My idea on preventing another Alec Baldwin-style tragedy

a reply to: SirHardHarry

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

Halyna Hutchins is dead tonight because of ON SET SAFETY PROTOCOLS. Firearm safety anywhere else is accepted to include the person with the gun being responsible for checking their weapon before using it. Nowhere else is there this compulsion to give someone a free pass on their responsibilities because of who they are.

What makes an actor so almighty and special that they cannot take 30 seconds to check their own firearm? I really want an answer to that.

TheRedneck

For years there was one prop house that supplied 95% gun for movies

For a movie company to rent their guns, they also had to use the companies armorers.
The state of Calif put this company out of business about 10 years ago, and now movie companies rent their guns from collectors and smaller gun prop houses that have gone into business out of state.
Now you have fly-by-night armorers working for the movie company and owing their jobs to the whims of the director. Not a company specializing in movie guns and the safe use of them.
In Calif you are required to have an Entertainment Firearms Permit,
but once you cross state lines, you may not need any permits or training.

a reply to: ANNED

Wait... are you saying the State of California is ultimately responsible for the lack of firearm safety on movie sets?

I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around this.

I had never heard of an "Entertainment Firearms Permit" so I went and did a little searching. Sure enough, Gifford's Law Center has a section on them. Here's what it says:

ENTERTAINMENT FIREARMS PERMITS

To facilitate rentals of firearms for use in motion picture, television and other entertainment productions, California has created an “entertainment firearms permit.” This permit allows any person age 21, after passing a background check, to be exempt from normal firearms dealer transfer requirements when possessing or receiving an unloaded firearm for use solely as a prop in a motion picture, television, video, theatrical or other entertainment production or event. Among other things, the following provisions of California law do not apply to a firearms transfer when the recipient is the holder of an entertainment firearms permit:

• The requirement that any firearm transfer be processed through a licensed firearms dealer ;
  
• The requirement that the recipient of a handgun present a handgun safety certificate and demonstrate safe handling of the handgun;
  
• The prohibition against receiving more than one handgun within 30 days ; and
  
• The ten-day waiting period.

An entertainment firearms permit is valid for one year.

Why would California do such a thing? Oh, wait... money, of course.

I got this from Justia:

2010 California Code
Penal Code
Chapter 2. Entertainment Firearms Permit

PENAL CODE
SECTION 29500-29535

...

29510. (a) The Department of Justice shall recover the full costs
of administering the entertainment firearms permit program by
assessing the following application fees:

(1) For the initial application: one hundred four dollars ($104).
Of this sum, fifty-six dollars ($56) shall be deposited into the
Fingerprint Fee Account, and forty-eight dollars ($48) shall be
deposited into the Dealer Record of Sale Account.

(2) For each annual renewal application: twenty-nine dollars
($29), which shall be deposited into the Dealer Record of Sale
Account.

(b) The department shall annually review and shall adjust the fees
specified in subdivision (a), if necessary, to fully fund, but not
to exceed the actual costs of, the permit program provided for by
this chapter, including enforcement of the program.

Justia also had this to say:

DOJ may charge the certified instructor up to $15 for each firearm safety certificate issued by that instructor to cover the department’s cost in carrying out and enforcing the laws regarding FSCs. The certified instructor may in turn charge a fee of $25.

In other words, the State of California gets their share and generously grants the instructor a whole $10 for doing the work. Now, considering the cost of living in California, that's going to force the instructors to churn out these certificates in wholesale fashion if they want to actually eat food occasionally... or they could work under the table, of course. How much would it take to bribe a certification instructor who is legally limited to $10 per form? Hell, I know places that charge more than that to fill out a single page application without any verification work!

I also found the online California Entertainment Firearms Permit Application. First-time applicants must have a fingerprint scan, which includes an $80 fee for "DOJ fingerprint processing and BOF eligibility processing" and a $19 "FBI fingerprint processing fee," in addition to whatever the person taking your fingerprints charges. Renewals are much cheaper, though... only a $29 processing fee.

Now, consider how many people move to California to become a "movie star"... and California is going to get their share of the spoils before they give up and go back home. Those who make it get a break. I'm not seeing any difference between this set-up and a carnival "barker".... grab the big bucks while the target still thinks they have a chance of winning, and every so often make sure someone wins so a hundred new suckers will line up.

And all to bypass the firearms restrictions, which include mandatory firearms training from what i understand, placed on everyone else. I think we may have just found the reason why some of these actors think they're so special after they hit it big... California is busy showing them that they are so they can milk everyone else dry!

Thank you for bringing this subject up. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed.

