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.
Absolutely... even the most well trained people in the world can crack under pressure... now imagine someone with NO training and experience under pressure...
Just like shooting your camera... with practice you get less nervous and more proficient at shooting more complex and dynamic situations and events... you end up getting better shots with more experience and not buckling under the stress...
Now turn that into life and death situations... with about 100x the pressure...
that's what these gun owners that say "more guns in the hands of everyone will be better"... no... it... won't...
Just like Shooting portraits in a controlled environment in a studio with friends won't adequately prepare you for solo shooting a wedding for a paying client... shooting a gun in a shooting range wont prepare you for a dynamic life and death situation...
Sure you may know how to get it right in ideal conditions... but that doesn't mean you will under pressure in unknown situations
That's right. Then better get killed, than try to defend yourself?
Actually he is correct in noting that even trained pros, working under extremely stressful situations don't get things right.
Positing "the well trained reasonable person" in your argument that history shows does not really exist is the canard floated by the gun apologists to argue for more guns. By your own admission many police officers don't fit this description so how do the paranoid, over confident gunslingers improve on this model?
You are pulling the gun when your's or someone's life is endangered. You are not a cop, and you don't have a gun for anything else other than defense. If someone want to kill you, is it better to have a gun or just let him kill you? How about rape?
The thing is that if you carry a gun, you do so at all times. If you photograph weddings, you are going to the wedding and from the wedding. What if there will be jealous, psycho ex-boyfriend who will decide to shoot everyone? One armed person who don't drink alcohol (photographer), can stop tragedy.
"You are not a cop" therefore just another dork with a gun and a misplaced belief in how you will respond in an actual gun situation.
Maybe you guys need to talk to some vets who were in real gun battles with real bad guys and who have had far more firearms training and experience than cops who can tell you about how hard it is to stay focused in a gunfight.
Maybe you won't talk so brashly about how "a good guy with a gun" will kick ass.
You might note that this last week alone 5 police officers were shot with 3 dying despite their guns, training and vests.
I don't understand your argument... So what should you do if someone want to seriously hurt you? Make sure you have good insurance? Pray?
I said that you are not a cop. You are not enforcing law or braking up fights, but if someone pulls knife or gun, you can react. Without gun you can close your eyes and pray.
The actual fact is that the chance of being in a situation needing a gun is vanishingly small. The vast numbers of guns out there mean it is more likely that you will get shot by an idiot who thinks he is Clint Eastwood. I have been working in Los Angeles since the 70's and not once did I ever feel that I needed a gun. Nor do I pray. I just use my head and stay away from places that might be unsafe.
The real fact is that the fear that people have is stoked by gun manufacturers to bump sales. The fear is manufactured and is always anecdotal.
The deaths we see every day on the news are almost always some guy shooting his whole family or the family next door. Accidents and murder by family member are the main drivers, not some random psycho walking down the street.
Calling something fact doesn't make it fact!
What you "feel" doesn't change facts either.
Friend of mine has small store in LA. He doesn't keep money at home but armed rubber didn't know about it. If guns were banned only the criminal would be armed and my friend most likely would be dead. Fortunately he was armed as well and was able to protect himself and his family.
What if there was no guns at all (assuming that there would be no black market and all guns would magically disappear)? The criminal could attack my friend with knife or other weapon and easily overpower older man.
If murders by family member are the main drivers, let's address that issue because even without guns those people will be killing each other...
Actually, it statistics that makes the fact a fact.
Anecdote is the province of apologists.
It's an American right broham. Call it a fear if you'd like to feel better about yourself, but it's vigilience and preparedness...and American! The other two are mere formalities.
Another liberal who believes I'm cowaring in fear and constantly looking over my shoulder. We all know it'll be a cold day in hell when we are faced with an actual threat. You're a good driver, probably will make it to work safely tomorrow; however you will wear your seatbelt anyhow. We carry guns because we can, separates us from the rest of the world in not having to rely on a governement to protect you....well not you, but us. You're kind of stuck waiting on hold for 911.
