I stand corrected. Thanks.
Didnât know it was a thing going around, but yes thatâs exactly what made me think it had to be nefarious. Thereâs no other reason for it to be there.
The state agrees, and the armorer has also been charged.
Just to muddy the watersâŚ. It was a gun that was used as a prop in the movie. 
1 Like
Somebody brought it. They were plinking bottles during down time.
Also remember, there was already complaints about safety lapses on the set.
So, the gun was used for plinking, the armorer and Baldwin neglected to clear the gun, and here we are.
That is new news to me. And boy that stinks. There is no excuse for having live rounds anywhere near that set.
And I heard about the safety lapses. Which is surprising considering that union workers are involved.
I hope this gets enough attention to make some major changes that stick.
Thatâs the thing. I am pretty confident that the policies and procedures are already in place, and thus the accident was due to the aforementioned safety lapses.
And maybe some ignorance on Baldwinâs part.
YaâthinkâŚ
Every prop that expels a lethal projectile, yes, they should. And if the script has them shooting toward another person, absolutely yes.
If an actor is handed what is supposed to be a fake knife, do you think the actor should not verify that before they thrust it into another actorâs body?
Why do you think actors should be exempt from standard firearm safety protocols?
What you described is not prescribed by law. But if you donât do that, and you âaccidentallyâ shoot someone with that unchecked gun, you are legally culpable.
If they want to give a convincing performance, they better know how to handle the prop ⌠particularly if that prop is potentially lethal.
Now youâre just being silly.
I doubt that whether it was done deliberately or out of stupidity, that whoever put actual rounds into an ammunition box containing blank rounds will ever be known. But regardless, that armorer woman must be incompetent to not recognize a real round compared to blank rounds. The business end is nothing alike.
And arrogance. Heâs still insisting that he never pulled the trigger even though the FBI proved the gun would not fire without the trigger being pulled.
2 Likes
I didnât follow this case, I read a few articles and must admit I am not sure what the outcome will be. I find it a little odd they werenât using a dummy gun in this show.
I understand trying to get ultra realism but there are plenty of guns that have been modified so that are not capable of firing. Are there a reason they are toting around a functional chambered gun on a movie set instead of a prop.
When this first happened I heard the techies had been using the gun for target practice between shoots.
I think we have a movie tech here. @Jezcoe correct? Would like to hear their perspective.
Obviously most will agree there are no ifs, ands or buts when it comes to exhibiting precaution prior to and when firing up most anything.
That being said, even following every safety procedure in the book, the nature of bullets, blanks and similar to even one single firecracker that all contain at least some gunpowder can still cause real damage - even be fatal especially when they bang.
Perfection lol
Obviously it wasnât a rule on the set of Rust, but quite a few big hollywood names have come out and expressed what rules they routinely encounter and not pointing the gun directly at someone is one of them. It s one of the things that became industry standard after Brandon Lee was killed on set with a gun that only contained blanks, yes, blanks can kill, given that even blanks can kill, what sane person would point it directly at someone and pull the trigger?
