Calling forum gun experts. How does a dummy firearm kill?

[Beebo]

The latest from BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59018391
It suggests the gun contained a single live round.
There are also suggestions of poor working conditions, low moral and an inexperienced armouries technician.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I may be dim but why should a live round be anywhere near a film set?

Why should it even be necessary to distinguish between "cold" and "hot" guns on a film set?

 

[Beebo]

I may be dim but why should a live round be anywhere near a film set?

Why should it even be necessary to distinguish between "cold" and "hot" guns on a film set?

I suspect a British film set is very different to a US film set where they use real guns as props because it’s easier and cheaper than using fake guns.
That sounds crazy to gun shy Brits but probably sounds quite normal to Americans.

 

[Drago]

The latest from BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59018391
It suggests the gun contained a single live round.
There are also suggestions of poor working conditions, low moral and an inexperienced armouries technician.

More info on the american newsies. It seems cameras of some sort were rolling and the incident was captured.

Court papers say the assistant director handed Baldwin the weapon and shouted "cold gun", indicating it was a safe weapon.

Nevertheless, as aforementioned prviously by my good self, even when a gun is (believed) unloaded you treat it as if it were, so the lord only knows what Baldwin was doing pointing it at another human being and pulling the trigger. That suggests a criminal lack of training and/or negligence (like cars, there are never accidents with guns, only negligence). Now, even if Baldwin was totally untrained and in his ignorance handled the weapon that way the buck stops with the producer for not ensuring those hamdling weapons are properly trained.

Unfortunately, Baldwin is the producer. Whether he was negligent in handling the weapon, or negligent in not providing firearms training, it looks as it this one may stop at his door either way.

I personally think the guy is a bitmof an opinionated plonker, butnin general terms I do feel sorry for him on this one. Whatever happened, hes clearly very upset and however it plays out I suspect thats his career over, and a lifetime of psychological problems ahead.

 

[cougie uk]

Surely you shouldn't be pulling the trigger on any gun. Or pointing it at people as you do it.

Would they throw a young crew member under the bus here I wonder ?

 

[Drago]

Surely you shouldn't be pulling the trigger on any gun. Or pointing it at people as you do it.

Nope, you certainly wouldn't. Thats criminally negligent and any responsible shooter would tear a strip off anyone who did so.

You also never accept a weapon from another person until they have satisfied you that it is safe, you don't just take some stage hands word for it. When presenting an automatic you drop the mag, cock it to eject any round in the chamber, and lock it thus to allow the recipient to visually inspect it: cock-lock-look. Similar drill for stoppages. The recipient will then give a clear verbal command that it is clear, usually "clear" or "safe", or even just "thats all good". Shotguns, revolvers, etc, the process is similar, except you break the barrel to show the breech or release the cylinder to show the chambers.

That the weapon was apparently handed over with no opportunity given to inspect it, and no challenge from the recipient to be able to inspect it, suggests little or no training for either person. If I'd handed over a weapon like that 34 years ago when I joined id have got a fist in the side of my head for my trouble, and rightly so (today they probably get a finger wagging, and then a cuddle when they start crying).

The Michael Mann film Heat had Stephen Billy Mitchell, AKA Andy McNab, as consultant and technical advisor and no one even went near a weapon until he was totally happy with their level of competence, and word is he drilled them very hard. As a result not only was it a safe working environment, but the film was all the better for it as the actors displayed a good level of technical competence and familiarity with the weapons, and this gave a superb level of realism to the film - if youve never seen it its worth seeking out the bank heist scene on Youtube and youll see what I mean.

So my guess - and it is a guess with still faily limited, albeit of good provenance now, info in the public domain - is one of negligence on the part of the producer for non existent or inadequate weapons training, and lack of trained personnel present as safety officers.

 

[steveindenmark]

More info on the american newsies. It seems cameras of some sort were rolling and the incident was captured.

Court papers say the assistant director handed Baldwin the weapon and shouted "cold gun", indicating it was a safe weapon.

Nevertheless, as aforementioned prviously by my good self, even when a gun is (believed) unloaded you treat it as if it were, so the lord only knows what Baldwin was doing pointing it at another human being and pulling the trigger. That suggests a criminal lack of training and/or negligence (like cars, there are never accidents with guns, only negligence). Now, even if Baldwin was totally untrained and in his ignorance handled the weapon that way the buck stops with the producer for not ensuring those hamdling weapons are properly trained.

Unfortunately, Baldwin is the producer. Whether he was negligent in handling the weapon, or negligent in not providing firearms training, it looks as it this one may stop at his door either way.

I personally think the guy is a bitmof an opinionated plonker, butnin general terms I do feel sorry for him on this one. Whatever happened, hes clearly very upset and however it plays out I suspect thats his career over, and a lifetime of psychological problems ahead.

As you know we always treat any gun as loaded. I can just imagine me handing you a gun and telling you its clear and you take my word for it. Thats not going to happen.

