Packing Heat: Should Photographers Carry a Gun on the Job?

Packing Heat: Should Photographers Carry a Gun on the Job?

It's an unavoidable topic in American conversations. In the photography world, it seems to pop up on the forums and Facebook groups often enough to warrant further consideration: guns. Not necessarily in the heated, political debate sense, but to ask this question: In a world where carrying a concealed weapon has become more normalized and photographers spend more time in remote and urban locations, do firearms have a place in your business?

Kellie Saunders, a wedding photographer in Birmingham, Michigan, knows a thing or two about gun safety and operating on the streets. Before becoming a full-time photographer, Saunders spent six years as a police officer in Detroit.

Originally, I studied journalism and worked with commercial photographers and publishers prior to becoming a Detroit police officer," Saunders said. “When I decided to get married and start a family, I wanted a job that was flexible and offered stable hours. I couldn't find that in the private sector, so starting a business with my camera was a natural and easy transition.”

Saunders still does most of her work in Detroit as a photographer. But unlike her time spent in a squad car, she mostly leaves the gun at home these days.

“I am a firearms lover. Let's get that out of the way right now," she said. "I am all for private citizens having the right to carry firearms if they so desire. With that said, with a firearm comes great responsibility."

So, carrying a gun while she's out making portraits isn't in her plans.

“How can I photograph clients and be in a creative headspace while at the same time be legitimately prepared for a battle with a criminal?" Saunders asked. "If someone were to jump out of the bushes, let's say, their weapon is already out and ready. Time is of the essence, so think about it. By the time I can put my camera down and draw my weapon, either I or my clients could be hurt or killed.”

Saunders said that most Concealed Pistol License holders aren’t tactically trained, so drawing a weapon when out on an engagement session or other job might do more harm than good.

“Not everyone understands how a real life firefight could go down. I do, and that's why I choose to keep my weapon at home when I'm with clients," she said.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is a 12-year licensed concealed pistol carrier and active auxiliary police officer who is also an established wedding and event photographer in a major metropolitan area. He was granted anonymity for the sake of his business, as it might be affected by this article.

There are lunatics everywhere. Who says giving up your stuff will protect you? That may work sometimes but not always. Sometimes, lunatics are into random violence, not just robbery,” said the photographer, who disclosed that carrying is a personal choice for him and that he doesn’t disclose it to clients.

“Responsible gun owners don't tell people they are carrying. One, many people aren't comfortable with it, so there's no point. Two, it isn't something to brag about. It is for protection against bad people,” he added.

The photographer said he began carrying on the job out of general concern for his safety while hauling gear around jobs in the city.

“I think I've been carrying around 10-12 years, not sure precisely," he said. "I was worried about crime and thought it was a good idea."

When asked for comment, National Rifle Association Spokesperson Lars Dalseide said: “Whether at home, on the job, or in the field, the NRA supports every law-abiding gun owner’s choice to safely and responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights." He elaborated: "The right to carry was only available in a handful of states in 1991 while violent crime was at an all-time high. By 2015, more than 40 states had adopted right-to-carry laws, and the violent crime rate had dropped 51 percent. Should all the credit go to the new right-to-carry laws? No, not all. But criminals are less likely to attack targets who might be armed."

New stories of photographers being robbed or mugged aren’t unheard of, so it's no surprise that many people consider a concealed weapon as a precaution. On the other hand, statistics tend to find that guns are used far more often for killing than self-defense. But if guns aren't for you - for whatever reason - Saunders says vigilance and some streets smarts are most likely enough to keep you safe.

“I photograph in Detroit almost every week, and I love my city. I've never had a problem,” she said. “My advice is to always be aware of your surroundings. Know the areas you are working in. Don't trespass. Don't take your clients to abandoned buildings. Work in well-lit, well-traveled areas. If you see someone down the street approaching you on an 85-degree day with his hands in his pockets, wearing a thick jacket, and looking around, get in your car and leave.”

It should be noted that in many states, concealed weapons are not permitted inside of churches or synagogues, nor are they allowed in places of gathering that exceed set capacities. If you're a wedding or lifestyle photographer who carries or is considering carrying a gun, make sure to check the regulations of the state you work in first.

Where do you stand? Is having a concealed weapon with you on a shoot something you’d consider? Do you already carry? Should your clients know about it? Let us know in the comments.

 

Adam Sparkes's picture

Adam is the Assistant Director of Photography at Central Michigan University. He has been pushing a button for a living since 2009 and for that entire time constantly finds himself correcting people who pronounce it "fur-tographer".