LA is probably all good, but your butt will be glued to a seat at work if a riot broke out.
Do you have a lot of mass shootings in general? I haven't witness one, so it never happens.
Than why you assume one will point gun at you. He will point on someone else, and he thinks that he is only armed person. Yes, criminals are dumb! Third person with firearm could control the situation before there will be any tragedy.
Here, situation that is not very popular. Mass shooting stopped by armed citizen:
http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-driver-with-concealed-handgun-preven...
BTW, states with open carry allowed, have lower crime rates than other states.
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2Fgaet...
So if someone is pointing gun at someone else, maybe even your family member, and you stand on the side. Would you rather pray that he won't pull the trigger or stop him before he can make any decision? Obviously if he aims at you the dynamic is different and you need to decide how to de-escalate the situation without him fearing for his life and pulling the trigger. The thing is that, if you carry the gun, you can make that decision. If you don't... well you can pray and blame corporations, guns, government, gods and whatever you want.
Criminals don't always own guns. They may use knife, bat, muscle strength, martial art skill etc, If you don't have any of those you can use firearm to stop the attacker. In most situation you will get "O Shit!!" response and nobody got hurt. However if that will not stop the attacker, here you are with firearm that can prevent him from continuing the assault on someone or yourself.
That is why SAS units (and all other trained professionals) call guys (and girls) like Roman a "HRI" which stands for "High Risk Individual" meaning a high risk for friendly fire, so a walking danger on two feet carrying a gun.
You were raised to be a victim. I was raised not to be one. English thought if they don't react to Hitler they won't get hurt. Later Polish had to fight for England. I guess we have that in our gens.
.
.
.
I was raised in a society and a country were non of these issues exist today. I was trained to professionally kill people and therefore I can say that you are a risk.
I am of Polish background as well (and a lot older than you) and like in most other countries only the brave went away and entered the battlegrounds. In is not in our Polish gens, only in a few of us Polish descendants.
.
Lee, you create an impossible scenario to prove your weak man's point. Liberals have a habit of doing that and later exclaiming, "see there? It's true! even though I'm an idiot, you should listen to me, btw i like kittens!"
Aim for the spinal cord? Are you dense? Yes, aim for an incredibly narrow target on a moving body...someone lied to you, and they are laughing about it. I guess SAS have a device to slow time as well as a 'do-over' button? Are they sons of Zeus as well?
All these questions of speed against your ridiculous universal scenario. It's meaningless. Why not peruse a few cctv videos about self defense and witness the wide and unpredictable variety of situations. You'll be shocked, but the good guys win...a lot. All of your theory about accuracy and training; thugs don't train at all! Even if they're nearby, they can't hit the broad side of a barn.
Sure, there's a gun against your head, then you don't react...yet. There may be an opportunity to take the upperhand. You're also missing a keypoint. Countries with intense gun regulations give the criminal assurance that they will not face resistance. How many cases do you believe their guns were empty the entire time?
If you want your hair-brained scenario to scare you out of your decision and make you feel good about it, then enjpy the path of a coward. I'm labeled one for carrying a gun, but you sum it up much better.
Specific, but you use it as a blanket statement.
I don't care what your buddy told you what his roommate's, third-cousin's, step-father told him about the SAS. It's nonsense. They're also human. I'd love to see a citation.
Don't take the chance when other people's lives are at stake? That's the whole point man!! If you mean, don't shoot the innocent little girl behind the bad guy with your elephant gun, then yes...that's a consideration, but it's also a consideration for cops; humans...just like me, who have to make that decision and are just as liable....your experience and training will dictate that; everyone is different.. We are all too aware how responsible we are for every bullet we send down range. There's no "good intention" clause in our law. Sure there are times good guys don't win...they're usually unarmed; even if they were airplanes, cars, and trains sometimes crash, are you going to stop traveling?
It's not a risky assumption, it's a fact. Have you been to a gun range in America? Have you hung around thugs in America enough to identify their dress and manner of speech? It's obviously telling. Have you seen a rap video? Ok, you're qualified. Now go to a gun range, guess who's running the counter 50% of the time....active and retired police officers; for some reason it's a natural progression for that profession. Do thugs enjoy the company of police? Are thugs well off financially? Do you know how much it costs for ammunition alone? It's not their cup of tea.
