My idea on preventing another Alec Baldwin-style tragedy

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

I'm saying make a fake gun, that looks like it really shot something, without CGI, but has zero chance of any projectile.

They already do... they call them "blanks."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Right.. loaded into a real gun, capable of shooting real bullets.
Are you intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying?

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

No, but I think you are misunderstanding me.

The action of a live round is due to the explosion of the gunpowder. There is no physical way to recreate that without using an explosion. That's what a blank does: it ignites gunpowder without firing a projectile (in theory; in practice it can still fire wadding or casing shrapnel in some cases). However, the gun has no way to know the difference between a blank and a live round. If it can fire a blank, it can fire a live round. Even if you made a gun where the chamber was too short to accept a live round, one could simply load a slightly smaller powder charge behind a shorter bullet inserted completely into the casing.

There is no way to make any explosion completely safe.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My solution doesn't require any explosions

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

And in any case, it has been confirmed now that the gun was supposed to be loaded with dummies, not blanks. Blanks would have been easier to detect than dummies, since dummies are purposely made to look real.

The only way to detect a dummy is to visually inspect the primer location to see if it contains a primer. Apparently, one round in the gun did when inspected after the shooting. That further clarifies the need for some sort of regulation. How did a live round get mixed in with the dummy rounds? Why didn't the armorer inspect the rounds? Why didn't the AD inspect the rounds? Why didn't Alec Baldwin inspect the rounds?

This was a massive failure by humans, not a technical malfunction.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

I dunno if that would work. I'd want some advice from someone in the business before I signed onto that.

Think about it... this whole thing happened because someone had to line up a live shot. How can you get that precise angle before it is even known? I've heard a lot of the actual shots are impromptu... the producer or director is watching the shots and gets an idea how a shot might work better on the spot. Your idea would then require closing down the set while the actors went back into the desert to get that new shot.

I think it would be easier to just insist on firearm safety.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o
This was a massive failure by humans, not a technical malfunction.

Fully agree

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

I dunno if that would work. I'd want some advice from someone in the business before I signed onto that.

Think about it... this whole thing happened because someone had to line up a live shot. How can you get that precise angle before it is even known? I've heard a lot of the actual shots are impromptu... the producer or director is watching the shots and gets an idea how a shot might work better on the spot. Your idea would then require closing down the set while the actors went back into the desert to get that new shot.

I think it would be easier to just insist on firearm safety.

TheRedneck

Years ago I would agree with you but the way technology has been advancing I think it would be easier than you think. You ever see on a sports program where they'll go into a replay of a play, and instead of switching camera angles, they can literally rotate around the play in real-time? That's not because they had a million cameras from every angle, it's because of computer algorithms that can, with enough shots, produce angles that no camera actually covered.

And, keep in mind, this only has to be done once. Even if they have to set up 100 cameras to get all these different stock footages, they can then be used from then on. The SFX people would then be able to use computer techniques to produce the right effect for pretty much any angle. It would still give filmmakers the creative freedom to use pretty much any shot they want. The SFX people take it from there. They have no problems orienting things at the right angle when they insert live-action captures into animations for video games. People with the right know-how and technology could accomplish it.

Would it be easier to just focus on gun safety? Of course. But you're still going to leave room for accidents no matter how many regulations you employ. Accidents will still happen when they aren't followed.

Those suggestions are fine.

But they will fail when the soft wear that is supposed to be in charge fails.

Gun safety, and regardless of how one may feel about it we're surrounded by guns, should be ingrained into the brains of everyone.

Accidents are part of life--they happen when least expected (duh). But much can be done to alleviate that chance with proper training.

I'm not "officially" trained, but I was trained by people who were officially trained. My grandfather (LEO, and WW1 doughboy), my father (30+ years military WW2, Korea, and Vietnam), and various Uncles, all of whom were former military. I've even gone through police style training with a retired LEO.

I don't think I'm capable of mishandling a gun of any sort. Hell, I pick up a toy gun in a store--not that many stores carry those scary things anymore, but I digress--I check to see if it's loaded. Feel kinda foolish, but that's how ingrained it is.

It comes down to training, and more training, then practice, and more practice, followed by more training and practice.

I didn't hop into a car, and go roaring down the road at highway speeds first time out.

Or cook a four course meal on my first attempt at cooking. Most everything in life requires first training then practice.

No matter how skilled one may become, you also need to maintain those skills which require--you guessed it--training and practice.

Accidents can not be prevented totally. They happen. This one could have been, more importantly...should have been. All that was required was proper training and chain of custody. Failure on at least the former, and possibly the latter since no one knows who screwed up.

a reply to: TheRedneck

May I add another gun safety rule:

"Trigger finger: ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until you are ready to shoot and your sights are on target."

"KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THAT TRIGGER!!!"

source:

www.jm4tactical.com...

a reply to: TheRedneck


Excellent!

I grew up with guns in my home and still have them. I was taught the exact same rules!

Alec should be charged with manslaughter. The female who died family should sue the production company. Both of them would put an end to using real guns. It's not a prop gun if someone can die from it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think it would be easier to just insist on firearm safety.

Firearm safety is a good thing. Comparatively, and proportionally, how many of these incidents happen on set versus real life?

Shall we start with firearm safety for the general public?

You can always tell the people who do not know a thing about guns when they still do not understand that the LAST PERSON holding the gun is the ONE responsible for it....they are the sole individual who must check it as soon as their hands touch it:

Always assume a gun is loaded.
Never point a gun at anything you do not wish to kill.
Only kill for food or self-protection.
Know what is around you at all times

Alex KILLED Halyna Hutchins. Nobody else. Not the armorer. Not the Assistant Director. Alex had the gun in his hand last. he was the one responsible for inspecting it as soon as he had it in his hand. He has handled guns numerous times on numerous sets. This is not his first rodeo. THIS IS ALL HIS FAULT 100%. It does not matter what happened before the gun was placed in his hand.

His PR firm is is working overtime, as that is their job and that is what he pays them big $$$ to do. But at the end of the day, this all lies on him....no matter how many fingers are pointed at the other 2.

When a cop picks up a gun at a crime scene. THE FIRST THING THEY DO IS INSPECT IT and clear the chamber and remove the magazine. They dont just trust the word of someone else who had handled it - even another cop.

It's about personal responsibility. The person that was supposed to prevent this from happening, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Then the next armorer won't blow off the 3 second task of looking at the backs of of the cartridges. I would say that Mr Baldwin should be expected to practice some sort of gun safety but we all know any accountability from the Hollywood left is never gonna happen.

a reply to: shaemac

You can always tell the people who do not know a thing about guns when they still do not understand that the LAST PERSON holding the gun is the ONE responsible for it

You can always tell the people who are ignorant of ON SET SAFETY PROTOCOL regarding guns by statements like the above.

(and yes, this was a failure)

originally posted by: DeadlyStaringFrog
It's about personal responsibility. The person that was supposed to prevent this from happening, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Then the next armorer won't blow off the 3 second task of looking at the backs of of the cartridges. I would say that Mr Baldwin should be expected to practice some sort of gun safety but we all know any accountability from the Hollywood left is never gonna happen.

You dont get it. At all. This is all Alec's fault. He killed her. Nobody else did. He was the one in control of the gun. It was in HIS HANDS. He had the responsibility to look inside the gun and control the trigger and where it was aimed.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: shaemac

You can always tell the people who do not know a thing about guns when they still do not understand that the LAST PERSON holding the gun is the ONE responsible for it

You can always tell the people who are ignorant of ON SET SAFETY PROTOCOL regarding guns by statements like the above.

(and yes, this was a failure)

Alec was the last one with the gun and NOPE he did not exercise ANY safety protocol. He was the LAST one to hold the gun. He literally exercised ZERO gun safety. No human should EVER trust any gun that is just handed to them by anyone. I would never do so. I carry a gun on me everywhere I go. I go to the range every week. I do not just take a gun from someone and willy nilly handle it.

This is all Alec's fault for not inspecting it and not controlling it.

a reply to: Erno86

That would be covered in the basic firearms training.

In this case, though, the intent was to fire the gun, just not for anything to go off. The gun was supposed to be loaded with dummies. Three separate people, though, forgot to check the gun to be sure of that before announcing that the gun didn't contain live rounds and firing it. One of those people was the producer in charge of the set.

I think in this particular instance, "always assume the gun is loaded" would be the applicable rule.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Shall we start with firearm safety for the general public?

I'm down with that.

However, there is that blasted Constitution in the way. One can't just demand that free adults all take a firearm safety course just because they happen to exist. One can require that safety courses are required to perform a job. I gave examples in the OP.

I will relate the way Alabama has approached firearm safety education, and I like what they did. They required a firearms safety course completion before issuing hunting licenses. That is Constitutional and manages to get an awful lot of people to learn firearm safety.

One other thing we could do to get more people to learn firearm safety: PROMOTE IT! If we spent a tenth the energy on promoting public education in firearm safety as we do trying to somehow make firearms all go away, 99.99% of the population would already know firearm safety.

I wonder why Alec Baldwin doesn't do that?

TheRedneck