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.
This is a genuine question because I would love to understand this: Alot of us in the UK and Europe just dont 'get this'.... I've worked 10+ years as a photographer walking around London with thousands of £s worth of gear on my back (and large parts of the World) and never ever felt the need to carry a gun on the job... it is baffling to me and us. I would love to understand why so many in States feel the need to? Do you really fear others that much? Not mocking, I would really love to understand this.
James,
Thank you for prefacing your inquiry with a 'non-mocking' disclaimer; very appropriate in the warm and cozy climate of this thread. Allow me to preface my response; I am solely addressing your original question, and have not read any following commentary.
"[Why do so many Americans] feel the need to [carry]? Do you really fear others that much?"
Short answer: Because we can, and no.
My father loves to ask people why dogs lick their own bollocks; his answer: because they can. —It is hard to convince you of the satisfaction of licking your own bollocks if you do not possess the ability to lick your own bollocks.— Guns were, at a time, more prominent in the UK; however, as I believe, your nation has never treated gun ownership as a right, and, furthermore, never allowing civilians to legally defend themselves with firearms. Correct me if I am wrong, but a UK gun owner would essentially be justified using a firearm only when the assailant also has a firearm; equal force laws. Considering the absent threat of gun violence in the UK, a gun for you has the personal defense value of a paperweight; you're better off punching the robber, or face jail time.
America is quite different with the right to gun ownership awarded to all citizens at birth by God. Our founding documents merely echo the basic human rights that all are born with —"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — I know the idea of a deity is unpopular in your culture, but 'Creator' can be a broad term. Beyond the right of possession, is the uniquely American right to defend your life with a firearm; for that matter you can use a car, plane, tank, sword, hammer, bunny rabbit, balloon animal; as long as you remain to be in reasonable fear of your life; simply being in the confines of a tank would remove most reasonable fears. That said, a firearm is more valuable than a paperweight in America; not just for hunting, marksmanship, recreation, nor just a force-equalizer, but it can be a force-multiplyer; ultimately a powerful and versatile tool.
Squaring in on your first question, the need is best compared to the need of a seatbelt; homicides, removed from gang crime, is 0.002% of the population, so the likelihood of legitimately needing one is almost nought. Car fatalities are much more common, but you and I may survive our entire lives without experiencing a single incident; however, you and I certainly dawn our seatbelt each time we go for a drive; acting otherwise would be considered unsafe. Firearms for many Americans, including myself, are just that; a safety precaution we choose to have, but may never require.
Your second question of our percieved fear of everyone. No, we do not fear others 'that' much. As my statistic and metaphor illustrate [*edit* metaphor was misplaced; see: 'cellphone' below.], there is neither the presence of a substantial threat to fear, nor is there an irrational fear within the individual. However a threat still exists nonetheless. What's ironic is the perception of a quivering fearful gun-toter, when the threat is minūte and his gun stands as precaution for said threat; ironic in there being no space remaining for fear by the end of the equation. I also point to the shock factor a firearm has to those who are not familiar with them. You wouldn't know it unless you could walk in my shoes; a firearm is just one of the things I put on when I leave my house; keys, wallet, knife, gun. There's no stop to awe, "aaahh man, it's a bloody gun, holy s*it, this is a big f***ing deal," every morning; no, I strap it to my belt or toss it in a bag, and I'm out the door and won't think of it again until I undress for the evening...even still, it follows me around in my PJ's. I'd lend it the same necessity in my day as your cellphone; you realize you forgot it at home as you head to work; you may feel like turning back to retrieve it, or you may just press on and forget about it.
You may be thinking: "Ok, so there's no real chance you will need it and you can live without it; why bother?" Duly, with a minūte need, there is no justification in disarming the entire country; also trivial why this topic is the slightest bit mentioned, this leaves only leftist political reasons; the embodiment of true irrational fear and tyrannical agenda. Most anti-gunners are totally clueless about guns; they know they're bad...and scary looking; I'll leave it there. The tyrannical threat may be as mythical as a unicorn to you and many, but in retrospect is a mere 3 lifetimes from today for America; and far less for those living survivors of the Holocaust; the threat is real and to dismiss it for simply not witnessing it in your lifetime is naiveness defined. We have the most powerful military in the world (I say that as un-arrogantly as possible), and the ability to project power and keep the threat at bay over 'there'; however, the more likely threat is domestic; the government can take any turn it would like (presently heading towards socialism), but the people retain the ability to reclaim power by force. I don't advocate that, but I will prepare for it. (If you would like to know how some rednecks with AR's stand a chance against the most powerful military on the world, then please inquire and I will gladly indulge.)
There are gun owners like me, but others with a more intense level of vigilance, yet some with stockpiles of weaponry and not a holster to carry a single one. I believe all share something in common; from the pioneering spirit of our nation's founders, there is an attitude of self-reliance. Enjoying this time of peace with unfathomable conveniences and general safety, but not succumbing to complacency; standing firm and praying not for a time when hell breaks loose and there's no one to count on, but yourself; could be an invasion, civil war, or trip to the petrol station gone wrong; it is a mindset of preparedness that may never be needed, but passed down and protecting a nation for generations to come.
