And more movie set shooting updates: Not only was the armorer involved in a prior safety issue on a different movie, the assistant director was fired from a previous gig following an accidental discharge injured a crew member.
The hell is going on here..........
A long series of negligent acts, although IMO the buck still stops with Baldwin as the trigger-puller. As some details have come out, we've learned:
1. The "armorer" appears to have been an incompetent idiot. She wasn't checking the guns, and there was live ammo on the set. The gun in question was also being used by crew members with live ammo for target practice. (This raises an aside. The media has been referring to the gun in question as a "prop gun." Most guns used as props are real, functional guns. Hollywood prop companies are some of the largest gun owners in the country, including for full-auto machine guns. That's why California hasn't yet completely banned private ownership of full-auto guns; the movie companies own hundreds of them. This was a real, functional gun.)
2. The armorer didn't verify that the guns were unloaded, which is literally the most important aspect of her job. The assistant director who handed the gun to Baldwin didn't check it either. Neither did Baldwin. Negligence and stupidity abounded on that set.
3. Baldwin was "practicing draws" and pointing the gun toward the camera. In doing so, he was obviously pointing a gun at human beings, which was a fundamental safety violation.
4. The media keep saying that the gun "misfired" or "went off" or some other passive-voice description that avoids all agency. Bullcrap. Baldwin cocked the gun and pulled the trigger while said gun was pointed at another human being. This movie is a period piece set in the 1880s, and reports are that the gun in question was a revolver (which is a "no duh" report given that the first semi-auto handguns didn't really come along until the 1890s). There is about a 98% chance that the gun in question is a Colt Single Action Army, a/k/a the Model 1873 or Peacemaker.* The SAA is a single-action gun that requires that the hammer be manually cocked before each shot. While there is a slight chance that an SAA can fire if a loaded chamber is under the hammer, the gun is dropped, and the gun lands on the back of the hammer, there are no reports that Baldwin dropped the gun.** Other than that, SAAs don't just "go off" or "misfire." The only way that gun fired without being dropped is if Baldwin cocked the gun and then pulled the trigger.
There's a well-known model used in risk analysis and accident causation called the Swiss Cheese Model. Typically, there are layers of safety policies and practices designed to prevent accidents. Consider each layer a single slice in a stack of cheese slices. Any weaknesses or safety lapses in a layer is a hole. The system leads to accidents when a hole in each slice momentarily aligns, and the more holes you have, the greater the chance of an "all the way though" alignment. Here, it looks like the layers were more holes than cheese.
* I figure maybe a 2% chance that it was something else, like a S&W Model 3 Schofield or a Remington Model 1875, but those guns operate the same as the SAA, so it doesn't change the analysis.
** This is why, even though the SAA has six chambers, holds six rounds, and is commonly called a "six-shooter," in practice they were carried with only five rounds chambered and the hammer down on the empty chamber. The only time it's ever even remotely acceptable to load six rounds into an SAA is if you're at the range and will be immediately firing all six shots before putting the gun back down. More modern revolvers use hammer-block or transfer-bar mechanisms and can be safety carried with all chambers loaded.