Log in or register to post comments
537 Comments
Previous comments

Intelligent people just ook at statistics and let the numbers speak.

I am from The Netherlands, which is roughly twice the size of the state of New Jersey or 0,43% or so of the USA. In our country we have 5-10 gun related incidents in the whole country a year. In the USA only there were 13.000 deaths by gun related incidents and over 50.000 gun related incidents in 2015. If we take the size of our countries in the comparison, that is a factor of 5.000 to 20.000 more incidents in the USA than in The Netherlands.

So why do we not discuss photographers "pack heat" issues in our country, that is because we have no such issues.

In each gun related statistic per capita the USA leads: in mass shootings, in murders in school shootings, in homicides, in gun violence or whatever you can think off. In fact there are more people killed in the USA alone by gunfire than US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq. There are 400 times more gun related deaths in the USA than US citizens killed in terrorism related incidents in the last 15 years (including 9/11).

So people in other civilized Western countries look at these numbers and think: "Why do they not simply understand that they create the issues themselves".

"it was only after he committed his crime."

How does a police officer, let alone anyone, shoot a man BEFORE the crime is committed? Telepathy? Plus your statistic is rigged if you think about it; a mass shooting is not counted as a mass shooting if not enough people die (there's an official body count). Plus there is no official reporting of crimes that never happened; police report crimes, CDC reports deaths, who reports 'near-crimes'? You're not going to hear about it on national media as it doesn't play into their liberal narrative. There are cases much more frequent than you'd have us believe.

"mental health"

I agree with you. Though I'm sure you and everyone would agree that mass murderers are certainly mentally deranged or disturbed, the reality is what you describe and many of those individuals were never diagnosed in the first place. There is a common denominator with these young men and it's a broken home; absence of a father figure. I have an easy solution, but I'm positive it will not happen in my lifetime: Mandatory military service.

Two years, perhaps even as short as 1.5 years; combat optional. The military would be in effect a societal filter. A deranged individual would be identified quickly, and anyone else that is a borderline and simply lacked a solid family upbringing would have values instilled that they'd never receive at home.

"Second Amendment was written by slaveholders before..the..weaponry [of] today."

First and foremost, the musket was the military grade weapon of its day, just as AR's and AK's are today. The founding fathers were some bright individuals and chose the wording of the constitution very carefully. If they specifically intended on muskets, then they would have said it; they didn't. Instead they said 'arms'; a very broad and unspecific term that has held the same meaning centuries prior. I know you only see them as slave owners, but they were very intelligent individuals; most being polymaths; a designation I am confident you are far from; along with many Americans to be fair. They spent much thought drafting that document, so with the fact that they made it #2 on the list and left the word count low, I would say they knew exactly what they were doing.

You mention slavery a few times and negatively portrayed our forefathers. I can't help but sense a hatred toward America in your words. Comparing the 2nd Amendment to slavery; letting go. (Again the obsession with slavery. Are you one who believes the civil war was solely fought over the issue of slavery?) You are quick to wash away a document that this country was founded on, because you deem it outdated. I suppose you're on the lifecycle of a fruitfly and are quick to dismiss threats simply because they haven't affected you during your lifetime. 240 years is many generations, however it's only 3 lifetimes. Can you guarantee there won't be a threat of tyranny ever again? No, you can't. Tyrants are usually the guys who have a habit of disarming the people for some STRANGE reason.

I suppose your next point will be of AR's and AK's being a futile weapon against a superpower; it's a very selfish and weak minded point, but we're all entitled to our opinions.

When last time someone tried to rob me, I got blood allover my face before I realized what is going on. I defended myself and I'm still paying for ER. People are so ignorant, thinking that crackheads are polite and just ask for your money...

exactly! If you can afford guns ammo etc buy insurance instead:)

That's the beauty about rights, they are there for you to exercise whether you choose to or not. Ain't nobody's business but your own. Just remember with rights come responsibility to use sound judgement, follow the law and train as seriously as if your life may depend on it... cause it does.

Amen brother.

Not the right choice for everyone, but I usually carry when the circumstances permit. I'm a military veteran with plenty of experience in urban areas where carry is prohibited where violence happens and stood by unable to do anything but watch. Now, having a choice on how to respond (drawing is NOT the only answer in such circumstances) if the situation arises feels much more responsible than consigning myself to the ranks of the defenseless victims to watch in horror as innocent lives are taken. It's out of love for my fellow man that I do so, praying the day will never come that I ever even think about drawing a firearm.

