Accident on the set of Rust.

[TazMan2000]

When I went through MCT (Marine Combat Training) after boot camp we did have an exercise where we used blanks. And I don't remember if it happened to my platoon or if it was a story I heard, but one of our instructors actually shot a small rattler that was curled up in a fighting hole with one of our M16s equipped with blanks. At any rate, I remember that particular exercise well because I had what was effectively a bolt action M16 because the stupid blanks didn't have enough power to cycle the bolt after it was shot. So, yes, blanks do get issued in the military. that's why they have blank firing devices for everything larger than a pistol up to the M2.

The Canadian army uses blank rounds sometimes on exercise. At times they use real rounds when training. It's very dangerous, and fatal accidents have happened in the past. Extensive investigations are always carried out afterwards in order to verify what exactly happened and how to prevent it in the future.

What happened to the rattler?

TazMan2000

 

[TazMan2000]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but.... If I walk into a gun range, I expect every weapon there will have live rounds and is easily capable of killing someone. When I walk into a fair, and go to the shooting arcade, I expect every one of those weapons to either fire pulses of light, or bbs to shoot those stars out. I will not expect someone to weld a Thompson Machine Gun with a 50 round drum to the stand.

Do you think his lawyer will use that defense? (More eloquently described, of course)

TazMan2000

 

[Riceball]

The Canadian army uses blank rounds sometimes on exercise. At times they use real rounds when training. It's very dangerous, and fatal accidents have happened in the past. Extensive investigations are always carried out afterwards in order to verify what exactly happened and how to prevent it in the future.

What happened to the rattler?

TazMan2000

Blanks in exercises is not exactly unheard of in the US. I wouldn't necessarily say that they were used often, but they do get used.

As for the rattler, my understanding was that the instructor killed with a point blank shot using the rifle and a blank.

 

[robstyle]

The weapon in question is not a modern firearm but of "western" era. What's yet to be known is the model and modifications. Was it a black powder, unmodified, so it was hand loaded with black powder blanks. Or was it a black powder with a cartridge conversion accepting mettalic cartridge blanks. Was it a later model SAA Colt style....

Lots of possible variables. Hence why a BULLET is being mentioned.

 

[dascoyne]

The weapon in question is not a modern firearm but of "western" era. What's yet to be known is the model and modifications. Was it a black powder, unmodified, so it was hand loaded with black powder blanks. Or was it a black powder with a cartridge conversion accepting mettalic cartridge blanks. Was it a later model SAA Colt style....

Lots of possible variables. Hence why a BULLET is being mentioned.

Gutierrez removed a casing from the revolver before turning it over to the police. That is not a "hand loaded" black powder gun. The gun took cartridges.

Blank ammunition can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them. Only a bullet can do that.

There's still no such thing as a live bullet.

 

[Rogue]

Blank ammunition can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them. Only a bullet can do that.

Why were you talking about a barrel obstruction? Do you know what actually happens when you fire off a round with an obstructed barrel?

Brandon Lee disagrees. He was killed when a blank round was fired in a gun with an obstructed barrel (dislodged bullet from fake round used in earlier shot).

Blanks can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them, but they can certainly build up enough pressure to blow an obstruction out the end of the barrel with enough velocity to do serious damage. Not just supposition, it's happened.

I suspect it's more likely to happen with a blank than a "real" round. I understand that blanks would usually have a smaller charge so the pressure wouldn't build up quickly enough to cause the barrel to give way before the obstruction can move (which is what often happens when shooting a "real" round through an obstructed barrel).

Who knows what happened in this particular case, but I wouldn't get too dogmatic on that particular point.

 

[Rogue]

See how Jon Erik Hexum was killed by a blank round. A wad can kill as can a barrel obstruction dislodged by a blank round, see Brandon Lee.

The wad never penetrated in JEH's cause despite being a close contact shot, it was the pressure wave from the expanding gases that fractured his skull and caused massive internal trauma.

Getting hit by anything that comes out of the business end of a gun is never a good thing, but I just can't see the wad itself causing that type of injury in the current scenario.

 

[Apollo]

Surprises me how many Gun “experts “ here who have absolutely no clue as to what they are talking about!

 

[dascoyne]

Brandon Lee disagrees. He was killed when a blank round was fired in a gun with an obstructed barrel (dislodged bullet from fake round used in earlier shot).

Blanks can't shoot a wad through one person and injure someone behind them, but they can certainly build up enough pressure to blow an obstruction out the end of the barrel with enough velocity to do serious damage. Not just supposition, it's happened.

I suspect it's more likely to happen with a blank than a "real" round. I understand that blanks would usually have a smaller charge so the pressure wouldn't build up quickly enough to cause the barrel to give way before the obstruction can move (which is what often happens when shooting a "real" round through an obstructed barrel).

