Young daughter of Hollywood armorer who only had 1 previous film under her belt (unlike her dad).
Repeatedly screwed up on set and was allowed to continue (until someone died).
Nepotism/Diversity hire?
.gif "Hmm :Hmm:")
Thell Reed - IMDb
Last edited:
Alec Baldwin just killed someone
- Thread starter lemon
- Start date
Young daughter of Hollywood armorer who only had 1 previous film under her belt (unlike her dad).
Repeatedly screwed up on set and was allowed to continue (until someone died).
Nepotism/Diversity hire?
Thell Reed - IMDb
Trailer-Q with the conspiracy theories. Colour me fucking astounded.
Guns don't just misfire. Especially relic era revolvers. They don't just "go off" without warning... almost every time an accident happens, someone (usually the one holding the gun) did something they weren't supposed to do.
It's a myth propagated by low-knowledge people who don't work with firearms. So, I'm not willing to straight up blame the armorer on set without more information. Obviously, responsibility ultimately stops with the Armorer and Prop Master who's job it is to manage the firearms and their safe use... but if she was one of the Union members who left the set in protest... then who was managing the firearms? Was anyone managing the firearms? Or did they just hand Baldwin a revolver and carry on with rehearsing the next scene contravening normal protocol?
It's a myth propagated by low-knowledge people who don't work with firearms. So, I'm not willing to straight up blame the armorer on set without more information. Obviously, responsibility ultimately stops with the Armorer and Prop Master who's job it is to manage the firearms and their safe use... but if she was one of the Union members who left the set in protest... then who was managing the firearms? Was anyone managing the firearms? Or did they just hand Baldwin a revolver and carry on with rehearsing the next scene contravening normal protocol?
Last edited:
I've seen guns just misfire before. Its rare with a revolver, and usually its a weapon that has not been maintained and it goes off due to mechanical failure. There shouldn't be any weapon under the care of a legit armorer that goes off due to improper or neglected maintenance.
But whether the weapon had a mechanical failure or not, the question is what the fuck was a prop gun on a set doing with a live round in it.
But whether the weapon had a mechanical failure or not, the question is what the fuck was a prop gun on a set doing with a live round in it.
The armorer/prop master is in charge of every firearm and round of ammunition on site. There should not have been a single live round of ammunition on location. The actors/producers/etc. are untrained on firearms and will just assume the armorer/prop master have made all the necessary precautions (if they tell you the weapon is "cold" then you, as an untrained individual, trust their expertise).
They supposedly already had 2-3 accidents involving live ammunition on site and this final accident was fatal. They should have double/triple-checked all ammunition on location after the first accident to ensure every single round was truly inert and not live.
The articles make it sound like they were shooting a scene and the gun was purposefully fired. If that's the case it's terrible safety all around (there's no reason to shoot a scene with someone in the path of the firearm, live round or not).
From the sound of it, they were cutting every corner possible so it's not surprising they started violating safety protocol as well.
a blank is also a "live round", I believe the reports are referring to this...
I seriously doubt it was an actual real loaded round. If anything, this is a repeat of Brandon Lee. They had an empty casing with a bullet and maybe a real primer, bullet got lodged in the barrel at some point and later on when using a blank, it finished its job.
I seriously doubt it was an actual real loaded round. If anything, this is a repeat of Brandon Lee. They had an empty casing with a bullet and maybe a real primer, bullet got lodged in the barrel at some point and later on when using a blank, it finished its job.
I know little to nothing about guns, but there's one thing that's absolutely obvious about this scenario that only a non-gun user could spot. And in my considered opinion it's this...
I have absolutely no idea what the fuck happened here, and contrary to what you are all trying to tell yourselves and everyone else (because after all being a gun expert is so MANLY), neither do you.
/thread, you're welcome.
I have absolutely no idea what the fuck happened here, and contrary to what you are all trying to tell yourselves and everyone else (because after all being a gun expert is so MANLY), neither do you.
/thread, you're welcome.
Of course you do, it's obvious. That's why I posted it. Jeez.
Yeah, 1 bullet 2 hit (penetration).
The fact that it's a "gun" that they had to remove the spent casing from (in a Western setting) makes it safe to assume it's a revolver (it could also be a rifle but I've seen it referred to as a "pistol" in some articles as well so I doubt it).
Usually there will be a combination of "blanks" and "dummies" used with a revolver. Any scenes where you need to load the gun or the camera is going to be close to the cylinder you'll want a dummy round (ammunition that has had the gunpowder and primer removed, leaving just the bullet and casing for appearances). Any scenes where you need a bang you'll obviously need blank round (ammunition that has had the bullet removed but still has the primer/gunpowder).
For an accident like this to happen someone either mixed real ammo with dummy ammo (which begs the question of why real ammo was even on location), or the bullet from dummy ammo somehow came lose from the cartridge and got lodged in the barrel which was then propelled by a blank round later.
If it's the latter it's still a failure on the armorer/prop master as they should have noticed a missing bullet from a dummy (and the barrel should be checked every time as well).
Because he's a moron that doesn't know anything about guns?
In the manly real world, it would be his fault. In this situation, it's whoever who DOES know about guns, and then gave him a loaded one. 100% the armorer.
This isn't even a question, and this is coming from someone who thinks Alec is a fucking retard liberal.
Last edited:
I don't know, but what I do know is to not trust a fucking word from the shitheel union people or their parrots.
"Safety protocol" is a fancy, waste of words that lends credit to safety nazis. In this situation, it's not ultra-safe nanny-stating that should be followed, but just good ole common sense. If people could handle firearms safely a hundred years ago, then it shouldn't be a problem today.
How many of you have guns and have carried guns around on a regular basis?
I do. I have had multiple types of weapons for years. I know a bunch of you do as well.
How many times have you shot someone by accident?
How many times have they gone off by accident?
How many times have they gone off on their own?
How many times have you shot yourself?
How many times have your guns been stolen?
Yeah - probably never on all of those.
They are dangerous as fuck and need to be handled with caution and common sense.
If handled correctly, they are very safe.
I do. I have had multiple types of weapons for years. I know a bunch of you do as well.
How many times have you shot someone by accident?
How many times have they gone off by accident?
How many times have they gone off on their own?
How many times have you shot yourself?
How many times have your guns been stolen?
Yeah - probably never on all of those.
They are dangerous as fuck and need to be handled with caution and common sense.
If handled correctly, they are very safe.