Not sure but apparently in some way that they can be visually inspected like that... only he just checked 3 of them and didn't recall if she spun the drum.
Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
Not sure but apparently in some way that they can be visually inspected like that... only he just checked 3 of them and didn't recall if she spun the drum.
That is the mistake. They need to treated equally seriously, proper procedures that are adhered to, no exceptions. That is how you operate safely. Even more important if you are pointing it at people and pulling the trigger. It's always very obvious when you see people with no history of firearms handling. That's the biggest issue the US has, any idiot can buy one and they're the ones you need to weed out
That is the reality. On a firing range, you're using real rounds at targets. On a set, you're using blanks or dummies for filming a scene. They are different contexts. It's not a mistake to acknowledge that reality. It's essential to do so in order to have appropriate safety procedures.
Under your previously stated rules, blanks would be illegal on set (because they're live rounds). Dummies would be illegal on sets (because they look like real rounds). Real rounds would have course be illegal on sets. So everything would have to be faked by actors (e.g. recoil, response to noise and suchlike) and by digital effects added post production (e.g. muzzle flashes, etc). Ammunition couldn't be shown on screen at all (because it would have to look like real rounds). How would the effects of bullets be shown, e.g. a bullet hitting an object and causing suitable damage? Would that be faked post production too? Any way of doing it during filming that looks realistic will have some degree of risk. Probably on a par with a car's airbag.
It's doable, apparently. But it would still be a very different context to a firing range.
They need to treated equally seriously, proper procedures that are adhered to, no exceptions. That is how you operate safely. Even more important if you are pointing it at people and pulling the trigger. It's always very obvious when you see people with no history of firearms handling. That's the biggest issue the US has, any idiot can buy one and they're the ones you need to weed out
Treated equally seriously, yes. But that requires taking into account the fact that they're different contexts.
I'm not sure that anyone involved is telling the truth clearly. Or that they know what happened. Or what should have happened. The whole project seems to have been a mismanaged mess and the statements all boil down to "it wasn't me". Unless one or more of the dummies was replaced with a real round disguised as a dummy in a way that would be undetectable (is that even possible - it shouldnt be), multiple failures of obvious safety procedures occured on set.
I doubt many productions are managed to perfection but the officer's body worn camera footage from the site was shocking - almost everyone seemed either well in over their head or completely and utterly incompetent with obviously no intention to do better (as in they were getting paid anyhow so why put in more effort, etc. than they had to kind of indifference).
All due respect but you don't seem to be very familiar with firearms. A blank is a blank, it looks totally different from a live round. They are not particularly dangerous as long as you don't get too close to the muzzle, point blank they could you.
If you had any experience your realise that most films are laughable. No recoil (muzzle flip) at all on the guns, all the effects are badly faked. Huge holes, splintering towards the shooter, ridiculous levels of accuracy, no acknowledgement that most of the shooters would be half deaf shooting inside, stupid sound effects etc They use deliberately slow burning powers to give increased muzzle flash to look cool on screen.
You'd never let most actors use real firearms with live (case, primer, powder and bullet) ammunition, their weapon handling and trigger control is often terrible.
It's just a range, no-one calls them firing ranges
There is only one way to be safe, always treat all firearms, loaded or unloaded as capable of killing someone. In that case you have to have very clear rules to film and use potentially dangerous prop guns. I would employ a third party to ensure strict processes were followed. Very easy to make it 100% safe, just not free or without effort.
A blank can be classed as a live round because it can be fired. So they'd be illegal on set under your rules. Dummies look the same as real rounds, as that's the entire point of them. So they'd be illegal on set under your rules too.
Yes, I knew all of that apart from the use of different powder for increased muzzle flash. So why are you arguing that it's the same context as a firing range with real rounds? What do you do on your range? Fire bullets at targets or make films without doing so?
I don't think any experience is needed to realise that most films are hugely inaccurate concerning guns (and many other things). About the only unrealistic thing that isn't done any more is the guns loaded with infinite bullets thing that used to be common in films and TV and only because it became a running joke. Maybe magic silencers will fade out of use next, for the same reason.
Look, it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about, just give it up. You're wrong. Look up chain of custody, a child could devise a system to make a dummy round traceable. They were careless and negligent. That's the last I have to say on the subject.
You're arguing that there's no difference between a range using real bullets and a film set using dummies and you're claiming I don't know what I'm talking about. That's very silly.
If I had been arguing that they weren't careless and negligent, you'd have a point. But I wasn't. Exactly the opposite. Repeatedly.
If I had been arguing that there's no need to have strict control of guns and ammunition on a set, you'd have a point. But I wasn't. Exactly the opposite. Repeatedly.
You're arguing against things I haven't said just because I'm arguing that it's safer for safety rules to take into account the context to which they apply.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,000
- Location
- La France
The thing is that blank firing weapons usually can’t chamber nor fire live rounds which is why, provided you have minimum safe distance enforced and the gun/blanks are made so that no debris is projected from the gun, it’s usually safe to point and fire them at people and things.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,489
You cannot eliminate the debris as it still relies on a burning substance to create the muzzle flash, and that substance has to go somewhere.
This wasn't a gun specifically made to fire only blanks, though. It was a standard gun. Which was necessary for some scenes because some of the rounds are visible in a loaded revolver and blanks don't look the same as real rounds.
Rules regarding guns on set need to take that sort of thing into account. The fact that dummies and blanks are used makes it more likely that people will be less careful and that needs to be taken into account. The fact that most of the people handling the guns will be untrained and inexperienced in handling guns (because they're actors, not necessarily people who shoot as a hobby or a sport or for hunting) also need to be taken into account. Context matters, as always.
They referred to a minimum safe distance, so I think that when they referred to debris they meant bigger bits of debris than gas particles and the wadding and maybe some specks of incompletely burnt powder. Anything that would travel further than the minimum safe distance.
I was watching this recently (linked to timestamp for effect https://youtu.be/oERGQXsS6wY?t=254 ) in a well ran production especially these days you'd rarely need a functional firearm outside of very specific scenes.
It seems that prop serves a specific purpose of being used when you have a lot of extras that will be holding firearms. Like a giant battle scene and is not of use in such scenes that lead to the incident or that is seen in most films. Close quarter gun fights.
I think two types of gun could cover at least almost everything needed in a film or TV program with much less scope for incompetence to result in people being shot;
1) Functional but manufactured to make it impossible to load anything other than blanks into it.
2) Can be loaded with dummies (and therefore with real rounds as they're the same size and shape) but can't be fired.
Fully functional guns can be used safely on a set, but that relies on suitable safety precautions being allowed and followed. Which doesn't allow for incompetence.
Are blanks a different size/shape to real bullets? Or are you suggesting that they have blanks made that are a different size/shape? Also it seems like this would be a custom gun.
It would be fairly easy to put a pin through the barrel so the real rounds (which are longer due to the bullet) just wouldn't fit into the chamber. Still require two guns but at least you're not breaking two of the rules of gun safety (never point the gun at something you dont mind destroying, always assume the gun is loaded (or something like that.))
I'm supprised that no one has invented a different low pressure formulation that burns with the same characteristics as gunpowder/smokeless powder (as appropriate).
Would remove the need for the blanks crimp and therefore massively reduce debris risk, seems like a no brainer!
Would remove the need for the blanks crimp and therefore massively reduce debris risk, seems like a no brainer!