The only argument remaining is usually one from a irrational humanitarian perspective of 'a life is a life', and, no matter if it's justified, killing is bad. The solution is incredibly simple: don't violate the rights of another. That's the distinction of American conservative thought; values not dictated by emotions; one violating the rights of another has effectively discarded his own, and will be met with cold vengeance. I do not speak of stealing bread to feed a family; I speak of heinous acts of violent and deranged men. A life of crime should be one without reward; try it in America and face deadly consequences. I give the metaphor of being the captain on a sinking ship; save the boat and most of the crew, or open a hatch to save a few; dooming all. No one wants to make that decision and 'send' someone to meet their maker, but it's necessary to the survival of the team.
I'll quickly add the last common misconception I encounter is a false perception of our laws. I will provide a synopsis of gun laws as brief as I can without going too deep into each State's diffent ins and outs. The basic rule: You may use deadly force to defend yourself IF for a fact life or limb is being threatened, out of no fault or instigation of your own; and you are not reasonably able to flee; your legal right ceses once the threat is 'stopped'.
Some explanations:
'Life & Limb': you cannot shoot someone for stealing your camera, but demanding your camera with an overwhelming threat presented justifies deadly force; 'overwhelming' can be any weapon, someone bigger than you, someone more capable than you, or multiple people. A threatened position resulting from an escalated verbal argument, that you initiated or could have avoided, will not justify deadly force. 'Castle Doctrine', existing some States, for the most part, if someone enters your home unwelcomed it is pretty much open season on evil-doers; without the doctrine a victim must attempt to seek refuge within his home. 'Stand Your Ground' merely dismisses the obligation to flee. 'Shoot to Stop', you are legally limited to shooting to 'stop' a threat; there is no shoot to kill; if one shot stops the man in his tracks and he drops his weapon, then the threat is eliminated; successive shots would constitute murder; however firing 17 shots in rapid succession out of panic or distress may be justified. I list 17 only because it's my largest handgun magazine (actually 30, but I wouldn't in likelihood be carrying that little gal), though a threat could still exist beyond that requiring reloading and firing 17 additional...justifiedly.
Thank you for approaching in a genuine sense of curiousity as few do. In a similar sense I long to understand the general perception of American culture from the other side of the pond, as I encounter many outspoken individuals. I believe most of it is out of misconception as well as cultural differences; some anger, and envy is in the mix at times. I invite you to come to the States and experience it for yourself. Some flee America out of disagreement, while others are clamoring to assimilate into our culture.
Hey Jordan... a massive thank you for taking time to write that, and also understanding why I would like to know. I have been in the States many many times, worked there for several months, have friends and relatives there too-however they are not American (but hold Green Cards) so when I ask them, quite often they are a bit perplexed by it too. And honestly, the only time I have ever felt a "whooooah" moment was when I was in SF and a bloke walked towards me with a machette!! Which I think adds to my curiosty (shall we say) to try and understand.
To us, I guess we see all the killings (esp on the Schools) over there and hear soundbites like "if XYZ had a gun, they wouldnt be dead because they could defend themselves" coming from gun owners and we all shout: "well, hold on!! If no one had a gun...." you get where i'm going with that. From our point of view it seems very aggressive stand point to have something "just in case", almost like, "I dont trust anyone until they prove safe to trust", I think thats kind of how it feels... it is very alien to us over here to consider owning a gun at all, even our standard Police dont walk around with them, and when you do see the armed Police it (to me anyway) has a pretty strong impact.
You are right, It has never been a "right" in this country to be able to own one. When we had a large number of knife crime, it was stamped on pretty hard with Police action, while it hasnt all gone its been nulled quite drastically. And I honestly dont really fear being attacked at any stage... well, lets not BS here, i've had my cameras robbed from me twice, once from a car and once from my home while I was asleep in another room, that couldve ended very differently but I've still never felt the need to arm myself-I expect you might be reading that and thinking "holy crap, Home invasion... i'd want to protect me/my family" and you could be right, but the likelyhood of that guy who broke in holding a gun is very slim here because getting a gun isnt as easy as going and buying one in a shop (i get its not that easy!! lol)
I've been very lucky and have seen/travelled around and through alot of America and only ever had really wonderful experiances, obviously I've never lived there for anything over 4 months so i've seen/experianced It different I guess. Its very easy for me (us) to be here and make sweeping judgements but I really wanted someone who has one to explain it, which you have to an extent (might need to read it a few times to take it all in), and you didnt have to but I appreciate that alot. Far nicer than getting abuse like I did from another poster for asking a simple enough question :-)
Many thanks my friend.
.
