Originally Posted by Bwana_1
Originally Posted by Longbob
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
Originally Posted by Longbob
Originally Posted by rockinbbar
Originally Posted by Longbob

It is the ultimate responsibility of the person with the gun in their hand. This incident is proof of that. There is plenty of blame to go around, but the actor doesn’t get a free pass by blaming someone else. If Baldwin practiced the most basic of gun safety the woman would be alive. Saying that he doesn’t have the ultimate responsibility is irresponsible on its face.


A movie set is the exception.

The armourer is responsible.

Visualize a class of kindergarten kids.... That's what the actors are. The armourer is the teacher, and responsible for all of them.
You cannot expect actors to know the first thing about gun safety. Just as you can't expect kindergartners to cross a busy highway by themselves.


The armourer is responsible as it Baldwin. I am not buying it that he isn't even with your kindergarten class analogy. These aren't kindergarten coloring classes and these are adults with guns. I realize you were an armourer on a set as you stated, but my opinion is also shared by a current armourer for these films.

https://nypost.com/2021/10/23/baldwin-ignored-no-1-rule-of-gun-safety-hollywood-weapons-expert/


While I agree that he may have been acting a fool... It's the armourer's job to shut that behavior down, and make the set safe.


I have no issue with this statement and agree. It appears that the armourer wasn't up to snuff well before this tragic incident. But as you stated in your own experience that you wouldn't have been successful in shutting down someone like Baldwin. So now what happens?


I would surmise that the Armourer would walk off the set due to safety protocol, as listed extensively in the Union firearms manual...and the filming would be shut down, because there is no Armourer on location. If chiit hit the fan against the Armourer, his union would support his decision based on safety and rules.


You could also assume that the armourer would be replaced just like the other union crew were replaced. You still have the opportunity for the tragic event due to poor gun safety by the actor. All your example does is show how the armourer does not have the ultimate control that you and rockinbar are implying.