Accidental shooting
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59018391

A very tragic event, but how can that happen?
Surely they would have had an armourer to check the weapons prior to use.

From the latest information it sounds as if the holes in the cheese lined up. Utterly tragic.

A lot of complexities (and rumours) possibly involved (as with any investigation):

- Apparently some of the professional crew had walked off the set (before the fatal event) over safety concerns, possibly leaving the armourer's or prop-master's duties to be fulfilled by an asst. director, who may have had no experience managing prop firearms and their safety protocols. The AD thought and stated to the crew just before the shooting that the gun was "cold" (unloaded)
- the safety concerns may have been regarding this particular prop gun, which some people reported may have discharged "accidentally" on previous recent occasions (same film set).
- Generally, prop-guns are built with a unique calibre, that cannot accept any normal firearm ammunition, just specially-sized blanks. But it is not clear yet if this was actually true of the device in question.
- "Blanks" themselves are still quite dangerous explosive charges at close range, and produce some high-velocity ejecta even without a bullet present.
- it is not clear to me (yet) whether the prop weapon directly killed the cinematographer, or perhaps hit the camera and ricocheted, or blew off "shrapnel" from the camera or some other piece of gear in close proximity to the victims. A chunk of metal off a camera/mount, blown into one's heart or aorta, can kill as effectively as a bullet. I see pictures of this cinematographer working with both body-mounted cameras, and standard tripod assemblies.
- Rust was reportedly a low-budget project, which introduces all the same questions that can arise in "cheap operations" of any kind - rush to maintain schedule, corner-cutting, inadequate staffing, poor maintenance of this or that, etc. MAYBE!

I expect some of those questions will be answered fairly rapidly, although any medical stuff may take a while.

Even when you 'know' a weapon is loaded wth blanks, you should still NEVER point it at any one directly if/when you squeeze the trigger.
I did a 5 day course with the RAF Regt and it was always drummed into us that you must open the action at all times and show others it is 'safe' whenever you handle it.

He was probably required to point it at the camera and shoot.

If they were working to a small budget they'd probably forego buying in a 'Prop Gun' and just use a regular firearm.

Blanks are available for pretty much every common calibre, even in the UK. .22 calibre 'blanks' are what you use in a Hilti gun to blast a nail into timber. That tells you how much power there is in one.

Additional info from AP:

There was an armorer present (Hannah Gutierrez). She set out three guns on a cart outside the building where filming was taking place.

The AD (Dave Halls) picked up one of the three guns and took it into the building, announcing "cold gun" and handing it to Alec Baldwin.

Obviously somewhere in that chain of custody, there was an error or communication failure in determining the actual state of the gun.

https://apnews.com/article/entertain...58f406cd3cbee9

But why would they ever need a “Hot” gun on a film set?

A close up of belted ammunition?
I doesn't take long to teach someone NSPs, surely all actors should understand how to check a weapon and be expected to clear it themselves? A cardinal rule is never believe someone who tells you a firearm is unloaded.

Muzzle flashes and audio 'bangs' are frequently added later in post production. However, it just adds to the costs.

There have been a few reports that this film shoot was 'low budget' (no information on what budget range is considered to be 'low')

It struck me that an investigation into how it happened would have many similarities with an aircraft accident investigation.

Human factors, equipment, communications between various parties, 'press-on-itis', authority gradients etc.

rudestuff.
Absolutely. Never ever take someone else’s word, it only takes a few seconds to check.

Never point a weapon at someone, unless you intend to kill them. It's what I was taught as a member of HM Forces back in the 1960s.

Media now reporting a single real bullet, which could explain the taking of two victims with the one shot.

This is very sad, and if the above is true then something very sinister has occurred as there is no place for real bullets on a film set.

I listened to an armourer yesterday when the details were scant. He had worked with Alec Baldwin previously and said Mr Baldwin was extremely knowledgeable and safe with weapons on set and he would trust him implicitly to handle any weapon correctly as instructed.

Rule Number One - All weapons are considered loaded until proven otherwise.

It's what I was taught as a 10yo by my father, before I was allowed to touch his .22.

I think you will find even then that was not strictly true. The challenge procedure for an armed guard required you to aim your weapon at the subject. At that point you have no intention of killing the subject, your rules of engagement prevent it and, in fact back in the 60s you couldn't, as ammunition was not routinely issued on the UK mainland.

On Exercise I pointed my weapon at loads of baddies but I never intended to kill any of them.

Whilst that's fine in "real life", it would make the filming of a great many movies and TV series either next to impossible or they would end up being very unrealistic.

A rather unfortunate turn of phrase, given the circumstances.

Why is the use of firearms pretty well obligatory in movies and TV?