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
397 Comments
Previous comments

sorry buddy but you can't beat hard cold facts. Guns might not be the source but if you have no guns....then violent people can't use them. Its not hard logic...its quite simple.

1. Hard cold fact is that violent people have all other weapons they can use.
2. How will you propose to take guns from criminals?
3. You guys have good intentions but no logic behind it.

when have you seen a kid come to school and start stabbing people with knives and getting mass killings.

When was the last time you saw a siege with a guy holding people hostage with a baseball bat. Its moronic to only blame the people and not the people arming these offenders.

Criminals will have guns and sure we have the potential for guns violence in Australia but we have import control on guns, licensing and sale restrictions. America hides behind its constitution that was written to protect citizens of the 18th and 19th century.

You can not deny the logic buddy. Australia has had no mass shootings since Port Authur in April '96. Thats 20 years! America had on 372 mass shootings last year!

If you can not see that guns are as much to blame as the violent offenders you are deluded. Remove the controlling factors the guns and you reduce gun related crime.

Richard it's a flawed argument to claim more guns equates to more shootings. A complete fabrication. Most altercations with guns are neutralized without firing a shot. By law you cannot draw your weapon unless you intend to shoot, but there's nothing saying you have to pull the trigger.

20 years since a mass shooting in Australia since is not a fabrication

What's more tragic than mass shootings is the weakness in making decisions based on sensationalism; as they are a negligible contributor of deaths.

It is naive to decide a tyrannical threat does not exist simply because you haven't seen it in your lifetime. You gauge by 'century' for shock factor, but the reality is we've only been around for 3 lifetimes.

You've foolishly given up your ability to defend yourself and must rely solely on your goverment; then you call it "smart"; the image just hit me of a poor sap stuck on a rooftop after being told, "There's a swimming pool on the roof."---Realizing he'd been duped.

Liberty comes at a cost (≈0.002% as of now) a concept you cannot grasp, because you are a nation from serfdom; never to know what liberty is. We fought our way out of serfdom; founded by men with such ideals as: "Give be liberty, or give me death!" ...and... "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Hmm...'temporary safety'....sounds like France.

Which age do you live in middle ages of the 21st century. Your drawing on history to support an out dated 'liberty'.

sorry the tragedy here is thinking that more guns is the answer.

Argue with this-----https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4

A comedian, you cite a comedian and expect me to take you seriously.

Ask a Holocaust survivor how real tyranny is; you're incedibly naive.

Not so much outdated as it is out of your reach; you're a descendent of serfs and exiled prisoners; who unsurprisingly cites a comedian in an argument, and tragically suffers from dyslexia; no where do I mention 'more guns'.

haha deflection. Can't argue with his points...gun law argument won "drop mic'

If you want to have an adult discussion about facts, then I'm all for it. However if you're going to cower from everything I say, throw YouTube links, and cry "nanny nanny nah nah, I win!"; then this is a complete waste of my time. There's deflection, and there's refusing to engage in character attacks and invalid behavior.

'Character Attacks': the point in the argument revealing when the left has ran out of talking points and can only win by a futile attempt of making you look bad.

'Deflection': often combined with character attacks; side-stepping and trying to let someone else speak for them; also see 'tagging out'.

Here's a fact for you. You're homicide rate 'plummeted' between 1994 and 2012 from 1.6 to 1.1

Staggering!

45% that is huge!

Try 31% dude. We all know how far numbers will go in this debate. *facepalm

Your not actually smart enough to come up with one argument that actually can hold up to why you feel gun control wont work.

Brush up on your math before talking about smarts. We have a 99.998% survival rate with guns, so it's not a "feeling" why it won't work; it's a non-issue.

However if you still want to talk about gun control, then look at crime in LA and NYC; then look at their stiff gun laws. Look at the Paris attacks in the 'absence' of guns. Look at the rise of firearms purchases vs. steadily dropping homicide rate. Look at the quickly growing number of concealed carry permitees; people actually carrying guns on a daily basis EVERYWHERE, and the absence of a proportional (nor any) corresponding rise in violent or irresponsible behavior.