You know the other half of that reality? Happy to get away with something UNHARMED. A thief with a gun is no more likely to approach a potential victim with a gun, because criminals want an easy grab; not a gunfight. YES it is best when no bullets are fired. My gun doesn't give me a bloodthirst. Take a quick look at self-defense cases ---"Gary Kleck has found that over 75% of the time firearms are used defensively; they are not fired."---- Simple brandishing ends most altercations.
I don't know man, just every time I debate this with blokes, I am given the impression that America is perceived as a lawless wild west; everyone is issued a firearm at the age of two and will shoot each other over the slightest altercation with zero repercussions. It's far from it. There are liberal judges that would love to make an example out of you, so you need to be on your toes. I can be thrown in jail for brandishing my weapon without good reason. Sure, people die unnecessarily because there are guns in the country....it's the price to pay for liberty. We don't punish the law abiding, because of the irresponsibility of a smaller portion.
Don't forget the entire reason for our right in the first place; the last line of the people's defense from a tyrannical government. If you think that's paranoia, then you're naive. Our country was founded just 3 lifetimes ago. How far does human history span?
I don't expect you to understand or ever relate; you've never lived with firearms as a birthright. There's no place like this. You can look from your side of the pond and see barbarians; we look back and see helpless serfs 100% dependent on their government for protection. You won't ever understand, because you will never live with liberty....ever. We fought for that....what the hell else do expect from us? This ain't Europe, this is America jack. Arrogant? Hard not to be when you're the best nation on the planet.
Keep your progression over there....we'll let you fuck up, so we can learn from your mistakes.
Todd, we would all like to believe that are police officers are the most highly trained individuals who handle a weapon, that unfortunately is more a myth than reality. Don't get me wrong there are some police officers who are amazing with a weapon. In fact I can name two (one retired now) who are world class shooters. One of them is probably the best shooter in the world and has one several world titles. The other a former police officer from New England is incredible shooter has written several books on carring and is routinely called upon to testify in cases where a firearm was used.
In any case most police officers train with their weapon only once or twice a year because of budget considerations. If they train much beyond that their yearly qualifier they have to do it with their own money (Which should be a crime in an of itself.) A good example of bad or lack of training occurred a few years ago in NYC when suspect with a gun was confronted by several police officer who were forced to return fire. Two of the Police officers were injured in the confrontation. The investigation showed that they were injured by friendly fire. (Remember the fourth rule of Gun Safety be sure of what your target is AND what is behind your target!!)
If you carry a weapon you need to train with it more than twice a year and then it should not be at just an indoor range where you shoot in a lane at a static target. You need to train where you will move, shoot at various targets, make threat / non threat decisions, practice under stress and practice what to do when the gun malfunctions. (I am a firm believer in Finagles law when it comes to gun handling... Murphy was an Optimist!!!)
And above all remember that you carry a weapon to stop a threat to your life. Notice I said Stop not kill, when the threat to life goes away so does the need to use deadly force. Be smart, use common sense and train with the best instructors money can buy. Your life may depend on it.
Todd, you bring up a lot of definites about something you're completely ignorant of. Just like EVERY liberal who doesn't carry a gun.
"In a world where carrying a concealed weapon..."
No. Not a world. A country. And only a part of it.
Feel free to kill each other all you like in the United States of America, but please don't make the mistake of trying to make this look like a problem in the rest of the world. It's not.
It's a very localized problem, caused by some extremely powerful political forces in a number of states within the United States, and whoever thinks that it is normal to carry a concealed firearm when doing a photoshoot really needs a reality check.
Adam can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he was using the word "world" in the "my present reality" (which for him is America), not "world" meaning the entire globe.
When mass shooting by ISIS happened in France, I wish the concert photographers had gun, and a the guts to use them.
Ha! That is such of a classic statement. Didn't Tump say the exact same thing?