Thank you for your service man.

Let's get one FACT straight... You CANNOT shoot someone for trying to rob you. Deadly force can only be justified when your life is in danger or when grave bodily harm will occur. Fifteen years ago, in the desert outside of Tucson, Az, I had to use my weapon to let three men know I was not a victim. Because I was "In the middle of nowhere" I was able to fire a round into a cactus, the three made the decision to move on...

Not actually fact. This is dependent on the state you live in and the relevant sections of the penal code for that state. Most of those sections tend to be vague and depend on some interpretation of the statement "fear for your life".

Hi Pete Miller, I don't understand your comment here and it might just be that I live in a very different type of society... Isn't that what insurance is for? I'd like to think that if I got home from a shoot today and everything I owed was a smoking hole in the ground, I would have lost a few pieces of sentimental value but I wouldn't be ruined. Do you have an example that comes to mind?

Yes, so you get a license, a gun, everything else you need (ammo and accessories) and pay a lawyer for legal representation because you shot someone who tried to take your camera bag instead of paying Bucks a year for insurance?

"Personally, I think the use of >>>lethal force<<< should also apply to property. Many people lives are ruined through theft and destruction of their property."

Now don't tell me you wouldn't if you were allowed to

Never called gun owners irresponsible (most of them really are responsible) but your comment I just quoted speaks for itself

Insurance will not protect your life. You should have both.

surely the cost of membership to your local gun club to keep your skill level high enough to even use a lethal weapon for self defence would be higher than your insurance payments and I wasn't talking about replacing everything I own, I was talking about keeping me on my feet and my life not being "ruined". i would worry that if i shot another person dead (even in self defence) psychologically I may find myself ruined. But as I mentioned above, I have been raised in a different society with different values.

You say different values, but I think actually it is different perception. We all value our safety as we can agree. What you perceive to be damaging psychologically is actually true also for me. Ask anyone who has killed someone in justified defense; they see that person's face every night they go to bed. None of us (American gun owners) hope to kill someone and look forward to getting high-fives for it, and it is actually the last thing we want; however we carry because it is better to live with that image than not to live at all. Do you think your family would prefer you to be with them, or in a grave at a criminal's hand. It's you or them.

Obviously you are not going to look for thief with a gun, but what if you are coming back home to meet with the burglar? Should you just let him leave with your stuff? And why should you be required to own insurance? Why not to shoot the thief? Because his life is more valuable than your things you worked for? If burglars were frequently shoot by homeowners, number of burglaries would significantly dropped.
Why do you think that burglary would not impact your life? Above all the stress of dealing with police and insurance company that will do everything not to pay for your loses, how are you going to feel. Will you feel safe at home?

At least in Florida, if someone brakes into your home or car while you're inside, you can assume that person is going to harm you and you can use deadly force. However if you pull the gun if that aggressor will make run for his life, you cannot shoot him anymore.

It may be but it is regulated by each state so I speak only about what I know.

Pete, I could not disagree with you more. A possession is never worth a human life.

Invading my home is a horse of a different color...

If your life is endangered, you can. If robber will ask politely to give him your stuff than you cannot use deadly force.

I thought about this* before my last shoot ... then I remembered that I live somewhere where this is not something I ever need to think about.

* = I didn't really.

My thoughts exactly. I thought this was a very good article but feel relief that I don't live in the USA or other third world countries which are so dangerous that people need to carry guns everywhere.

It's actually something I take for granted - and I was once mugged at knife-point*. There are places with very dangerous people who are armed. (I was left pretty shocked by some things a lady from South Africa told me once - I knew South Africa could be a dangerous place but stories she told were quite disturbing.)

I don't think that more people having guns is the best solution to this problem but, while the problem still exists and is not otherwise addressed, carrying a weapon for protection does have its own logic - but as the article and many commenters have stated, it comes with its own risks and responsibilities.

Once again, it's something I'm very glad I don't have to consider too much.

* = I wasn't photographing at the time; I was on my way back from the corner shop with a pint of milk.

Yeah, most people I know who've spent a decent amount of time in Johannesburg, South Africa, have been mugged at gun point at least once. None of them were armed and they all lived to tell the tale.

I usually take it for granted that I know nobody who's been mugged at gun point in my own country, Australia, until I hear about countries like South Africa and USA. I'd hate for concealed carrying of weapons to become normal here like they are in those obviously very dangerous countries.