Who knows what happened in this particular case, but I wouldn't get too dogmatic on that particular point.

What I wrote was, "Do you know what actually happens when you fire off a round with an obstructed barrel?" Which is what I thought he was talking about.

The guy was throwing so much stuff against the wall I'm surprised he didn't bring up the possibility of a second shooter hiding behind a grassy knoll.

In the case of a straight up blank, a wad is not going to penetrate a torso much less carry enough energy to wound someone standing behind them.

 

[JPH]

The wad never penetrated in JEH's cause despite being a close contact shot, it was the pressure wave from the expanding gases that fractured his skull and caused massive internal trauma.

Getting hit by anything that comes out of the business end of a gun is never a good thing, but I just can't see the wad itself causing that type of injury in the current scenario.

Exactly! So even a blank, with enough powder placed over the right part of the body can lacerate arteries (like in the temple) or rupture an organ like the.liver. it doesnt have to be a full amount of powder and the only thing that has struck the body was the shockwave.

Like fishing with dynamite.

 

[gregory]

I didn't stop posting in this thread because some troll "won".
I've said my piece, and I stand by it.
If I hand someone a loaded gun, I'm responsible for the consequences.
Any gun safety "expert" who would put a loaded gun in someone's hand, tell them it isn't loaded, then blame that person when something tragic happens, is no "expert" in gun safety, and is frankly dangerous. I wouldn't let that person even LOOK at my guns, much less touch them.

The fact is the Rust gun got past 2 people who had a responsibility to insure the safety of everyone on set before it was handed to AB. AB trusted them, and they failed him. Should he have checked and cleared the gun himself? In hind sight, yes. But as a producer he was paying people to do that for him. They didn't do their jobs, and somebody died.

I’m new here and I can see there is ssszq

 

[gregory]

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but.... If I walk into a gun range, I expect every weapon there will have live rounds and is easily capable of killing someone. When I walk into a fair, and go to the shooting arcade, I expect every one of those weapons to either fire pulses of light, or bbs to shoot those stars out. I will not expect someone to weld a Thompson Machine Gun with a 50 round drum to the stand.

Do you think his lawyer will use that defense? (More eloquently described, of course)

TazMan2000

That argument is flawed since the single action army Alec Baldwin was handling is
a firearm. Reason dictates that it behaves like a firearm, not like a light emitting replica firearm. Blanks are often used on movie sets and they are dangerous. A firearm is capable of being loaded with regular live ammunition rounds which are dangerous. Therefore it is in no way shape or form to be confused with a toy gun in an arcade.
There is no valid reason that Alec Baldwin should not have checked that firearm personally. If a driver of a vehicle asks a passenger if the lane next to him is clear, and due to misinformation causes an accident who gets charged? The driver. The driver is responsible for their actions.
Is the passenger culpable maybe. What if the passenger lacked experience? Is a five year old a good enough source for a clearance to change lanes, or should you go ahead and check for yourself first? Remember the producers hired an inexperienced armourer. If you want to cut corners look at craft services not safety measures. The producers saved some money, it cost a human life.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but.... If I walk into a gun range, I expect every weapon there will have live rounds and is easily capable of killing someone. When I walk into a fair, and go to the shooting arcade, I expect every one of those weapons to either fire pulses of light, or bbs to shoot those stars out. I will not expect someone to weld a Thompson Machine Gun with a 50 round drum to the stand.

Do you think his lawyer will use that defense? (More eloquently described, of course)

TazMan2000

 

[Moviefreak]

That argument is flawed since the single action army Alec Baldwin was handling is
a firearm. Reason dictates that it behaves like a firearm, not like a light emitting replica firearm. Blanks are often used on movie sets and they are dangerous. A firearm is capable of being loaded with regular live ammunition rounds which are dangerous. Therefore it is in no way shape or form to be confused with a toy gun in an arcade.
There is no valid reason that Alec Baldwin should not have checked that firearm personally. If a driver of a vehicle asks a passenger if the lane next to him is clear, and due to misinformation causes an accident who gets charged? The driver. The driver is responsible for their actions.
Is the passenger culpable maybe. What if the passenger lacked experience? Is a five year old a good enough source for a clearance to change lanes, or should you go ahead and check for yourself first? Remember the producers hired an inexperienced armourer. If you want to cut corners look at craft services not safety measures. The producers saved some money, it cost a human life.

Ok… but using the car logic… there was a guy a few years back in my town, who dropped his car at the dealership to have work done. He picked up his car, and they told him it was all fixed and ready to go. He left and while in traffic the front tires fell off and it caused a major accident on the turnpike. One person died. In the end, the dealership was held responsible because they failed to tighten the bolts properly, and they were sued. Should the driver have been charged since he did not check all the parts of the car himself? Should he not trust the word of a mechanic who was hired to fix the car properly, and who told him it was safe to drive?