The real argument is 'why bother', because more guns have not equated to more crime, and the ultimate reality is you're not after gun control; you're after confiscation.

How about you argue that you like guns and you want to have guns. Its the only valid argument.

There is no need for assault weapons, concealed weapon etc.

By that perception you don't 'need' your seatbelt; basing it off propensity of use to define need. My firearm is indeed needed; less than my seatbelt, but needed nonetheless.
The need for concealment is obvious; here's one: I'm out for sushi last night, I have a gun on my hip; I'd prefer not to alarm the sheeple, so I throw my shirt over top; I can respect their irrational fears as well as the restaurant; which may not approve, yet still eager for my patronage.
'Assault rifle' is a misnomer, but, sparing the technicality, are indeed required by a free people; they're the relative equivalent to a soldier's weapon; just as muskets were. Perhaps you doubt the effectiveness of people with rifles versus the most powerful military on the planet?

What does 'want' or 'liking' prove? That's silly; of course I like my guns; I like my cars too! Coolness was not the motive to my first purchase; I made the decision to excercise my right and then sought a mechanically sound and aesthetically pleasing firearm; same logic in choosing my automobile. One would be miserable to own something they were not fond of.

We have just established you are a moron. You don't need your firearms. You like and want firearms which is a valid argument. I'm done. I feel stupider just having spoken to you and you twisted views.

Reverting to personal attacks once again. Words as well as numbers are incomprehensible to you; or you're trolling...ever lame.

The Left: tolerant of other's ideas long as they align with their own.

Non-lethal weapons will stop an attacker too. Tasers and pepper spray.

Let's safe attackers!!! Let's risk our lives so the attacker won't get hurt too much. Please! Criminals need to know that they risk their lives for money, not just freedom.

I don't think you know what you're talking about lol or have any friends. Have a goodnight lol.

Yes, an attacker. Multiple attackers, armed attackers, drug-hyped attackers....not so much.

yes, and allow them to continue roaming the streets to prey on the less-prepared.

gunshot wound + hospital = police arrest

guns are the underdog of humanitarianism

After reading most comment i can sadly see that the majority of the fstoppers community is pro guns and it is sad... some talk about facts and many argue about non Americans not knowing what the situation is like.
Well one fact is that there are more gunshootibgs in the US than anywhere else. Even warzones..
I read someone comparing a car to a weapon saying that a car could be used to kill many and no one is scared of cars.
Well sir! A Dslr could kill people. A flash could kill people.. well picking up a litle child and hitting someone really hard with it coould kill them. The difference is that a guns main purpose is to kill and none of the other objects mentioned is..
My personal opinion is that civilians should not carry a gun. The crazy person with a gun probably got the same education as you did in order to get his gun OR got their gun from a sane person! That means that YOU could loose your gun and a crazy person could start shooting others. That is the main reason there are so many shootings in the US.
Francly i just realized how bizzare this topic is. Why should we choose a side as photographers? It is as weird as asking : "should a baker curry a gun?"
"Should a landscape arkitekt curry a gun?"
This toppic has no place in a photographers comunity!

I'm not sure where you get your facts, but... https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-...

Much of your statement is incoherent and rage driven; many "probably's" and unproven assumptions; it's confusing. You seem more provoked by guns themselves rather than the fact that they're being discussed on a photography website.

This is obviously a topic that is only valid primarily in America, so by your perspective it's bizarre for the forum. Of course some Americans will agree with that, but, as you see, some enjoy sharing their practices between eachother. If anything, since gun owners are constantly bashed from every angle, it's a relief to talk about something we enjoy; marginally appropriate for the venue or not; then, to our dissapointment, we are bombarded by the entire EU; the fun police.

There is no side you are forced to choose.