I once got mugged at knife-point in the UK (in Nottingham), and am also here to tell the tale. I've no regrets about giving them my phone and my wallet and letting them walk away. Cancelled my debit card and my phone (which was up for renewal anyway) and I was mostly inconvenienced rather than out of pocket.

Bad things happen and criminals operate in our countries, but it seems that the rates (at least of violent crime) are far lower - and they're less dangerous because next to nobody is carrying a gun.

Also, nobody in Spain steals things in person anymore, you just defraud the state ... an area where our politicians lead by example.

Owain, that would have been terrifying! Glad you got away unscathed, physically at least.

Do you regret the fact you didn't have a gun, and so you didn't kill the thief to keep your wallet and phone?

It was more scary after the fact, and I did feel uneasy walking some streets in Nottingham at night but I was there for two more years without further incident, even without carrying a gun.

However, now that you put it like that ... I mean, they were criminals threatening me and my family (by extension), right? I have to protect myself from people like that by arming myself with a dangerous weapon, the same as the dangerous weapon they might use to harm me ... or more dangerous. If my weapon is the same as theirs, I'm not adequately protected. Because logic.

But, I'm going to go with 'Still No Regrets' for $100, please Simon. Especially as me attempting to use my hypothetical gun in that situation would likely have just got me stabbed ... plus, you know, "guns for show, knives for a pro".

Makes sense to me, Owain, I imagine I'd be exactly the same. Plus, I can't imagine killing someone just because they want to steal my wallet and phone, even if I could. You'd get the $100 if I was running the show! :-)

I think this is what makes us cowards, Simon. Cowards who don't defend ourselves or our families, or our all worldly possessions, with deadly weapons.

Oh dear Owain, now you put it like that, I'll go out tomorrow to find a nice hefty handgun and some hollow points to carry on me at all times!

Of course, I'll have to find somebody who'll sell me such a thing which won't be easy, and just my asking will probably find its way to the authorities because the kind of people I would need to ask are the kind of people who also provide information to the police, for a fee. And, even if I find someone who can sell me one and doesn't rat on me to the cops, it will probably cost me $10k - $15k anyway.

But that's because I live in Australia where it is very hard for anybody to obtain such a thing for the above reasons, even criminals. Hence why those kind of weapons are very uncommon, and I therefore don't actually need one. Funny about that, eh!

Yeah, that is weird how legislating against gun ownership/possession makes it harder for people (including criminals) to get them, and therefore means people don't (feel the) need to carry guns for protection from ... guns.

Strange system you guys have in that backwards country of yours where oppressive gun laws have prevented anyone from dying free and in liberty in a mass shooting for nearly twenty years ...

The thing is, there are actually plenty of guns in Australia. I live in a dairy farming area and every farm has guns - they are an essential tool, like a tractor or a chainsaw.
But we have very few of the kinds of guns designed to kill humans, especially the kinds designed to be carried around hidden all day or shoot lots of people in quick succession. Hence why it would be extremely difficult for me to get one of those kinds of guns.

Our famous 1996 gun laws were really just one step forward for a culture that already didn't accept people carrying guns around as normal practice. They have certainly worked here, no doubt about it.

Happy to be a so-called-coward in such a culture, who is free and quite safe to largely do as he pleases, but has somehow lost his liberty all at the same time. The joys of being in such a backwards country!

There's guns in Britain, and Spain where I currently live, too ... in the centre of Madrid there are shops that sell hunting rifles and shotguns (in Madrid these would be mostly for collectors) but as you said, these are the kind of guns that are generally used for a functional purpose that isn't killing humans. They're also too large to conceal and incapable of firing multiple rounds in quick succession - and you need permits to own them and cases to store them in.

While the general culture may have been against widespread gun possession, when an event came up that called into question whether the existing laws were offering adequate protection to citizens and their rights to not die, the laws were changed and seem to have worked. Both things, not accepting gun violence culturally or legally, are to be praised.

Also happy to be able to wander around, ostensibly free as a bird, with a whole load of other people, none of whom are carrying guns ... probably because I've been brainwashed into thinking I can be free without a gun.

+Owain, it sounds like the gun laws in Spain are very similar to those of Australia. Funnily enough, the annual firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population is quite low in Spain like it is in Australia. In fact, it is better than Australia's, although the total deaths are higher with Spain's greater population.

When faced with the news that yet another gun massacre has occurred in the US, the rest of the world is horrified and immediately thinks "something should be done to prevent that in future". This response seems to be natural, human empathy by the rest of us, especially when children are shot.

