechanics that know 1000X more than they do working on the aircraft and that aircraft are a gazillion times more complicated than a gun.jeffk said:
Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.
Life is full of risks. We could reduce a lot of deaths by reducing speed limits, going back into COVID lockdowns, etc. There's lots of dangerous professions that exist purely for entertainment (Formula 1 racing comes to mind). As some point, you have to find the acceptable level of risk (but it's still some risk). By its historical track record, it seems like this risk has been sufficiently mitigated if the proper protocols are followed. Looks like they weren't here and that was the problem.
At the very least, if I'm an actor, I would want to check before pulling the trigger for peace of mind so that I do not have killing somebody in my brain for the rest of my life. Especially if there has been protocol issues like on this set. And I'm not talking about a new law, but a new rule within Hollywood.
Formula 1 drivers willingly accept the risk for themselves. That is much different than putting other people at risk.
Ah, you're right, I misread it. That's what I get for trying to post before having my coffee. So you're right in your original post, they seem to have been pretty effective at reducing the risk as far as guns go. Without digging into it, my guess would be the vast majority of the rest are directly stunt-related, which fits even more in your acceptable level of risk statement.JCA1 said:That's a horribly written headline. If you click the AP link on which the article is based, it's clear that the total is for all onsite accidents that result in fatalities. It's not just accidental gun discharges.bluefire579 said:It happens a lot more than we think, it seems: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048295916/props-gun-death-injuries-rust-movie-set-rareJCA1 said:As tragic as this was, does the history of firearm usage in film suggest an additional step is necessary in the grand scheme of things? I mean, this never happens. The only other one I'm aware of in the last 30 years is Brandon Lee, and that involved a blank and a lodged projectile, so checking the "ammo" wouldn't have stopped that either.aTmAg said:AGAIN, I'm not sayin get rid of that process. But add one last step where the actor himself checks prior to pulling the trigger. Sorta like how pilots still walk around their aircraft even though there are mechanics that know 1000X more than they do working on the aircraft and that aircraft are a gazillion times more complicated than a gun.jeffk said:
Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.
Life is full of risks. We could reduce a lot of deaths by reducing speed limits, going back into COVID lockdowns, etc. There's lots of dangerous professions that exist purely for entertainment (Formula 1 racing comes to mind). As some point, you have to find the acceptable level of risk (but it's still some risk). By its historical track record, it seems like this risk has been sufficiently mitigated if the proper protocols are followed. Looks like they weren't here and that was the problem.
I'm sure we heard about a lot of these, but it's easy to forget when someone famous isn't involved
Edit-Briefly skimming the remainder of the article, it looks like Brandon Lee is the only gun mishap they cite in the last 30 years.
This is a workplace safety question. There's no reason to consider the risks presented by guns any different than any other risk. What matters is the magnitude of the risk. What we know is the magnitude of the risk of death from an accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm on a movie set is virtually nonexistent (2 in the last 30 years).aTmAg said:Outside of Hollywood (aka, the sane world), if somebody hands you a gun and tells you it's safe, do you blindly shoot? Even if he looks to be an expert? Of course not. You check the gun yourself to make sure it's okay. And a good expert would tell you (and show you if necessary) to check it yourself.JCA1 said:As tragic as this was, does the history of firearm usage in film suggest an additional step is necessary in the grand scheme of things? I mean, this never happens. The only other one I'm aware of in the last 30 years is Brandon Lee, and that involved a blank and a lodged projectile, so checking the "ammo" wouldn't have stopped that either.aTmAg said:AGAIN, I'm not sayin get rid of that process. But add one last step where the actor himself checks prior to pulling the trigger. Sorta like how pilots still walk around their aircraft even though there are mechanics that know 1000X more than they do working on the aircraft and that aircraft are a gazillion times more complicated than a gun.jeffk said:
Yep, a lot of the "responsibilities of gun safety" that we've all been taught since childhood get contracted out to the experts that are on set. It's more efficient, faster, and honestly (when done with fidelity) more safe than if we let all the novice acting talent handle the weapons processing themselves. It'd be great if all of the talent could add an extra set of knowledgeable hands/eyes to the process, but if you've ever tried to teach a novice (especially a reluctant one) how to safely handle a gun, it can be a really strenuous and often dangerous process.
Life is full of risks. We could reduce a lot of deaths by reducing speed limits, going back into COVID lockdowns, etc. There's lots of dangerous professions that exist purely for entertainment (Formula 1 racing comes to mind). As some point, you have to find the acceptable level of risk (but it's still some risk). By its historical track record, it seems like this risk has been sufficiently mitigated if the proper protocols are followed. Looks like they weren't here and that was the problem.
