News Alec Baldwin Accidentally Shoots & Kills Cinematographer, Wounds Director with Prop Gun

[KennyB]

This article talks about possible legal actions. New York Post

I heard from a friend in the industry over the weekend, who has quite a bit of experience in front of and behind the scenes. She was approached to be the assistant prop manager for Rust, and declined the job because she had only very limited experience working with props. She's speculating that they ended up hiring someone who also had little to know experience. So take that for what you will.

They hired a 24 year old.......who had only been lead armorer on one other film where she gave an unsafe weapon to an 11 year old........her father is a well respected guy in the business and a quick draw champion. SHE has had numerous complaints against her while on Rust already.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I haven't been following this thread much. I will note that the armorer (according to KNX news, Saturday evening) is the daughter of a veteran professional production armorer, and learned the trade from her father. If so, then there is no way she can credibly plead ignorance of proper safety protocols. So either it's culpable negligence, or somebody used Alec Baldwin as a murder wapon, or both.

 

[Brobdingnag]

I haven't been following this thread much. I will note that the armorer (according to KNX news, Saturday evening) is the daughter of a veteran professional production armorer, and learned the trade from her father. If so, then there is no way she can credibly plead ignorance of proper safety protocols. So either it's culpable negligence, or somebody used Alec Baldwin as a murder wapon, or both.

I seriously doubt that it's the latter though. That's the kind of stuff you see in "Murder She Wrote" or "Columbo", not in real life.

 

[J.T.B.]

Why would people be shooting a gun for fun on a movie set and who would think using a gun that will be used in the movie would be a good idea? What I think its this movie seems to be set in the old west so the gun is kind of a old relic and someone thought it would be neat to shoot using a gun from back in those days.

They are not old relics, they are still made today and their metallurgy and internal mechanisms are very modern. AFAIK all modern single-action revolvers that are made to look like just like those from the old days now have manual safeties to prevent accidental discharge (the reason that the old time guys only loaded five instead of six, with an empty chamber under the hammer). But yes, a box or even one round of "real" ammunition anywhere near the set should have sent up all kinds of red flags for anyone who saw it. It's giving me the heebie-jeebies right now to think about it.

Being former military, it is drilled into ones head, for Weeks, Don't point the gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, and keep your booger finger off the trigger till then. Even blanks can be harmful, look at Brandon Lee, a blank killed him because no one checked the barrel to see if there was anything in there after the previous use.

Yes indeed. If you want to be screamed at for a while about every way you are a disgrace your species, do something unsafe on a military gun range. There is a scene in the HBO WW2 series The Pacific (based on a scene from a wartime memoir) when an marine officer is taking target practice and is not paying attention and lets his pistol muzzle move back toward the firing line. A sergeant screams at him and IIRC throws a handful of rocks at him; the fact that it was a superior officer never entered into it. That attitude is real and has been around for a long time.

When I was a kid and took the Hunter Safety course (with a lot of my classmates) the first thing that they told us was TREAT EVERY GUN AS IF IT IS LOADED AND READY TO FIRE. When someone hands you a gun, you open it up and check if it's loaded, and you keep it in a safe condition until you are pointing it at what you want to shoot. Whatever you shoot at can be destroyed. And when we went to shoot our .22's, the instructor chewed a 12 year old kid out for horsing around. I still remember it. The kid was about to cry, but he got the message: These are killing machines. If you don't want to take it seriously, stay home.

Another thing I just remembered: A friend of my dad's who was an avid gun collector and shooter and fixated on gun rights (he was considered pretty extreme for the time) did not allow his kids to have toy guns, because he did not want them to develop bad habits of pointing guns around.

In the old days, there were institutions that reinforced that safety culture. The NRA was largely a safety and training organization. There were riflery clubs at high schools all over, even places like Brooklyn and Queens. Boy scout camps had shooting ranges. There were a lot of veterans around to help impart that safety culture. Do many institutions like that still exist today? I'm out of touch, I don't know. But firearms are scary, and when they are unsecured and being handled, having the figurative hair stand up on the back of your neck is not a bad thing.

