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.
'Assume' is spelled by making an ASS out of U and ME....mostly U. Keep hearing the 'sad' argument; "what a sad place America is with guns." You throw "need" around as if our life expectancy is 25 years, because we carry guns and likely "shoot our way to the bus station every morning." SO RIDICULOUS and ironic, because the sad part is being rendered helpless by your government. You've been indoctrinated to believe in a false sense of security. Whether it's a matter of crime or not, the ultimate downfall is your inability to revolt....you're at the mercy of government. That is truly sad....and you believe you're safe; even sadder.
Choosing to carry is a personal decision. It's not open for discussion.
why not?
@Pete
Someone on F Stoppers recently wrote, about a foreign country:
"an authoritarian state that persecutes, imprisons and murders its own people for simply expressing an opinion. I don't know how anyone would feel safe in such a place or why they would even travel to such a country."
Do you really think that people should not chime in and make such comments about foreign nations? Should foreigners really not have a say about how another country conducts its internal affairs, as this person did?
Do you believe it would be reasonably open for discussion if someone made such statements about America? Or should people keep such opinions about a country they had never been to, for example if it was the USA or some other country, to themselves?
@Pete
There you go again, making comments about the internal affairs of another country. Either you think it's ok for people to make such comments, or you don't. You can't have it both ways, unless you want to be a hypocrite.
So which is it? Is it ok to chime in about a foreign country's domestic issues, or not ok?
@Pete let me make this as simple and logical as I can.
You said "Where I believe it is not open for discussion is the many foreigners (typically anti-American)that tend to chime in on this purely American domestic issue, as if somehow they were American and should have a say on how America conducts its domestic affairs."
In summary, you objected to foreigners chiming in on another country's domestic issues, as if they had a say in such domestic affairs.
In another place, you described a foreign country, China, as "an authoritarian state that persecutes, imprisons and murders its own people for simply expressing an opinion". You also called China "not a free and democratic state". They would certainly be domestic problems for Chinese people and not your problem, wouldn't they.
In writing these things, you, a foreigner to China, chimed in on another country's domestic issues, as if you had a say in China's domestic affairs.
So again I ask, do you think it ok to chime in on another country's domestic affairs, as you did for China? Or do you object to people chiming in on another country's domestic affairs, as you have for America?
Which is it?
Reverse the whole Peter "arguments" ;-) :
If we do not agree on something, something Peter is in favor of, we are either anti-American or wannebe Americans. That is because deep down we all want to be Americans and adopt American culture (his believe). If not, we are anti-American. A discussion with an opposite opinion on something is ok, but… if you have an opposite opinion, then you must definitely be anti-American and in disrespect for America's sovereignty and democracy.
I wonder how Peter thinks of our Dutch culture on matters like: soft drugs, abortion, free healthcare, homosexuality, same gender marriages, strict gun control, guaranteed income for the weak and so on.
He must be very positive on all of that, because if not, he disrespects our Dutch sovereignty and democracy. Which is off course ultimately a "no-go" because any different opinion on such matters from Peter means disregard for the sovereignty and democracy or other sovereign and democratic nations.
Yep, Pete's approach is very arrogant, isn't it. So blinded by his own biases. I wonder if he actually has any concept of a "non American country" such as the Netherlands, China or Australia for that matter. Not to worry, he wouldn't be the first with that problem on the internet and won't be the last.
It is a "single storyline defense" strategy based on nothing, no facts, no analyses, no knowledge and so one. It is pure emotion and personal beliefs.
Yes, it slavish worship of one interpretation of the almighty second amendment, which is more important to them than fellow human beings themselves. Simple, blind idol worship, where the "god" is a gun, and human sacrifice to one's god is not just acceptable but necessary. So sad, it is the only culture left in the world where child sacrifice to an idol occurs.
Yes, I understand Peter now.
The rest of the world and all of us here not agreeing with him and which are non-Americans are all fascistic anti-American foreigners or liberal anti-American Americans.
Americans have to be the most fearful people in the world... Why are middle class suburbanites so afraid of the people around them that they feel the need to constantly carry a weapon designed to kill? Are people seriously too scared to go about their day photographing a wedding without the option of using deadly force at any given moment? It's not like the marriage is in Afghanistan... People are emotional and reactionary enough without a good portion of the population itching to justify their expensive weapons purchase.
I'm saying people in general are emotional and reactionary, and maybe it isn't logical for the general populace to be so heavily armed - it's not like the Redcoats might strike again at any moment... And being apprehensive about being somewhere (anywhere in the nation, as you pointed out) where anybody can legally purchase a weapon with minimal due diligence is neither illogical nor irrational. Logically you would be safer being somewhere where guns are not as commonplace and accessible to everyone. Unless you think a shootout between multiple people with hidden weapons is somehow safer than no shootout at all.
I still pay ER fees after I was hit with something in the head. I didn't fear then and I don't fear now, but now I don't underestimate potential threads.
May I define you as "fearful" if you have a fire extinguisher at home? Firearm ownership is no different to most people as a device like that.