Because guns are so common in the US I can imagine them very lacks about safe handling. I would not want to be the "Cold Gun" guy.

I can see the $$$$$$ mounting as I type

 

[cougie uk]

Oh yes. I have seen Heat. Excellent film. Michael Mann knows how to make them. I didn't know about McNab though !

 

[Dolorous Edd]

The whole thing about shouting "cold gun" does sound like macho "I know what I'm doing" bollocks, and would put me on guard straight away.

 

[Beebo]

Surely you shouldn't be pulling the trigger on any gun. Or pointing it at people as you do it.

Would they throw a young crew member under the bus here I wonder ?

Every action film ever made has someone pointing a gun and pulling the trigger at someone else. That bit can’t really be avoided.
Using real guns instead of fake guns is where this has all gone wrong. IMO.

 

[DRM]

You wouldn’t take a passengers word for it when driving up to a junction that it was safe to proceed, you’d look both ways, so why take the word of someone else that a gun is safe prior to filming a scene, it does seem quite a slapdash way of dealing with H&S as well some someone else’s life.

 

[winjim]

Every action film ever made has someone pointing a gun and pulling the trigger at someone else. That bit can’t really be avoided.
Using real guns instead of fake guns is where this has all gone wrong. IMO.

We've seen from the continuity thread that things don't need to be 100% authentic in order to tell the story. So fake guns would be fine. It's not as if most movie gunfights are exactly realistic, it's an illusion of realism anyway.


Shakespeare covered this a few centuries ago in Henry V.

​

…But pardon, gentles all,​

The flat unraised spirits that have dared​

On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth​

So great an object: can this cockpit hold​

The vasty fields of France? or may we cram​

Within this wooden O the very casques​

That did affright the air at Agincourt?​

​

It's all pretend, audiences are fully aware of that and are capable of suspending their disbelief to the extent required by the storyteller in order to tell the story.

 

[KnittyNorah]

Nope, you certainly wouldn't. Thats criminally negligent and any responsible shooter would tear a strip off anyone who did so.

You also never accept a weapon from another person until they have satisfied you that it is safe, you don't just take some stage hands word for it. When presenting an automatic you drop the mag, cock it to eject any round in the chamber, and lock it thus to allow the recipient to visually inspect it: cock-lock-look. Similar drill for stoppages. The recipient will then give a clear verbal command that it is clear, usually "clear" or "safe", or even just "thats all good". Shotguns, revolvers, etc, the process is similar, except you break the barrel to show the breech or release the cylinder to show the chambers.

That the weapon was apparently handed over with no opportunity given to inspect it, and no challenge from the recipient to be able to inspect it, suggests little or no training for either person. If I'd handed over a weapon like that 34 years ago when I joined id have got a fist in the side of my head for my trouble, and rightly so (today they probably get a finger wagging, and then a cuddle when they start crying).

The Michael Mann film Heat had Stephen Billy Mitchell, AKA Andy McNab, as consultant and technical advisor and no one even went near a weapon until he was totally happy with their level of competence, and word is he drilled them very hard. As a result not only was it a safe working environment, but the film was all the better for it as the actors displayed a good level of technical competence and familiarity with the weapons, and this gave a superb level of realism to the film - if youve never seen it its worth seeking out the bank heist scene on Youtube and youll see what I mean.

So my guess - and it is a guess with still faily limited, albeit of good provenance now, info in the public domain - is one of negligence on the part of the producer for non existent or inadequate weapons training, and lack of trained personnel present as safety officers.

I think it boils down to the generally-casual attitude towards guns taken by (many) USians, an attitude I've never come across elsewhere - although I grant you I've never lived in countries at war or with a really active insurgency.

 

[Chromatic]

It's not a question of guns, fake or otherwise.

I was asking about ammunition. What use is a gun loaded with a live round on a film set. What scenes require live rounds?

This is what I can't understand, whatever was one live round doing anywhere near the set, surely there would have been only blanks supplied and they would have been checked prior to use?
I'm going for the conspiracy option and saying that the most plausible reason for this happening is deliberate planting of the live round.

 

[byegad]

Re blanks. As a youth I was in the army cadets and on any exercise were blanks were being used, an adult used to get a plastic bag full of pig swill and fire a blank into it, the mess it made was enough to make sure we never pointed a rifle at anyone during the exercise. We were under strict instructions that a weapon was never to be pointed at anyone, even if not loaded.

We were also taught that if you passed a weapon to someone, you showed them the barrel was empty before handing it over (we weren't allowed to use pistols.)

My old man taught me to check the barrel and magazine for anything in there that shouldn't be. Even today with my old, weak air rifle, which I now has nothing 'up the spout' and is left un-cocked, I check every time I pick it up, even to merely move it.
Given a friends double barrel 12 to admire, I broke the gun to check the barrels were unloaded, before doing anything else.