A lot?
What's not accurate?
That actors are not expected to be trained on firearms any more than they're expected to be trained on harnesses, air bags, aircraft, surgery, parachuting, car chases, explosives, electronics, etc.?
That the director is responsible for placement of ballistic shields when using live ammunition?
That the armorer is responsible for whether or not each firearm on set is loaded or unloaded?
That in some states such as California, the armorer has to be licensed?
That the insurer often requires an approved armorer?
That the practice could have been done with a a blue safety gun or a prop gun instead of a real one?
I asked you for your sources for your claims in post 69.
What's not accurate?
Well, since you asked:
That actors are not expected to be trained on firearms any more than they're expected to be trained on harnesses, air bags, aircraft, surgery, parachuting, car chases, explosives, electronics, etc.?
Actors are specifically given firearms saftey training prior to any scene or rehersal in which that actor needs to handle a firearm. That's written into several union contracts and has been standard industry practice for many years, even before Brandon Lee's death in 1993, and doubly so after. Baldwin himself has had safety training many times over the course of his long career. It has not been established in court if he recieved that saftey training on this set, but the public record shows that others had been involved in several safety briefings.
That the director is responsible for placement of ballistic shields when using live ammunition?
"ballistic sheilds" are not used on set, nor is "live" ammunition. Blanks are commonly used, but the shot is set up either with a remote head camera, so that no camera operator is even remotely in the line of fire of the blank round, or the shot is set up so that it apears that the firearm is pointed at the camera when it is not.
That the armorer is responsible for whether or not each firearm on set is loaded or unloaded?
The armorer is the first person with this responsibility. Her counsel will argue that there were "unforseeable intervening actors" who took actions that she could not have forseen and which were necessary for this unfortuneate outcome. Those people are: the AD, who shcould have checked the pistol, Baldwin who should have checked the pistol and who should have not pulled the trigger. But the liability of one party does not necessarily releive other parties of their own liability.
That in some states such as California, the armorer has to be licensed?
This occurred in New Mexico, but since you're referencing California, you must be referrring to CPC 29500, which they call an "Entertainment Firearms Permit". It's an administrative exemption to California's record keeping requirements for transfers of guns used as props. There are no particular training requirements.
29500. Any person who is at least 21 years of age may apply for an entertainment firearms permit from the Department of Justice. An entertainment firearms permit authorizes the permitholder to possess firearms loaned to the permitholder for use solely as a prop in a motion picture, television, video, theatrical, or other entertainment production or event.That the insurer often requires an approved armorer?
Approved by whom? Was there anything to suggest (before this unfortunate ND) that Hannah Gutierrez was not fully qualified under the rules that obtained for this production at the time? Doubtless Ms. Gutierrez' qualifications will be discussed at trial, but that's also a problem for Baldwin. He was a producer, and would have shared responsibility to hire only qualified personnel for this and other jobs on that set.
That the practice could have been done with a a blue safety gun or a prop gun instead of a real one?
It's called a "rehersal", but, whatever.
What's a "blue safety gun"? A fake gun, a hunk of plastic? It could have, but the counter-factual is irrelevant to the facts of the case. You're also confused about the distinction of a "prop gun" to a "real gun". A firearm, be it functional, fake, plastic, or disabled owned by the property department is a "prop gun". In other words, real guns have been used on set for decades as props, and merely designating something as a 'prop' doesn't mean that it's not fully functional. Guns can be props. Functional automobiles can be props. Real Ipads can be props. It's just movie lingo.
If you will but keep posting, I'm sure that you will generate further errors that the members of this forum will be more than happy to correct.