OH MY GOD!! It doesn't stop. Dave. You have this black & white view of criminal acts. So much focus on guns guns guns. Perhaps it's your conditioning to where you're from with equal force laws? What about knives, bricks, fists, and rapists? Depending on the situation, a firearm may legally be used to defend from ALL of these violent attacks. Designed to kill? No. They are designed to stop, and as the law is written you have no right to shoot after the threat is neutralized (i.e. the guy that was about to stab you is now laying on the ground crying for help...you then call for help; further violent action constitutes murder). What is so bad about that? Fearful? Do you mean vigilant? What's crazy is your obsession with entitlement of human rights to a person invading yours.
It's envy; lashing out at what you'll never have...ever. It's also ignorance; commenting on something you know nothing about; that would be like me telling an F1 driver what they're doing wrong.
What a bad idea (that post). Firstly, the question "Should photographers carry..." is pointless. The word "photographer" can, and should, be replaced by "person" or "plumber" or "teacher". You choose. This post is as pointless as "should photographers see a dentist".
Secondly, and before I say something very bad, let me state this: I have many American friends. Each and everyone of them, good people I love. And the friends of my friends are people I would love also, if I got to know them. THAT BEING SAID, USA, as a nation, is sick. Very sick. Go see a doctor.
From a friend.
Alain. Pete is right. Your are envious and ignorant. The natural reaction is to convince yourself there must be something wrong with a people whose beliefs are contrary to your own.
I did like your first part of your post.....people have taken this out of proportion and assume the article is about photographers carrying to protect their gear. The same reason someone carries a gun in their free time, is the same reason they'd carry one with a camera. However your post morphs to bigotry. Now you're a cunt. A repulsive, herpes infested, puss emitting cunt.
Only in America would even asking the question seem sane.
Everyone else is from generations of serfs....hard to understand a formality of liberty when you've never lived with it and never will.
Do whatever you want. Definitely opened Pandora's box with this one.
Of course. It's called a shoot isn't it?
America home of the free land of the brave!
Perhaps this is a new argument for mirrorless / m4/3rds... with the weight savings you can afford to carry several additional handguns.
Wow.. Hot topic for sure..
So it's unfortunate but I sometimes carry and wish I didn't. I work in New Orleans which has one of the highest violet crime and murder rates in the country. I've had to grab a couple on a shoot and push them to run before because of a few individuals trying to help themselves to my gear. I know some will say it's not worth it, just give them your stuff if you're insured. Again what's unfortunate in my area is even when the request has been met, they will still stab, beat, and kill you anyway. Last week in an area I shoot in regularly a woman was held up for her wedding ring and she complied, but she couldn't get it off fast enough so they cut off her entire finger. For those who shoot in cities on this list they may also have to carry
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/top-lists/highest-murder-rate-cities/
But I do understand those who don't live in areas like this, might not have a full comprehension of the situation. No photo shoot is worth not coming home from. Crooks know that we've got thousands of dollars worth of equipment in our bags and we usually have our eyes in the camera not paying full attention to our surroundings. I've got two little girls needing me to tuck them in at night
Well if this isn't a Pandora's Box post :) Congratulations in advance on breaking a record for comments. :)
My first point:
1. Comments and viewpoints will vary widely by country, state, region, and rural vs. urban areas.
2. Comments and viewpoints will also vary widely based upon exposure and personal experience of crime.
3. Comments and viewpoints will vary widely based upon the type of photography someone does.
Heck, according to the scholarly research it will even vary to the extent that you watch crime shows :)
With that being said, let's realize that this is a complex topic full of many social, political, and personal factors.
I've been stalked by a mountain lion on two occasions. Once when I was a little kid out hiking by myself and another time as a photographer, out by myself. I've also ended up nearly being mauled by a bear. Not everyone carries to ward off humans :)
My last point:
When i went to get my license and certifications, my instructor told me something very important. That bullet is still yours even when it leaves your firearm. IMO, no amount of gear is worth endangering your life or lives around you. I'd much rather immediately make a phone call to my insurance company right after I get mugged than to my lawyer at the start of a lengthy prosecution and eventual civil trial.
You people are out of your minds for even having this conversation. What the hell is going on in the small, scared, conventional minds at FS? This has to be the dumbest, most irresponsible article I've ever seen here. All you commenters who carry or condone this are delusional.
Some of you even claim to be ex military and yet you're so scared to walk around without a gun and claim no ability to help when you witness violence while unarmed. What a bunch of baby's. I've never been in the military, have no fight training, and I've not only defended myself in violent situations but I've helped others in need on multiple occasions. Grow a pair and learn to live without a gun like the rest of us.
Where you against a gun? A knife? Carrying thousands of dollars in equipment? It's one thing to be brave and another thing to be smart.
"Smart" is letting the gear walk if that's what will keep you safe. It's just stuff. I actually don't want to kill somebody just for robbing me. I may beat the crap out of them (and have) but kill them? Hell no.
You're under the assumption that all theft results in only theft....