TheRedneck

The reason liberals think guns are dangerous is because they think gun nuts are as stupid and brainless and wreckless as them.

Why not just use Airsoft guns on sets?

They look real (including the slide action, slide lock and shell ejection), Feel real, reloads just the same. you can tune the speed, and you can get just about virtually every firearm on the planet in an Airsoft variation, from miniguns to old west revolvers.

But they fire plastic pellets.

www.youtube.com...

OK. To a "gun nut" you'll know they aren't real due to the lack of recoil (if the actors are bad) and CGI muzzle flash but I'd guess 80%+ of that on set these days is CGI anyhow and at the end of the day, any gun nut is going to know a gun is firing blanks - it's a movie FFS.

Some people just cannot comprehend how dangerous a firearm can be regardless of the training. Not liking something to begin with makes people zone out during training and some folk who've been around guns all their life (like the armourer in this case) can be the worst offenders of bad habits. Someone being too comfortable playing with firearms around people who have no interest is also recipe for disaster.

Don't get me wrong, there should still be firearm instruction on sets, and still follow the rules (there is still projectiles after all). But not listening to the instructor, is not going to get someone killed, never mind the insurance premiums for sets would most likely go down immensely.

Bottom line though, I like guns, guns are fun in the right environment. But I just cant see any need to use any real firearm, blank firing or otherwise on a movie set anymore. And you never know, maybe playing around with airsoft "toys" would convert a few anti-gunners.

Anyhow, my 2 cents.

Baldwin says he did not check the gun to make sure it was not loaded. The buck stops with him. He is guilty of manslaughter.... Just as any of us would be.

a reply to: TheResidentAlien

Why not just use Airsoft guns on sets?

Because the movie will look fake. It's that simple. People do not go to movies to see fake. They go to movies to escape into a fantasy that looks real. Take out the realism and you might as well just shut down movie theaters.

Some people just cannot comprehend how dangerous a firearm can be regardless of the training. Not liking something to begin with makes people zone out during training and some folk who've been around guns all their life (like the armourer in this case) can be the worst offenders of bad habits. Someone being too comfortable playing with firearms around people who have no interest is also recipe for disaster.

A couple of things here.

If an actor cannot force him/herself to adhere to firearms safety, the obvious solution is for them to not work on movies that include firearms. There are plenty of those: romance, comedy, etc. If, as you say (and I tend to agree to a point), an actor having a strong enough dislike for firearms can be expected to be more careless with them, then that actor should not have taken the role in the first place!

Every actor gets a script to read before they sign on to the movie. They know what the movie is about.

The armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, was not experienced with firearms. She is the daughter of legendary armorer Thell Reed, yes, and claims to have been trained by her father, but all indications are that she didn't learn very well. This was her second film as armorer; the first was "The Old Way" starring Nicolas Cage. The Wrap says the following about her activites on that film:

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the 24-year-old armorer who handled weapons on the set of Alec Baldwin’s “Rust,” was the subject of numerous complaints on her previous film just two months earlier after she discharged weapons without warning and infuriated star Nicolas Cage, a crew member told TheWrap.

Stu Brumbaugh, who served as key grip on the Cage Western “The Old Way” this summer, told TheWrap that Gutierrez upset both Cage and other crew members on the Montana production by failing to follow basic gun safety protocols like announcing the arrival and usage of weapons onto the set.

Now, anyone who fires off a firearm on an open movie set without warning is not "experienced." It takes maybe one time to realize how loud a gun can be. I know it is possible that she was just somewhat ditzy, but that isn't any better. Maybe she would have made a decent assistant armorer, but to be in charge of a set after that experience on "The Old Way"? No, that was insane in itself.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed has even admitted that she was initially afraid to load blanks, afraid she would somehow mess that up. Maybe her fears came true. Supposedly, she loaded the weapons, set them in the open, unsecured on a cart, the AD Dave Halls picked one up, and then handed it to Baldwin while announcing "cold gun on set" (meaning the weapon was not loaded with fireable ammunition). Baldwin then went into practice tries on his fast draw while the camera crew lined up the shot. No one checked the gun between cart and bang... not the armorer, not the AD, and not Baldwin. Three opportunities to avoid this tragedy were missed to save under 30 seconds.

That is not acceptable. No self-respecting firearm owner would ever do that. It is a direct violation of the very first rule of firearm safety. If I were target practicing and saw someone do that, the session would be over. I will not be around someone who does that with firearms. Period.

Hannah Guterrez-Reed accepted the position of set armorer. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was paid for her expertise in that position. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed failed to check the firearm before giving it to Dave Halls. Therefore Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is guilty of negligent homicide.