One photographer with a handgun, against 20 people with automatic riffles in a panicked crowd would have made absolutely no difference... Some americans keep saying that these shooting would not happen if people would cary guns, but the funny things is that these shootings seem to happen every week in america...
Fighting in that situation would require a lot of brave people, police are usually 5-10 mins away in major cities. Put it in perspective, look at what Texans did after Charlie Hebdo attack, and the attack that follows. Not to mention the stabbing death and the inner city violence in Paris. Being stabbed in Paris is no better than being shot in LA. I love French Artists, I have at least two idles from France in the art world BTW.
Actually, I beg to differ. One individual may have made a difference, to what degree we will never know. Would that individual have prevented all the death? Unlikely, but to argue that it would not have made a difference is not a valid argument. The outcome would have been different. to what degree that difference would have been we will never know.
In the U. S. there have been several cases where potential disasters were adverted when the gunmen were confronted by citizen with a handgun. Often times just seeing the but of a gun is enough to de-escalate the confrontation.
How about thousands people that regularly CC and are able to use the gun?
LMAO!! I love my 2nd Amendment rights, but if a mass shooting started at an event you're attending and thousands of people started drawing guns, who would you target?
Seriously hehe... Good recipe for disaster!
If it was common for people to be armed, do you think mass shooter will try to do anything? Mass shooters are trying to harm as many people as possible. If he/she knew that in radius of 10m at least two people will be armed, there will be no sense to even try. All the mass shootings happened in places were guns are prohibited. No one enters police station trying to shoot everyone because he wouldn't make 3steps before someone would gun him down. It is simple logic.
deleted..
Yeah great! A full size replay of the fight at O.K. Corral in 2016. No fact off course, but I am sure that even more people would have been killed (including all concert photographers).
http://articles.philly.com/2016-02-11/news/70513387_1_chitwood-teens-gan... a 10 second google can find you some fact. I got things to do you guys enjoy the debate.
Problem? Why is it a problem?
Law abiding citizens don't kill each other. Most gun crimes are made by criminals with illegal weapon with no permit.
Can someone show me statistics of non-gun related assaults, murders, robberies, rapes in UK and rest EU. There is so much crime everywhere but because there is no guns used it is OK.
One more thing. I want o address "the rest of the world" statement from your comment.
I grew up in Poland where it was normal to get attacked on the street just for looking at someone. We needed to form gangs to protect ourself from other street gangs. No body got shot but some people lost their health for no reason. Just recently, I read about photographer going back home from assignment that barely survived an assault. Yes, there is no "gun crime" but it is paradise for criminals, because people are defenseless.
Let's talk about Germany. I have two friends in different part of Germany. One got attacked by group of "minorities", he killed one attacker and spend few years in prison. 2nd was getting beat up regularly on the way to or from school by "minorities" groups, and he feared for his life, so he start carrying knife.
I know people in England who fear to leave home after dark, or don't walk on the street, only drive cars.
Crime is everywhere, and people are defenseless. Criminals form groups, and law abiding citizens, who go to school and work, move alone.
Here check how look photographer that got beat up: http://www.backstage24.pl/fotograf-pobity-i-okradziony-w-lodzi/
Please don't tell me that there is no crime in "the rest of the world". People die on the street for no reason. The "gun crime" statistics is just some sort of agenda. People should be able to protect themselves.
It's a sad life if you have to carry a gun every day. I live in the most dangerous city in Germany and our crime rate is still over 25 times lower than the author's home of Detroit.
What happened in Köln is a crappy situation, but what would your gun solve? Would have pulled out your gun in a heavily crowded train station on New Years Ever because you are trained better than Jason Bourne?
Just because Germany's handgun murder rate is 80% lower than the US, it doesn't mean Germans hate guns. About 1 in 3 Germans own a firearm.
What is the difference between "hand gun murder" and murder. It is just ridicules how people are brain washed. If someone was murdered with knife is it ok? Is it better than being killed with a gun? How about if those women were armed and were able to defend themselves? You don't have to be Jason Bourn to point gun at short range and pull the trigger.