Not assuming anything and a comment about "something" is not a comment about "everything." Yes someone can kill you. They can do that if you have a gun as well. The weird thing is, I'm actually smart, so I know that statistically an armed theft does not equal a murder. I've had guns pointed at me many times and every one of them I had no weapon. I've never been shot and I've never been killed so clearly there are ways to deal with these things that don't require pulling a gun and guaranteeing a fire fight.
Don't worry, this man knows which corner he can hide during an conflict, and he has no plan to help anyone. Just let him be.
This is really sad. You're the one who keeps touting the military training and yet I know more than you do about what we're talking about. I'm also clearly more brave than you. If you're out on a shoot and somebody has a gun on you, having a gun won't help you. You're done. You can't put down or even drop your gear and unholster your weapon before they shoot you. You don't know what you are talking about and yes I do know my limitations as I have clearly detailed yours to you. If you don't believe me just look at all the independent reports from both active duty and retired service personnel who overwhelmingly do not want everybody running around with guns in the street.
Drew! Thank you for throwing the masculinity card. You make my job easier. This idea that one is obligated to prove their manhood. Imagine the headline: "Incredibly manly man of pinnacle manliness is killed by criminal anyway; at least he was brave." Who did you impress? Certainly not your family. Your family would prefer you were alive.
What about the countless women in America who carry? Do they have to fight like 'real' men?
"Live without a gun like the rest of us"? Misery truly does love company. It's not fair, is it? I know. It would suck not to have the option of carrying a gun...almost feels like we're cheating. What's that? An UNFAIR advantage against someone intending to do you harm? Who in their right mind wouldn't want that? I understand the whole peace offering thing; MAYBE they'll take it and leave. I'm not obligated to take that chance....you really don't have a choice. I'd be upset too.
Typical liberal response is be a victim first. If you want to carry do. If you don't then don't. But don't tell me what I should do. I may or may not. More people die everyday form texting drivers than gun shots. But that's ok because it isn't a liberal talking point. Oh, I also like HDR and over saturation. I suppose that should be banned too. Had to keep something photo related in my response....
Biggest bullshit I ever read in connection to photography. And I read a lot of BS in terms of photography. Something is really mental with this nation.
Can anyone imagine Henri Cartier-Bresson, Annie Leibowitz or Helmut Newton wearing a gun?
That is so much wrong.
I wonder what smart men like the Founding Fathers would say anno 2016.....
Martin. Like many others, it is natural to lash out towards what you will never have; however that makes you a bigot. Even your profile is angry. Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
I can imagine all of those people wearing a gun. I do not believe that would change the quality of their character. You see 'gun' and associate it with 'EVIL DEATH MACHINE' My gun is just another daily item that I have with me; I wake up and get dressed and grab my glasses, wallet, keys, knife, gun.
What is mental is the unwarranted anger and hateful comments towards our nation, simply because we have different values; again....bigotry.
Correct, it is natural to lash out towards what you will never have: a society with much less crime, no guns, no need for guns and much more based (not enough) on equality.
So we understand now why you keep on lashing out on "the good thing about guns and self defense", that is because you cannot imagine a society like that. It must be confusing, a society were you wake up and go out to work and you feel safe. A morning you do not need "packing heat" because there is no need. So start working on that, gives you a much better quality of life.
Mario, you are an authentic example of liberal low ball attacks. That's all that's left when you are completely wrong; just attack character when you run out of facts. What's true is I am defending my country's values from bigots that took it upon themselves to step out of their boundaries and force their beliefs upon others OUTSIDE OF THEIR COUNTRY......I've never been on a European gun rights forum in my life or any forum. You can do what you like in Europe.
Many outsiders here claiming they don't have any business commenting, but continue to comment. I guess it's ok to be a hypocrite when you first offer a disclaimer?
Talk about history, but you're blind to it at the same time; referencing need.
It is essential to get the right training, mindset and paperwork while carrying. For those who are willing to enjoy the right and bear the responsibility, I wish the best of you.
Well, looks like there are those who wants to defend from incoming bullet with "reasoning". For the rest of us, get training , get gears, and push for CCW legalization. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU9xnDZJUkA&index=5&list=PLzZ_l1gOm1NgPF...
Ah yes, I'm the coward because I don't need a gun to feel safe in public. I see your logic, "real men need guns." You do realize that statistically speaking, most people involved in mass shootings don't get killed, don't you? Or are you as stupid as you appear to be?
Relax dude, it's ok to have different views. No need to push your own on others. You need to control yourself on the internet and not get so butt hurt and worked up so easily.
Firearm is like a fire extinguisher, it is a preventing measure for small probable event. Training and helping other individuals is my lifestyle I choose. I helped people with my camera and other means. BTW, a bunch of my friends got robbed when working on a production in Oakland CA, by two person armed with guns and knives. I wish that never happens to anyone but I rather be ready.
Seatbelts too
500 victims in Paris attack felt safe in public too. It doesn't change fact that if citizens were armed, significantly less people would get hurt.
I removed the comments that were nothing but name-calling and telling the other they would die if caught in a shooting incident. If these sorts of comments happen again, you'll be banned.