From what I've read since the event happened, AB's gun in this case was not supposed to be an empty gun. It was supposed to be loaded with inert dummy rounds - that look real unless you look very closely.
The only purpose of loading a revolver in a movie with dummy rounds is so that the bullets in the cylinder would be visible in the camera when you point the gun at the camera. And when pointing a single-action gun at the camera in a threatening manner, the hammer was probably supposed to be ****** as well.
From what I understand from reading about them, is that the only visual difference between such a dummy round and a real one is that the dummy has a hole on the side. So, to be able to check the gun for a real round among the dummy rounds, the actor would have to remove each round, look at it from multiple angles and put it back in again.
On the Colt 45, that would have involved a procedure of cocking the gun (or half-cock?), opening the loading gate and for each round, one at a time, rotate the cylinder and push the round out with the ejection rod, inspect it (in the low light inside the church) and put it back again.
If AB would have done that on the set — after two people supposedly had already checked the gun — I'd think that the director, the AD, and the camerawoman herself wearing a heavy steadicam rig on her shoulders would have got quite annoyed at him.
From what I've read since the event happened, AB's gun in this case was not supposed to be an empty gun. It was supposed to be loaded with inert dummy rounds - that look real unless you look very closely.
The only purpose of loading a revolver in a movie with dummy rounds is so that the bullets in the cylinder would be visible in the camera when you point the gun at the camera. And when pointing a single-action gun at the camera in a threatening manner, the hammer was probably supposed to be ****** as well.
From what I understand from reading about them, is that the only visual difference between such a dummy round and a real one is that the dummy has a hole on the side. So, to be able to check the gun for a real round among the dummy rounds, the actor would have to remove each round, look at it from multiple angles and put it back in again.
On the Colt 45, that would have involved a procedure of cocking the gun (or half-cock?), opening the loading gate and for each round, one at a time, rotate the cylinder and push the round out with the ejection rod, inspect it (in the low light inside the church) and put it back again.
If AB would have done that on the set — after two people supposedly had already checked the gun — I'd think that the director, the AD, and the camerawoman herself wearing a heavy steadicam rig on her shoulders would have got quite annoyed at him.
Your comment suggests I been around guns and people more than you have.
Firstly, I have never witnessed anyone being annoyed or upset about firearm safety. To the initiated / educated the gun safety check gives you a pass. This is all the more true if the person doing that safety check will be pointing the gun at me which as you know is a no no.
Because it is a no no that is to say something that pushes the boundaries of a safe work environment we go the extra effort of triple, quadruple checking.
Unspent cartridges do not need an ejection rod to coax them out the loading gate is there for a reason after all. Most trained people can do this faster than you can tie your shoe. If your concern is loading them in order again it’s as simple as load 1,skip 1 ,load four the last rounds ends up next to the first loaded round and as the cylinder rotates the hammer comes down on the chamber in the cylinder you skipped in step 2.
Hire a competent armorer and they teach you stuff like that.
Hire a competent armorer and they pay extra attention in a situation where the gun has to pointed at the camera.
Like I said before I would not trust a cursory check of struck primers in a situation where I had to point my firearm directly at or even near other people.
You simply say “ Hold on folks, I just want to make sure that everyone here is safe. I mean pointing a gun at somebody goes against every fibre of good sense I have in my body. I’m just going to go over to a safe area to discharge what could possibly be live rounds all the while keeping the muzzle of the firearm pointed in a safe direction Even if that means waiting for a minute while someone clears out of my way carrying audio equipment or what not. I encourage anyone that will have the firearm pointed at them to come with stay a safe distance away, donn the appropriate eye and ear protection and witness me pull the trigger on every round in the cylinder. I know if it were me standing in the line of fire I would appreciate the extra diligence.”
With the exception of the time it takes
to travel to the appropriate safe firing facility which could be a water tank with a port for the firearm. The whole operation should take 5 - 10 minutes max. Now I know time is money on set but I think a life is worth more.