We may not know all that the Americans should do about it, as we are not in their culture or country, but we at least have empathy for their dead children and a strong desire for further deaths to be prevented. But we know that our own countries don't have those kinds of problems anywhere like the Americans, and we have a fair idea why. Yet the Americans never seem interested in learning from our successes, to possibly figure out how to apply some of what we know to their own context. Banging on over and over about second amendment rights hasn't helped them with their problem, yet that's all they seem to keep on doing.

Their only response to their massacres and other massive gun problems seems to be utterly callous, as if thousands of children shot dead is quite acceptable to Americans. Like it isn't a problem, not even a small problem. All we ever hear about is their personal rights and their so-called "liberty", as if the victims had no rights or liberty, and are simply acceptable human sacrifices on the altar of the almighty second amendment.

So it appears that the rest of the world cares for America's children, but Americans themselves don't. I find it bizarre.

Absolutely. And right here we have numerous people arguing about their right to carry in order to protect their family ... the children in said family being at a far greater risk of being shot at when daddy isn't around to protect them with his gun (and amazing reflexes and shot accuracy) due to other people, all of the wide variety of people who are out there, being able to access and carry guns freely and easily.

I know it's their country and their laws, but I will never understand how more guns are the solution to gun related deaths - particularly when countries such as yours have demonstrated (were a demonstration actually necessary for something that common sense seems to indicate) that "less guns" seems to work fairly well, indeed considerably better than "more guns".

With regards to freedom, and being free to own a gun if you want to ... that argument doesn't really work because America still has other laws which prohibit other undesirable things and actions. There isn't total freedom to do exactly as you please, and other things are prohibited in order to protect the public ... if something proves itself to be a danger, and critically one to other people's freedom to not die (I consider this one of my more important rights) then surely its continued presence should be evaluated.

Yep, all Americans don't even have a "right" to own a gun, only some people do, legally. They all agree on that. And not all guns are allowed either - look at the enormous list of guns that people are *not* allowed to own in California, for example. So their so-called "rights" for all citizens are not rights at all, they're privileges offered to a select group only.

Of course, it is like this for all their "rights" in the USA. As you point out, there isn't total freedom to do exactly as you please in America, all their "freedoms" have limits. Which reduces their so-called "rights" to mere privileges, allowable only under certain circumstances, most of them heavily policed.

But guys like Roman, Jordan and Pete here can't see tha. They're blinded from it. It's like they're brainwashed to repeating simple mantras to avoid any form of introspection.

Which is a great way to avoid admitting their huge problem with guns, and doing something about it. Sad really.

But that totally legit looking guy in the video said it was fine to just ignore national laws and buy a gun ... and that Almighty God gave us our rights. It's pretty tough to argue against that ...

God...guns...the second amendment. It's all the same thing after all really, isn't it? ;-)

Maybe God is a gun ...

Yeah, the gun is clearly many people's god.

I tried the Almighty God theory with our Tax Authority.

Ha ha, you're writing these posts from jail then, are you Mario! :-)

Or Panama.

Yeah, how'd that work out for you?

The VERY key sentence in this article that hits it square on the head is:

"most Concealed Pistol License holders aren’t tactically trained, so drawing a weapon when out on an engagement session or other job might do more harm than good."

Police carry guns and have to take many tests per year to make sure they are proficient at using them. Not only that, they go through countless high stress scenarios each year for training purposes that ensures they know how and WHEN... THIS IS THE KEY PHRASE!!!!!!!!!.. WHEN to use a gun for deadly force and when NOT to...

Countless hours practicing and countless hours training on when to use and when not to use deadly force... coupled with on the job skills and years of high stress reacting to stressful situations and making split second life and death decisions...

THAT is what makes someone able to carry a gun safely or not....

Not just taking a couple training courses on how to shoot a gun straight and how to shoot it safely.. That doesn't make you a highly trained and highly skilled, Tactically proficient gun owner.. Nor does even going to the gun range every single week.... and shooting that target dead in the middle.

You could be the sharpest shooter in the world... but unless you are trained on a regular basis on how to respond to stressful situations involving life or death... you WILL freeze, and you WILL make the situation worse...

You just pulled your gun out on someone at a photoshoot and all you've ever done was shoot at a little white target in a controlled, stress free, environment... what are you going to do now?

I agree. And even after countless hours of training the pros don't get it right a lot of times. A firing situation is the most stressful event possible, no wonder there are so many bad outcomes from even the best intentions.

More comments