Dave Halls accepted the position of Assistant Director on the set. Part of Dave Halls' job description as Assistant Director was safety on the set. Dave Halls failed to check the weapon before he handed it to the actor and announced that it was not loaded with workable ammunition. Therefore Dave Halls is guilty of negligent homicide.

Alec Baldwin accepted a position as lead actor on the set with full knowledge it would involve the use of firearms. Alec Baldwin accepted a firearm from Dave Halls. Alec Baldwin chose to not check the firearm before pointing it at another person and firing it. Therefore Alec Baldwin is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Not one of those facts in the above three paragraphs is in dispute. They are all becoming common knowledge at this point. At what point do we expect an actor to live up to the exact same standards everyone else is held to? At what point do we expect an actor to live up to a fraction of the standards they are lobbying to set for everyone else?

No, we do not need pellet guns or CGI or any other way for actors to avoid their own responsibilities. We need firearm safety. Period.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have been thinking about this for a few days so I will just put it out there. You may agree with me or you may not, its a free country and I dont really care either way. It doesnt really concern the events with Mr Baldwin, but there is a connection of sorts

I was just thinking, why is someone being murdered on film entertainment anyway? The act of someone being shot is a horrendous thing, but somehow it found its way into the movies for decades, and people "enjoy" "action movies" . When you think about it, on the face of it, its really kind of sick. The Romans used to literally swarm into arenas and watch people slaughter each other for entertainment. We think of it as barbaric, but we do exactly the same thing when we watch a movie where murder is enacted. IMHO it DOES desensitize people to violence over time, as violent video games also do. Its kind of ironic there is such a call for gun control but no call to take the violence and murder out of our entertainment. Mr Baldwin, who has amassed a fortune from being a movie actor, is a perpetuator of this, as are other actors who are "anti gun" yet kill other human beings fictitiously in multitudes on celluloid. Does anyone else find this kind of absurd?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Halyna Hutchins is dead tonight because of ON SET SAFETY PROTOCOLS.

No, she is dead because of the LACK of on set protocol to ensure firearm safety, which was not followed.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now, I do want to address one thing: several people have indicated to me already that an actor should not be required to inspect their weapon, since they depend on the armorer or AD to do so. I reject that. As far as I am concerned, the very basis for firearm safety is that he who holds the weapon accepts the responsibility for the weapon

Any person who isn't qualified to use an operational firearm should be prohibited, no exceptions. If you don't know the difference between blanks and live ammunition, if you can't find the motivation to confirm it's unloaded before you aim it, if you don't have the training to put the safety on and keep it directed at the ground at all times, you are definitively unqualified and should not touch any firearm for any reason.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Long winded typical ATS book-post. No offense I like you but abhor bookposts if not pure imagination. In short, dummies should follow gun safety. Assume it's loaded, don't point at something you don't intend to shoot. No Alex Baldwin's allowed near firearms or props. It's insane he didn't breach the chamber to check at all. Stupid games stupid prizes. Guns don't kill ppl retards do, every time.

a reply to: Toother711

Yep, so it's best to keep guns away from everyone in case of retards. Apparently, it's a big problem in America.

ALL movie armorer should do a two-year apprenticeship as a JR armorer before becoming a head armorer on a movie set.
Or have military or law enforcement background in weapons training and 3 months on-the-job training.

At least two trained people should check the guns before use, one being the armorer and the other being the set safety director.

No hot weapons should be stored with cold guns. and hot weapons should be in a secure place. Only the armorer should hand a gun to the actor. and all guns must be secured and not left in the open where someone can just pick them up.

When not in use or ready to use, a lock or other safety device should be run through the barrel. to prevent live ammo from being used
No movie guns will be allowed off set for plinking or target shooting with live ammo after hours during the entire movie shoot.

All dummy ammo will be solid brass with no real primers. No components of real ammo being used.
The dummy rounds can have the primer holes filled with brass color plastic or brass painted plastic to protect the gun from damage from dry firing. And the base will have dummy stamped on it where live ammo has the maker's mark.
No hand loaded blanks should be allowed on site, they should be treated as live ammo and banned.

a reply to: TheRedneck

just use a green lump of word and computer generate the image. Problem solved

a reply to: openminded2011

You know, I have thought about that before myself. We do seem to have this unsettling propensity to want to watch people die.

The best explanation I have come up with is that seeing people killed onscreen evokes a strong emotional response, and that is the purpose of entertainment. I also think many people live vicariously through the action movies; it is a safe way to let off steam. As the amount of hidden anger in the country increases, so does the demand for more violence in movies.

