Armorer's statement

No they are not guidleines. There are safety protocols in place and that is called "the armourer". There sole job is the safety and use of guns on a movie set.

I don't think people realise how many thousands of movies and tv shows each and every year use real and prop guns with blanks and live ammunition without incident.

My god the westerns of 70 years ago used thousands of rounds of ammunition to shoot scenes.

This death is a tragic accident. If there is to be blame then unfortunatly it is the prop master and armourer.

in "the real world" yeah, every possible safety precaution.

You cant apply all those rules to filming a scene.
nor is there a need to because its a closed environment with dozens of people working on the same thing some of which are *specifically employed to check the gun for the actor.*
Are the actors supposed to check their own climbing ropes? or scuba gear?
no - they have people on set to check at the appropriate times.


you literally cannot take every "real world" guideline into the movie studio,
For example how about the rule "Never point a gun at anyone"
In acting that needs to happen - its in the script.

Another example.
suppose in the script the characters receive weapons either someone hands them a gun , or they pick them up from a box / car trunk - like in pulp fiction.

The characters in the movie dont then perform a gun safety check,
so how can the actors do it?

So going back to the OP , I'd say this armourer lady is more at fault than any of the other people blame is being pushed around to

{edit}
Thinking about it , the above when camera is rolling.
off screen there is no reason not to take every possible precaution (the standard gun handling rules), and avoid waving it a round at people like a dick - which is what seems to have happened in this case.

your tacit concession is noted (again).

With all the tatoos and hair. She should go back to costume or half price books or starbucks.

Faulty brakes, cheap brakes, no brakes, it makes no difference. The question I asked was whether or not the owner deliberately bought the car knowing about the brakes. Are you suggesting Baldwin literally knew the gun was hot? If this is to be analogy, it could work, but it depends on what the car owner knew (or reasonably should have known) and when, and if Baldwin likewise knew the gun did have a bullet in it at the time (or lacked reasonable expectation that the gun was "cold"). The only way the car owner could be in trouble is if they were aware of this and drove it anyway. You would have to prove to twelve jurors that the owner MUST have known or SHOULD have known the car lacked brakes before the accident occurred. A car with no brakes would be fairly noticeable, I should think, unless the accident happened IMMEDIATELY after driving off. Perhaps brakes are not the best analogy. Maybe bad tires or some other part would be a better analogy, because you might have to eyeball them to know if there was a problem. Faulty tires might make a sound or ride funny, so maybe that's not a perfect analogy either.

Anyway, if the owner didn't know or simply didn't think to check, was there a reasonable expectation that the car would have brakes? This what a jury in a criminal trial of Baldwin would have to decide. I think he should have stopped filming based on what was happening that day and how procedures had broken down, but will this be enough to say he lacked reasonable expectation of safety? You need twelve jurors in a criminal case to agree. Do the movie guidelines actually say that the actor MUST check the weapon, or does it say that the actor has the right to check the weapon upon request? Does it actually say the actor is OBLIGATED to do that? This argument has never been tested in court since Brandon Lee's death. I think this argument has better chance in civil court. We'll see.

NOTE: Also, pointing at the camera and firing and his role as producer are separate issue.s

"Not really a misnomer when you consider it was referred to as a .45 long colt by the quarter masters at the time of its use to avoid confusion with a .45 S&W Schofield..."

I know the story behind "Long Colt". It's a misnomer because the actual name of the cartridge is .45 Colt.

"or the fact that Colt themselves label the current single action revolvers that use it was with .45LC"

No, they don't, not on the gun itself anyway, and not on the box it comes in either. On the current production SAA it just says ".45" on the barrel (in the recent past it said "45 CAL"), and on the box it says "45Colt". In the scan of the SAA owner's manual that Colt has on their website it's called ".45 Colt" (pages 4 and 6 for example).

"As for the price, it probably varies by location. I can only go by what I've seen it selling for locally. And I haven't seen it for under a dollar a cartridge."

It doesn't need to sell for less than a dollar per round to cost less than "a couple hundred dollars" for a box. For a box of 50, it would have to cost $4 per round in order to cost $200, and for a box of 20, it would have to cost $10 per round. On this site it ranges from $0.90 to $3.30 per round:

https://www.midwayusa.com/45-colt-long-colt/br?perPage=96&sortBy=7&cid=21851

And those ridiculously expensive ones aren't something that would normally be bought just to go shooting; they are specialized self-defense and hunting loads, and those type of loads are a lot more expensive than basic ammo in any caliber.

Also, there are 55 varieties of .45 Colt ammunition made by 20 different brands to choose from just on that website; far from "not a common caliber".

Hmm. Maybe at some point she just stopped giving a fuck, because in most of those she doesn't look like someone who has made diet or exercise a priority.