See… there are always going to be different circumstances and situations that lead to an outcome. Right now we need to let the investigators go through all the info and facts that led up to this and stop placing blame on one person. If anything, we should all agree that there is a line of people that are responsible. If one… just one… did their job correctly, this whole thing could have been avoided. But it was one failure after the other that ended up resulting in this tragedy.

 

[gregory]

I’m new here and I can see there is ssszq

Ok… but using the car logic… there was a guy a few years back in my town, who dropped his car at the dealership to have work done. He picked up his car, and they told him it was all fixed and ready to go. He left and while in traffic the front tires fell off and it caused a major accident on the turnpike. One person died. In the end, the dealership was held responsible because they failed to tighten the bolts properly, and they were sued. Should the driver have been charged since he did not check all the parts of the car himself? Should he not trust the word of a mechanic who was hired to fix the car properly, and who told him it was safe to drive?

See… there are always going to be different circumstances and situations that lead to an outcome. Right now we need to let the investigators go through all the info and facts that lead up to this and stop placing blame on one person. If anything, we should all agree that there is a line of people that are responsible. If one… just one… did their job correctly, this whole thing could have been avoided. But it was one failure after the other that ended up resulting in this tragedy.

My example was very specific and I feel illustrative of the parallel to the case. In your example I would say did the driver go to a reputable licensed and insured mechanic, or did he save a few bucks by having the work done by a hack. Do you see where I’m going here.

 

[Moviefreak]

My example was very specific and I feel illustrative of the parallel to the case. In your example I would say did the driver go to a reputable licensed and insured mechanic, or did he save a few bucks by having the work done by a hack. Do you see where I’m going here.

As stated, he dropped it off at the dealership. The dealership employs 100% legit licensed and insured mechanics. So should he trust a person, a professional, put in place, who told him it was safe?

 

[Axlotl]

I’m new here and I can see there is ssszq

What does this mean?

 

[gregory]

I’m new here and I can see there is some history between the members. I believe a few things should be clear. 1. Gun safety rules and practices are not based on circumstance. Always check a firearm, if it is out of your control for a moment recheck it. This isn’t an in hindsight sort of deal this is a canonical law not up for debate. 2. The person that was let down here was not Alec Baldwin.

 

[Rogue]

As stated, he dropped it off at the dealership. The dealership employs 100% legit licensed and insured mechanics. So should he trust a person, a professional, put in place, who told him it was safe?

When thinking in terms of what is "reasonable", there's a difference between spending a few hour going over your car with a torque wrench to make sure everything is bolted together properly, and taking 5 seconds to undertake a basic safety check on the gun that's already in your hand.

The problem with "drawing a parallel" is that two lines can be perfectly parallel but still be in two completely different zip codes to each other.

 

[Lightning]

Based on various articles posted here and elsewhere, it didn't sound like a rehearsal to me. The descriptions describe the director and the cinematographer lining up the cameras for the next shot(s) and in the meanwhile, Alec Baldwin took the time to practice drawing the gun from its holster for the upcoming scene. If that's indeed the case, then he could have and should have been doing it while not pointing the gun at the camera(s) and crew.

If the next shot was supposed to be Baldwin quick drawing towards the camera, wouldn't he need to be doing that pose to get the camera aimed and focused right?

As stated, he dropped it off at the dealership. The dealership employs 100% legit licensed and insured mechanics. So should he trust a person, a professional, put in place, who told him it was safe?

In your example, the driver would not be at fault, however the armorer on this movie is not a good comparison to the dealership. They hired an inexperienced person for as little money as possible. If the driver had taken the car to a mechanic he knew to be inexperienced then he would indeed be partially responsible for the crash.

 

[Moviefreak]

When thinking in terms of what is "reasonable", there's a difference between spending a few hour going over your car with a torque wrench to make sure everything is bolted together properly, and taking 5 seconds to undertake a basic safety check on the gun that's already in your hand.

The problem with "drawing a parallel" is that two lines can be perfectly parallel but still be in two completely different zip codes to each other.

Exactly. I was showing my example as opposed to the person I was quoting, to show that exact thing. His parallel using cars, and my parallel showed two different things. I wanted to illustrate that. That is why I followed my example up with…

“See… there are always going to be different circumstances and situations that lead to an outcome. Right now we need to let the investigators go through all the info and facts that led up to this and stop placing blame on one person. If anything, we should all agree that there is a line of people that are responsible. If one… just one… did their job correctly, this whole thing could have been avoided. But it was one failure after the other that ended up resulting in this tragedy.”