 

[KennyB]

TREAT EVERY GUN AS IF IT IS LOADED AND READY TO FIRE.

Yes in the real world---it's just not the same on a set. You have multiple sats of eyes that are being PAID to make sure everything is safe. That's THEIR ONLY JOB.........and it did not happen here. I am a combat vet and I have worked on some large productions.....they employ these people because it is the law and not every actor has firearms training. Hell some of the most badass gun scenes are done with people holding a gun for the first time and 2 hours of prep. It is completely safe WHEN YOU FOLLOW THE PROTOCOLS. This set was an accident waiting to happen......and it did not take long.

 

[XCV330]

They are not old relics, they are still made today and their metallurgy and internal mechanisms are very modern. AFAIK all modern single-action revolvers that are made to look like just like those from the old days now have manual safeties to prevent accidental discharge (the reason that the old time guys only loaded five instead of six, with an empty chamber under the hammer). .

I had a Colt SAA repro made back in the 90's with no safety. And of course safeties on a double-action are rare, too, though they do exist. Honestly it's extremely rare to see a safety on any revolver. Single-actions don't need them because you have to manually cock it, and double-actions have such a heavy trigger pull that they don't need them, either.

As far as the transfer-bar safety, some do, some don't. Heritage and North American Arms sell a tons of single-actions that probably should be carried on empty chamber, whereas I think most Ruger single actions do have the transfer bar. Don't know about others.

 

[J.T.B.]

Yes in the real world---it's just not the same on a set. You have multiple sats of eyes that are being PAID to make sure everything is safe. That's THEIR ONLY JOB.........and it did not happen here.

But some actors, including the one on Twitter cited upthread, have said that they have been given just that kind of safety message. It certainly wouldn't have hurt in this case.

I had a Colt SAA repro made back in the 90's with no safety. And of course safeties on a double-action are rare, too, though they do exist. Honestly it's extremely rare to see a safety on any revolver. Single-actions don't need them because you have to manually cock it, and double-actions have such a heavy trigger pull that they don't need them, either.

OK, thanks for the correction, the one repro Uberti 1873 I shot had cylinder pin that could be pushed in a notch to act as a safety for safe transport. I assumed with the liability world being what it is, that kind of thing would be more common. Rugers of course have the transfer bar but they don't have the little point on the hammer, inauthentic!

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Another thing I just remembered: A friend of my dad's who was an avid gun collector and shooter and fixated on gun rights (he was considered pretty extreme for the time) did not allow his kids to have toy guns, because he did not want them to develop bad habits of pointing guns around

I recall hearing, many years ago, that in rural areas where firearms are in daily use, not allowing kids to have toy guns is the rule, rather than the exception.

And let us hope that "using Alec Baldwin as a murder weapon" is more the stuff of whodunits like Murder, She Wrote, and howcatchems like Columbo, and not the root cause of this tragedy.

 

[valkyrie013]

I am 100% sure there have been incidents where a live around was in a movie gun and got fired however it was a shot into the ground or off into the distance, not at anybody because they practiced muzzle discipline.

Friend of mine was a range safety officer for about 5 years he was almost shot numerous times by idiots not practicing muzzle safety.
Some instances the gun did go off but fortunately didn't hurt anybody.

 

[vandevere]

I recall hearing, many years ago, that in rural areas where firearms are in daily use, not allowing kids to have toy guns is the rule, rather than the exception.

And let us hope that "using Alec Baldwin as a murder weapon" is more the stuff of whodunits like Murder, She Wrote, and howcatchems like Columbo, and not the root cause of this tragedy.

I agree. Alec Baldwin has enough shocks just being the guy who pulled the trigger on a gun he thought was safe. No need to make things worse than they already are...

 

[shapeshifter]

That's because it was a prop gun. Prop is short for "property," whether it's a non-functional rubber or plastic replica or an actual firearm loaded with blank cartridges.

Are you a TV and/or Motion Picture armourer?

According to @antinoos above, a 'prop gun' is a fake gun, incapable of firing. A 'cold gun' is an unloaded real gun. See here...

