For 30 years I carried a gun that I was trained to use in self-defense or to defend others from death or great bodily harm. Somehow, I can never recall asking this question (below). Color me terminally unimaginative, I suppose, but the idea of wrongfully killing someone never occurred to me.
Lots of problems here. From the news accounts, the shooting involved a “prop” gun and there was an accident involving “blanks”.
First problem. From my understanding—and I’ve never been on a movie set—there’s a contradiction involved. A “prop” should be a gun for appearances only—in other words, it should be inert, incapable of firing, strictly for show. Based on this understanding, the gun in question should not have been a “prop”.
On the other hand, guns that fire “blanks” would be real guns. The rounds called “blanks” that are used in such guns would differ from real ammunition in two respects.
First, they would probably not be as powerful—although I’m not sure. It’s possible that to create a realistic impression of muzzle blast and recall the “blank” rounds could be close to or equal to real ammunition. “Blanks”, from what I’ve read, are in fact capable of killing a person—but only if the gun is placed pretty much right up against a vital bodily part. Most likely the head, where the blast concussion might cause fatal injury. The problem with this scenario as applied to Baldwin’s case—beyond the obvious that no such “horseplay” should ever, ever occur—is that another person was “wounded” enough to be treated at a hospital. No specifics, however.
The second and important distinction is that what makes “blanks” blank is that they contain no projectile. For one person to be killed and another wounded my working assumption would have to be that a real projectile—a bullet—was fired from the gun.
That leads to another question. Movie making is highly unionized. When firearms are used on a set—and I read this on the internet—union work rules require an armorer to be present to ensure that real ammunition is not loaded into any gun that’s being used on the set. Safety first. And “real” means: loaded with a bullet. If the rules are followed, no accidents will happen.
Mistake or … what?
It gets worser ...
J.
@JamieCorridon
When told he needed to shoot the scene again, Baldwin jokingly said "why don't I just shoot the two of you" then aimed and began firing the gun. Afterward Baldwin repeatedly asked “why was I handed a hot gun?” while the woman bled out. The Daily Mail reported.
We obviously don't know yet but from formerly working for one of the bigger studios, this probably comes down to budgeting.
Most production companies swore off of using any firearms that were functional a decade plus ago. This is usually governed by contracts but most of the firearms you see with the actors in movies are modified versions of real guns that have specially machined chambers and barrels to take a specific non commercial custom calibers. Or in the case of larger stuff propane/gas operated. The armors that own them are contractors who basically lease their collections and services to the filming studios.
Live fire filming, especially the close up type with functional firearms usually takes place off set elsewhere using a completely different set of firearms and is spliced in during editing. (Or these days is just CGI)
However, because these guys and their props cost bank if your shooting a low budget film you can save a lot of cash by hiring a prop supplier that's still using unmodified chambers aka functional firearms and try to control it.
I'm guessing that was the start of the issue and someone skipped their weight checks and other basic safety protocols.
IMHO it's kinda hard to mistake a real round for a dummy or blank though and by Baldwins twitter post it seems they were playing fast and loose if they were showing him how to load on set like it was no big deal.