Regarding the “Rust” shooting.

Actors are not expected to be knowledgeable about weapons. If they are required to check their own weapons, they would not do so competently, and may come to incorrect conclusions. This could add incompetent confusion about the weapon safety to the situation, and that’s bad for safety.

It takes like two minutes to learn how to safely check a gun. Surely they spend more than that learning walking to the set from the parking lot.
- The nature of how firearms are used in film generally requires breaking the normal fundamental rules of firearm safety. You can't just give somebody a quick rundown of the "four rules" and call it good.
  Further, they're also often modified in ways that change what safety factors need to be considered.
  It's the job of the on-set armorer to make sure firearms are safe and used in a safe manner because it's not reasonable to expect actors who are firearms laymen to understand everything that plays a factor in what is or isn't safe.
  I do think this case is a little different, but that primarily has to do with Baldwin being a producer.
- Safely check WHICH gun?
  The live firing weapon? The blank firing gun? The resin replica? Are they expected to remove any rounds in a firearm, be it live or replica, and verify that it is indeed a blank?
  No. That is ONE person's job for a reason. That is the firearms expert's job. Nobody else's.
  You accept that responsibility with the job.
  
  The one in their hand.
  
  The one in their hand.
  So they need to be trained how to spot the difference between a live and blank round and how to check every firearm on the set.
  OR
  You could just have one person that's an expert on firearms do that for everyone, thereby eliminating any possibility that an untrained know-nothing actor accidentally lights off a round while fumblefucking with a firearm they know nothing about, trying to check it.
  Hey genius, what good does "checking" a firearm do if they're literally there to fire off blank rounds?
They don't even need to know how to check a gun. They just need to follow the safety protocols and not point it at someone. Pointing a real gun, which this was, at something you are not ok destroying is a violation of basic firearms safety, 82nd airborne or not.
- Being an actor requires pointing guns at people, it's just part of the job. You can't apply gun safety to things that are supposed to be harmless props. That's why it really isn't his fault for pointing a prop at someone and pulling the trigger, it's the fault of the armouror for handing him something that wasn't a prop.
  Granted, he hired an under qualified armouror, didn't take safety seriously, and allowed the stage gyns to be used with real ammo, and that's all on Alex the producer from a civil liability standpoint. But it's not a slight against Alex the actor
  
  Dude. Read up on this. Guns pointed at others are rubber replicas. (Great vids about this on Adam Savage's YT channel). This was a real gun. Those are not pointed at people. Down vote away.

I agree, especially if real guns are being used. But what I don't get is why in this case it would be Baldwin's fault. If this is industry-wide practice, why was he charged?

I think the industry needs to change so that for action scenes with real weapons, everyone who touches the weapon gets basic safety and firearms training. Knowing how to hold and operate the weapon, the safety rules, how to check to make sure the weapon is clear, etc.

Baldwin's culpability as an actor lies in how he accepted the gun from the assistant director instead of the armorer and accepted the gun without being present to observe a safety check, something which he should know not to do since he supposedly had the mandatory safety training. The assistant director is not the armorer and is unqualified to declare a gun ”safe/cold". When guns are handed out prior to filming a scene at least 3 parties are supposed to be present to observe a safety check conducted by the armorer. These are the actor, armorer, and the director/an assistant director. The armorer is the qualified expert. The actor should want to know that they're not about to shoot someone with a real gun and real bullets. And the director/assistant director acts as a representative of the downrange cast and crew. This is supposed to be done every time a gun changes hands on set.
I thought it was because he was a producer.
- I thought so at first too, but the authorities didn't go after the other five producers. They basically went after him because he fired the gun, not because of the production angle.
  Halyna Hutchinson's widower sued the producers. The settlement was reached and he's both being compensated for her death and he's now an executive producer of Rust. They moved filming to Montana and a lot of the original cast and crew agreed to complete the movie, but I don't know how much more they were able to film before the actors strike.
- Because he paid the bills? IDK what a producer does other than that, but it sure as hell isn't being in charge of the firearms.
  
  I'm not sure what his involvement as a producer was, but I know a producer doesn't "pay the bills". It's a vague enough term that it could mean he was showrunning, writing, financing. Prett much anything. It could be that he wanted the title for awards or it could be that he had many responsibilities including ensuring that the professionals involved were qualified and experienced enough for their roles - from what I remember, the armourer and some camera crew were probably not.
  Sorry, I didn't follow this case so I don't know all the details.
  
  It was because the gun safety practices on this particular movie set were sloppy as hell. The prosecutors argued that Baldwin ignored basic precautions on numerous occasions and that, as producer on set, he was legally liable for the shooting.
"Industry-wide practice" that goes against every firearms safety standard anywhere else. From what I remember it wasn't even during a scene, he was just playing with it.
I personally think, with the budgets of Hollywood Movies, there's no reason they couldn't have a gunsmith make/modify one to shoot only blanks.
- Wow, almost like being on a movie set isn't like being in a fucking shooting range.
  No, he was not "playing with it." He was blocking out a scene and rehearsing. He removed the gun he was given from the holster and it fired.
  He should never have been handed a live firing gun. The armorer's responsibility is to track all firearms at all times.
  I personally think, with the budgets of Hollywood Movies, there’s no reason they couldn’t have a gunsmith make/modify one to shoot only blanks.
  The firearm Baldwin was handed was unmodified. There was also one that had been modified to not fire anything, and another that was a resin cast replica. In other words, the entire industry is literally decades ahead of you in terms of safety and knowledge.
  You do not need to ensure a firearm shoots only blanks if you just... and I can't stress this enough... DON'T INTENTIONALLY BRING REAL AMMUNITION ONTO A FILM SET.
  Which the armorer did.
- From what I remember it wasn't even during a scene, he was just playing with it.
  No, they were going over the scene right before filming. The shot in question was filming down the barrel of the gun, which is why it was pointed in the direction it was.

Didn't those dumbfucks on set take the prop guns out to do target practice? I don't even own a gun, but I know enough to know that pointing a gun that has any chance of being loaded at someone is a terrible idea and that the prop master's responsibility is to make sure that never happens. The prop master's negligence led to that person's death and Baldwin should have done his homework on who he was hiring. He's probably not criminally responsible, but he should settle and avoid a civil trial.

Yup, everyone on set was shooting live non-blank rounds between takes

The first five gun safety rules