Fascinating article. It makes me grateful I live in a place where I don't need to decide every day whether to carry and potentially use a device designed for the sole purpose of killing fellow humans.

I still honestly still think this article is a bit of click bait. The comments are juicy and all, but this seems more suited for a personal safety or legal forum, not a photography forum. I come to Fstoppers for inspiration on making better images, not influencing my gun purchasing decisions.

It's just not that bad out there. The city I live in has a high population that are living on the edge or are housesless. I work around them all the time and have never been threatened. But I'm respectful of people and there space so that could be why I do not have any issues. But if someone did try to rob me of my gear id break their jaw and I do not need a gun to do that. I think I'm just cut from a diffrent cloth then you CC types.

I wish kryptonite was my only weakness too.

It's clear from reading the comments here that many American gun owners feel misunderstood by others. For them, others simply don't understand that many American gun owners can't imagine their life without a powerful weapon. It's part of their culture, intrinsic to who they are as men and women. Take that away from them and it feels like you're taking away their self-worth. They don't know another way of life. They project their identity onto their guns and what they represent. For them having a gun is not just the ability to maim, mutilate and kill others when necessary. It's a way to feel alive, to feel strong and free, to be a rugged, upstanding, patriotic individual.

For the most devout, their gun is sacred. They love their gun more than any other object in their possession, and value their guns more highly than their most treasured relationships. But more than just love, they worship guns with absolute fealty. Such is their adoration for guns that they would without hesitation sacrifice their own life and those of their family to ensure that society continues to allow people just like them to use guns.

Gun activists like Pete Miller seek unify society by devouring, not by harmonizing. With his religious fervour for guns he must conquer and trample what is not himself (the "bad guys") either out of existence or into subservience. He desires to have his own image stand out, stamped upon all things, dominating the lives of others.

Gun activists like Pete Miller don't stand meekly in thrall of death. They choose a life where they embrace death. They carry death with them wherever they go, always on edge to kill and be killed. They have become death, and demand your fealty to their ideal.

Damon, as much as I admire your exquisite writing and verbiage, I duly take notice to your undertones of ignorance and false generalizations. Presenting a condescension in a pleasant wrapper, combined with your handsome yet smug profile image, undoubtedly makes you a tool.

Just joined and the first article I see, BAM! Interesting. This has been on my mind for some time now. I'm in New York and if you are going to shoot (photograph) in obscure places it's good to have it for piece of mind. I'm actually in the process of obtaining a small concealable 9mm. My licensed 9mm is large and heavy.

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not trying to boast and everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that but the truth is there are a lot of bad people out there. If an opportunity presents itself you may become a victim or worse. I speak from experience when I say be careful my friends.

I long for the day Americans no longer need to preface their values with an apology.

You amaricans are crazy sometimes. Nowhere else in the developed world do people talk about guns, because they are irrelevant and a thing of the past.

They're of the past when you live in a society where they've removed your fundamental right to defend yourself. Trust your government, because you have no choice.

Oops

I live in countries where carrying firearms are completely illegal. So back home, I have a Knife concealed in my bag.
Here in Dubai, where rules are more strict, my monopod is the only weapon I can use.

Way to be resourceful. As a gun owner I follow the same 'layers of defense' strategy as situations/laws permit. Sometimes...sometimes you have a monopod, lol. Anything in hand may be more effective than whatever is in your pocket.