At the very least, if I'm an actor, I would want to check before pulling the trigger for peace of mind so that I do not have killing somebody in my brain for the rest of my life. Especially if there has been protocol issues like on this set. And I'm not talking about a new law, but a new rule within Hollywood.
Formula 1 drivers willingly accept the risk for themselves. That is much different than putting other people at risk.
Are you advocating that we revise all workplace safety rules for any workplace accidents that result in 2 or more deaths over a 30 year period? If not, why not? Those people are no less dead and additional safety protocols could have potentially saved them. But I'll let you in on a secret, if 2 workplace deaths in 30 years is unacceptable, you're basically going to grind our labor force to a halt.
Edit - And not to be callous, but she did accept the risk in a sense. She went into movie production and took a role where she voluntarily let someone point a gun at her and pull the trigger. She thought the proper safety protocols were in place for that to be safe (and it should have been).
It will come out that they didn't follow the rules prescribed for firearm safety. Like whoever was using those guns for plinking.
Did a little digging and it looks like there are 3 deaths total from gun accidents while filming. This one, Brandon Lee in 1993, and an extra who was shot in the head in 1915.
people on set are way more likely to die from a car crash or stunt accident than by a gun.
people on set are way more likely to die from a car crash or stunt accident than by a gun.
Helicopter too.nai06 said:
Did a little digging and it looks like there are 3 deaths total from gun accidents while filming. This one, Brandon Lee in 1993, and an extra who was shot in the head in 1915.
people on set are way more likely to die from a car crash or stunt accident than by a gun.
Technically, anyone on the set at that time could have verified the ammo in that gun. By not doing so, they willingly accepted the risk, according to logic presented on this thread.
the 1915 death was pretty crazy.Kevin the 3-legged dog said:Helicopter too.nai06 said:
Did a little digging and it looks like there are 3 deaths total from gun accidents while filming. This one, Brandon Lee in 1993, and an extra who was shot in the head in 1915.
people on set are way more likely to die from a car crash or stunt accident than by a gun.
Cecil DeMille had a bunch of extras live fire at a door for realism right before they broke it down. They took a break and reloaded with blanks but someone missed a bullet. An extra was shot in the head when they filmed the next part of them breaking down a door
Press conference coming up now.
Alec shot, 2 people inspected prior to giving it to him. Hannah and the ad.
Everyone has been cooperating. Limited amount of staff present when incident took place. Approx 100 people on set. 600 items of evidence.
500 rounds of ammo in evidence. Have spent shell casing from gun. Also have actual bullet from ads shoulder.
Recovered additional live rounds on set. Evidence will be submitted to fbi crime lab for analysis.
Too early to comment on charges. Investigation to continue. Arrests will be made if they determine a crime has been committed.
That was from the cop, DA up now.
They take facts and evidence and apply it to nm law. They are not there now. They don't rush to judgment.
Questions now. Still trying to find out how live rounds got to set. They aren't saying officially they are live rounds. Trig to determine how the people who were supposed to check the guns failed to determine there were live rounds.
500 rounds is a mix of blanks, dummy rounds and what they believe to be dummy rounds.
All options are on the table as to whether charges can be filed against Baldwin. Noone has been ruled out as it pertains to charges being filed. Nothing yet.
90 people working on set. A lot of interviews still need to be done. Not too many on scene when shooting took place.
Encouraging anyone who has a history with this set or other sets where safety issues happened to call in, gave sheriff phone number. History of negligent or unsafe behavior can be taken in to account as to whether charges can be filed.
F Lee pietta (sp?)45 long colt revolver was the gun used. They believe there were more love rounds in the gun used. There were 3 guns in the vicinity of where the shooting happened.
One other gun looked to be modified to not be able to function and the other was a plastic fake gun.
One other gun looked to be modified to not be able to function and the other was a plastic fake gun.
There was no footage of the actual incident.
Featured Stories
See All
38:09
8h ago
3.3k
13:40
6h ago
1.7k
Pop Isaacs willing to do whatever it takes in the postseason
by Luke Evangelist
Mr. All-SEC! Forward Rashaun Agee earns third-team nod
by Richard Zane
Baseball Thoughts: Encouragement continues as SEC play arrives
by Ryan Brauninger
11:50
4h ago
658
Marcus Hill loves Texas A&M's 'underdog' story
by Luke Evangelist