When we say a "prop gun" on a film set we mean a rubber or a replica that does not fire. We do not mean a blank firing gun. We call blank fire guns real guns because as I said, they are real. Sometimes real guns are used "cold" (unloaded) if either there's no matching prop gun or if they want a closeup (the props are usually not as nice looking in detail), but for wide shots props are fine
Actors can feel & see that a prop is not something that can fire. Also props can be thrown/dropped without damaging the firearm. So lots of reasons to use rubbers/replicas where you can

Then the following was stated...

Just know that there is a lot of misinformation going around right now on how movie guns work. Please do not take anything you see on Twitter at face value. (A lot of media articles are getting some industry things factually wrong too.)

I was confirming and identifying a media source I saw perpetuating false information by misidentifying the difference.

Based on latest CNN info, Hanna Gutierrez(sp) was the armourer responsible for preparing the gun.

 

[Non Sync]

I was at a range and a novice was being shown how to shoot. She shot once, lower the gun, and then put a round right in front of her feet as she was not instructed to remove her finger from the trigger after shooting and the weight of the gun pressed against her trigger finger.

Several years later, the gun owner was shot by his son with a .22 rifle through a bedroom door during an argument. He survived, but maybe wasn't the best gun owner.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Are you a TV and/or Motion Picture armourer?

No, but this guy is a prop maker and historian, so I think he'd know better than either of us:

from Props to History @ TikTok, posted on Saturday, 10/23/21

 

[Jayson1]

I got a question. Why use real guns at all instead of prop guns? Can't prop guns look just as realistic as real guns? Even the answer is no then can't they fix that with CGI?

 

[shapeshifter]

No, but this guy is a prop maker and historian, so I think he'd know better than either of us:

from Props to History @ TikTok, posted on Saturday, 10/23/21

And I was quoting a member here claiming to be in the business, so...

 

[UssGlenn]

I got a question. Why use real guns at all instead of prop guns? Can't prop guns look just as realistic as real guns? Even the answer is no then can't they fix that with CGI?

Prop guns are fine for long shots, and are often used for such. Making a prop gun for a close up is possible but is very time consuming to build and thus expensive (these sort of close ups are often showing the mechanical nature of the gun, meaning multiple moving parts). Prop guns also don't generate recoil (blanks do), which may or may not be something the actor can convincingly fake. They can add cgi muzzle flash, but they often "forget" to add shells ejecting (a more expensive effect), which is very noticeable on fake machine guns. CGI is extra tricky with hand props, very labor intensive, and thus, expensive to make look convincing. A famous recent example is the Green Milk Bottle Luke drinks in Last Jedi, it was completely replaced with a different design with CGI. Very well done, but not doable on a TV budget.

 

[Non Sync]

It became a joke on later Star Wars movies, that since the prop laser pistols didn't actually do anything, the actors started mouthing pew-pew.

Considering the number of productions that have used guns and the really small number of instances, the safety protocols do work. They simply must be followed explicitly. That they were using the same weapons for target practice on set and had live ammo present along with lax safety was the cause of this.

The Rookie has announced they are moving to using Airsoft guns. Personally, I think this is a mistake. While they shoot plastic or non-metallic "BBs", they can still cause injuries, especially to the eyes.

 

[Brobdingnag]

Back in the days of black and white movies, they used real bullets every time, even with machine guns in gangster movies, or so I am told. Actually, you can see the bullets do real damage to the sets. But then again, when they did stunts back then it was really dangerous too because it was almost real, what you saw was what you got, so to speak. The art of illusion came later.

 

[Non Sync]

The assistant director, David Halls, was fired from a production in 2019 after another gun mishap that injured a crew member. Other people who had previously worked with Halls said he did not maintain a safe working environment, which the AD is responsible for the health and safety of the crew.

 

[XCV330]

I got a question. Why use real guns at all instead of prop guns? Can't prop guns look just as realistic as real guns? Even the answer is no then can't they fix that with CGI?

You can't fake the recoil, the flinch reaction, etc.