Rather than feeding the argument I'm going to propose a radical solution to the need to bear arms.
Let me pre-face it with saying I come from Northern Ireland where, unlike the rest of the U.K. The police bear firearms in their daily duties. We grew up with guns in society. Interestingly guns caused next to none of the injuries or deaths which occurred during the troubles. Because we saw the police carrying them we presumed they were objects for law enforcement and not something to be desired.
So, I read through most of your comments and the common theme is that guns are carried because of perceived (probably often justified) threat to life, well being or property.
I feel it is unfortunate that the answer to these problems is to meet force with force. In the short term you may stop the threat which is being visited upon you but in the long term it simply exacerbates the underlying problems.
Social deprivation and poor education are the root causes of the majority of crimes.
Imagine if the lobbying money from guns and weapons manufacturers was to be directed to education, providing social security and better standards of living for the entirety of the USA. I am mentioning USA specifically here as the article is about this.
Imagine if the money spent on firearms by owners could be diverted to local causes, groups for children, community development, etc.
By doing that the root causes of why you perceive a threat would be eradicated. Yes, there will always be someone who sets out to cause harm but the instances would be reduced to such a level that your own law enforcement would not be over stretched and would be able to respond effectively to them.
Society would be stronger and more able to catch potential criminals before they become them.
Gun ownership is not the answer to this perceived threat.
In Northern Ireland, as mentioned, the police carried guns. The small number of factions armed themselves. What eventually drew peace, talking, investment in education and teaching all sides to have empathy.
Consider as well, why do firearms look appealing (as indicated by the "nice gun" comments here). The film industry makes it seem like the reality of shooting someone should be simple. Why, because the weapons manufacturers plough funding into the companies making them.
It is a self perpetuating machine. Make it seem like there is nothing wrong with owning something that, if statistics are true, kill more gun owners than defend them. Make it seem that there is a genuine threat, which a little awareness and common sense can be avoided. The result, more people buy their weapons.
The article should not be is it ok the carry a gun as a photographer, it should be, how can we fix the problems in society so we do not need to.

A lot of what I'm reading here as the perceived threat seems to be criminals, dangerous wild animals etc which are a threat over the world.

A genuine question for photographers who do carry a firearm. Do you ever shoot outside the US? Would you be concerned for your safety if you took a job which meant travelling to Europe for a shoot?

Dave, to answer your question, I personally am discomforted by the vulnerability without my weapon, but it doesn't stop me from traveling; however I exercise added caution and am more particular when choosing destinations. There are other tactics like not opening my mouth and announcing I'm American. Thanks to Obama we now have a measureable price on our heads.

I suppose you could say that I do the same things at home, but without 'second thought'.

I am terribly sorry to correct you ;-) but the days Americans have a price on their head in specific regions started with the Reagan and after that the first Bush administration. American hate campaigns starte in the Arabic world in 1988, when the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 passengers. Bush said that he would "never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are." and that launched a whole series of conflicts. Off course having sustained Israel in every possible way does not help at all in that region, especially it has failed to persuade it to give the Palestinians a fair deal.

Personally as a photographer I felt unsafe in some middle and southern American countries, Jamaica, south Africa, Nigeria, US (St. Louis, Detroit, Baltimore and Atlanta) and strange enough: Bahamas.

Mario, when I said 'price' I was refering to an actual monetary amount.....as defined by the word 'price', you must not have seen this http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/obamas-ugly-prisoner-exchange-with-iran/

I suppose you pointed out an undefined price, well congratulations Mario. We are all so very proud of you. Did you color inside the lines as well?

I hope the childish schoolyard tone that I am reading from you is do to a language barrier. A lot of "nanny nanny boo boo, i got you first, he he he"

That's a fair response Jordan. I can't say I can relate to feeling the need to carry a gun in any situation but I do of course understand taking precautions when in risky situations. I suppose its just the scale of the precaution which is the main thing anyone here disagrees on. It's also good to hear its not an issue preventing you from travelling to other parts of the word where carrying a gun isn't an option. Its a fair point also about Americans being an increased target while abroad. I think that was likely the case far before Obama though, but that's another conversation that doesn't need to be discussed on a photography website.

agreed

This was a silly polarising article to carry in Fstoppers and it has nothing whatsoever to do with our artform.

I carry mine all the time, but no one should until they totally understand the responsibility that comes with it. Once you pull it out and fire your in a whole different world. My girls both have their CC and I have trained them extensively on how to handle a weapon. But I still have not cut them loose with caring on their own yet. I have thirty years on the force and carrying is not for everyone.

More comments