I am Canadian I have no direct interest in your political disagreements. The only reason I have been so resolute in this discussion is because I believe the possibility of preventing something like this happening again is worth my time and effort.
If you don’t understand why Alec Baldwin’s actions are the most causal in this incident then I concede I am not up to the challenge of educating you on firearm safety. Please do yourself and others the favour of staying away from any and all firearms. Sadly, it is you and your ilk that is most likely to be handed a loaded firearm at a party.
As for me I feel no need to post any further until a ruling is made, maybe not even then.
Wishing you all a safe future.
Gregory
From what I've read since the event happened, AB's gun in this case was not supposed to be an empty gun. It was supposed to be loaded with inert dummy rounds - that look real unless you look very closely.
The only purpose of loading a revolver in a movie with dummy rounds is so that the bullets in the cylinder would be visible in the camera when you point the gun at the camera. And when pointing a single-action gun at the camera in a threatening manner, the hammer was probably supposed to be ****** as well.
From what I understand from reading about them, is that the only visual difference between such a dummy round and a real one is that the dummy has a hole on the side. So, to be able to check the gun for a real round among the dummy rounds, the actor would have to remove each round, look at it from multiple angles and put it back in again.
On the Colt 45, that would have involved a procedure of cocking the gun (or half-cock?), opening the loading gate and for each round, one at a time, rotate the cylinder and push the round out with the ejection rod, inspect it (in the low light inside the church) and put it back again.
If AB would have done that on the set — after two people supposedly had already checked the gun — I'd think that the director, the AD, and the camerawoman herself wearing a heavy steadicam rig on her shoulders would have got quite annoyed at him.
Your comment suggests I been around guns and people more than you have.
Firstly, I have never witnessed anyone being annoyed or upset about firearm safety. To the initiated / educated the gun safety check gives you a pass. This is all the more true if the person doing that safety check will be pointing the gun at me which as you know is a no no.
Because it is a no no that is to say something that pushes the boundaries of a safe work environment we go the extra effort of triple, quadruple checking.
Unspent cartridges do not need an ejection rod to coax them out the loading gate is there for a reason after all. Most trained people can do this faster than you can tie your shoe. If your concern is loading them in order again it’s as simple as load 1,skip 1 ,load four the last rounds ends up next to the first loaded round and as the cylinder rotates the hammer comes down on the chamber in the cylinder you skipped in step 2.
Hire a competent armorer and they teach you stuff like that.
Hire a competent armorer and they pay extra attention in a situation where the gun has to be pointed at the camera.
Like I said before I would not trust a cursory check of struck primers in a situation where I had to point my firearm directly at or even near other people.
You simply say “ Hold on folks, I just want to make sure that everyone here is safe. I mean pointing a gun at somebody goes against every fibre of good sense I have in my body. I’m just going to go over to a safe area to discharge what could possibly be live rounds all the while keeping the muzzle of the firearm pointed in a safe direction Even if that means waiting for a minute while someone clears out of my way carrying audio equipment or what not. I encourage anyone that will have the firearm pointed at them to come with stay a safe distance away, donn the appropriate eye and ear protection and witness me pull the trigger on every round in the cylinder. I know if it were me standing in the line of fire I would appreciate the extra diligence.”
With the exception of the time it takes
to travel to the appropriate safe firing facility which could be a water tank with a port for the firearm. The whole operation should take 5 - 10 minutes max. Now I know time is money on set but I think a life is worth more.
I am Canadian I have no direct interest in your political disagreements. The only reason I have been so resolute in this discussion is because I believe the possibility of preventing something like this happening again is worth my time and effort.
If you don’t understand why Alec Baldwin’s actions are the most causal in this incident then I concede I am not up to the challenge of educating you on firearm safety. Please do yourself and others the favour of staying away from any and all firearms. Sadly, it is you and your ilk that is most likely to be handed a loaded firearm at a party.
As for me I feel no need to post any further until a ruling is made, maybe not even then.
Wishing you all a safe future.
Gregory