But the sad fact is that as long as that is what people want to see, that is what people will pay to see. If it weren't for these movies showing the killing and maiming, perhaps a lot of people would turn to killing and maiming themselves. Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think I want to find out the hard way.

One may change laws and rules, but changing societal tendencies and human behavior is seriously tough.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SirHardHarry

No, she is dead because of the LACK of on set protocol to ensure firearm safety, which was not followed.

OK, I can accept that correction. What I was attempting to convey, however poorly worded, was that the safety protocols did not work. They failed to protect Halyna Hutchins. Someone (actually several someones) did not follow the voluntary safety protocols. That was what I was intending to convey.

That tells me that voluntary safety protocols are not what we need. We need mandatory safety protocols to ensure this never happens again. That's why I wrote this thread, to give a starting point on what those mandatory safety protocols might should be.

I don't think anything I wrote in those protocols is problematic to making a good movie safely, and every other industry has specific rules in place for safety. Indeed, these rules are less restrictive than many states' requirements for other to possess a firearm. All I am suggesting here is that the "rules" become "laws"... specific laws which dictate who is responsible for what actions and what minimum safety protocols must be met. Not voluntary rules that can be ignored when one feels like ignoring them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Toother711

Ummm... this ain't Twitter. This is ATS. One cannot thoroughly examine a subject in 140 characters.

The problem itself starts with this attitude. OK, so it takes a few minutes to read... it takes a few seconds to check a firearm. But, I can't be bothered to spend a few minutes reading; I can't be bothered to spend a few seconds checking my firearm. I have other things to do. BANG! Oops...

Quickly worded and/or loosely defined rules are why we are even talking about this. That's the same attitude that Baldwin said meant he didn't have to check his gun.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ANNED

Now this the kind of feedback I wanted!

ALL movie armorer should do a two-year apprenticeship as a JR armorer before becoming a head armorer on a movie set.
Or have military or law enforcement background in weapons training and 3 months on-the-job training.

I agree. That would be a good addition.

At least two trained people should check the guns before use, one being the armorer and the other being the set safety director.

Again, agreed. I would add the person handling the firearm as well.

No hot weapons should be stored with cold guns. and hot weapons should be in a secure place. Only the armorer should hand a gun to the actor. and all guns must be secured and not left in the open where someone can just pick them up.

Agreed, but I would not limit the secure access to only "hot" weapons. I would say any firearms, including prop guns. They can look very much like a real gun, and the chances of someone getting them mixed up is too high.

When not in use or ready to use, a lock or other safety device should be run through the barrel. to prevent live ammo from being used

I don't disagree with this, but the safety device has to be small enough to not interfere with the job. I'd want someone in the industry to look at it before I agree or disagree.

No movie guns will be allowed off set for plinking or target shooting with live ammo after hours during the entire movie shoot.

Agreed. I think I covered that in the OP, but I could be mistaken (it's late and I'm too tired to check).

All dummy ammo will be solid brass with no real primers. No components of real ammo being used.
The dummy rounds can have the primer holes filled with brass color plastic or brass painted plastic to protect the gun from damage from dry firing. And the base will have dummy stamped on it where live ammo has the maker's mark.
No hand loaded blanks should be allowed on site, they should be treated as live ammo and banned.

Got some issues with this.

As I understand it, dummies already have either no primer or a brightly colored plastic dummy insert. They also include a BB in the casing so the shell will rattle to help indicate it is a dummy. I will say that if one only uses the sound to identify dummies, a six-shooter with 5 dummies and a live round will sound about the same as one with six dummies. That should never be the primary method of checking the rounds. As a second check, the BB is a good idea; as a primary check, it is not.

It would be a problem to stamp the word "dummy" on the casing. I doubt there's enough demand for dummies to justify special brass to be manufactured with that stamp. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I don't think I am.

I will agree that blanks should be treated as live ammunition, but blanks are usually hand loaded as I understand it, and as long as the loader is competent this is not an issue. Maybe require a certification to load blanks for movie use? No uncertified blanks to be used on a set?

TheRedneck

Put OHSA inspectors on site and fine the movie company big time just like every other company out there.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: FunshineCD

And it wasn't a prop gun. A prop gun is incapable of being fired.

TheRedneck

Saturday, October 30, 2021

Alec Baldwin spoke to the press for the first time today. Looks like he might be standing at the end of his driveway, where it meets the street.

He looks haggard and annoyed: www.foxnews.com...

Dumb ass forgot to look at the gun, to ensure it wasn't loaded....like each of us would do.