In Kellie Saunders' scenario of a lunatic coming out of the bushes, her carrying a concealed firearm may be the difference in the lunatic killing one person, or all of them. Sure, criminals always have the upper hand, but that doesn't mean she couldn't mitigate the damage done by returning fire to stop OTHERS from getting hurt. I find it interesting that in that scenario, a police vet would just throw her hands up as if to say, "Oh well. Criminals have the upper hand. Nothing I can do about it." Not saying I disapprove of her not carrying, just don't agree with her logic. I believe people who conceal carry should seek out good training. It is definitely a huge responsibility not to be taken lightly. Not only that, but try to shoot on a regular basis. I conceal carry and try to every time I walk out of the house. It may not always be suitable for me to carry on a photography job though. Situation dictates.
The statement of in this thread: "being irrational afraid of guns", just dont add up, only an american could get an idea that stupid !
I just wonder how you can explain that the crime in European countries are less than in the US, even though we are not allowed to carry firearms?
And in Norway where I live, we have less crime per Citizen than the US and not even the Police are armed in a normal matter ... only on special instructs, as these days because of the raised threat for terror ...
Why is it that female homicide victims in USA are rated nearly 100 times higher than in other western countries and that over 50% of those homicides are with firearms?
I have no irrational fear of firearms or that its allowed to carry them, but when the statistics are as high as for the USA, I do understand that the easy access to firearms are the reason for the high rate of lethal domestic violence.
Feel free to carry as you like, but dont tell those of us that see a little longer than our own garden that a free access of firearms will make the community safer ...
Thats being IRRATIONAL
Talk about an article for the US midwest. Rest of the world need not apply....
;-) Fstoppers US section only haha
What a dreadful article for a "photography" enthusiast BLOG!
So now that it's been established that:
a) there's huge swaths of America where there's a need to arm and train one-self and family in recon tactics;
...and...
b) that the right should be left to Americans to decide (I agree);
...I have the following question:
Why do many of you stay, live with your beloved families, and demand to photograph in these quasi "war zones"? What is it about these war zones that make them so desirable for weddings, fashion shoots, etc... let alone freely live with your family any where close to them?
Just from the comments above, I have a feeling that there's a large US population of very stubborn people just itching for a fight... with or without a gun... witness this article.
What is dreadful is the consistently bigoted tone towards America. It's in your undertones like the fact that you chose the word 'dreadful'. There's always a negative portrayal of what we believe in, and it's never objective even though you attempted to be. (families in war zones, stubborn, itching for a fight, not proud of these facts, shame, etc.) Not proud of being American? Itching for a fight? Can you blame us when you falsely proclaim out of the gate that we live in a warzone and how dreadful it is that we force our loved ones to live in such a society?
You claim the right is to be left to Americans to decide, but then dump your negativity all over us. We're just a bunch of stubborn war-mongers who hate our families and our own country's values. By your account if we're all trained from the age of 5 to engage in battle tactics, then whose family will survive a tyrannical invasion? Even less extreme: a common home invasion. Sounds like something to be proud of; not relying on anyone for protection. There was a 14 year old boy home alone with younger siblings when an intruder began forcing his way in. He knew how to operate his father's rifle and dropped the man before getting 5 feet past the door. If that was my son I'd say he's a hero...hard to top that.
We don't arm ourselves for societal problems and inequalities. It's simple; we defend life and limb. Doesn't matter what color they are, or social status; it is one single category: bad people intending you harm. Where are you getting your ignorant perception from?
If you really believe what you say, and agree you can't grasp an American concept, then leave it alone. If you are
The best statements ever on this issue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
Like to see someone argue this.
and part II:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
A quick story about guns in America.....
In the 1990's, I worked as a branch manager for a bank in Kentucky. I knew a customer who owned a very successful small restaurant in the community. He had been in the same place for years, cooked up some great fried chicken, and had a loyal enough following that he didn't take credit cards. Cash only business.
Every Monday, he would come to the branch with a bag full of cash -- proceeds from the weekend. He would meet with a teller, count the money, and fill out his paperwork (side note -- one of the hardest things to do in America is put more than $10,000 cash in the bank. Your gonna be filling out forms for a while, and the black helicopters definitely know where you live......) This gentleman was well known to the staff, always friendly, a salt of the earth dude.
And, apparently, carried a gun.
One Monday I was out of the office on business. He arrived at the branch to make his deposit, and scored a coveted parking spot on the street, right in front of the door. As he approached the bank, what he didn't know - yet - was that four men were inside with guns and masks robbing the place, takeover style. They had everyone hostage. They had even taken a police officer.
As he told it, when he saw what was going on, he retreated to his car and dialed 911. Using his car as cover, he then waited for the men to leave the bank.
And opened fire.
As memory serves, he fired 11 shots, which may or may not have been the capacity of his handgun (in those days, most capped out at 11 shots.) I do recall that he hit one of the robbers in the neck, while the other 3 escaped unharmed. The robbers fled, and order was restored. Eventually, the thieves were captured and arrested. The man shot in the neck survived.
The restaurant owner was honored as a hero -- he even received a plaque from the city. All ended well.
But a few things always bugged me.
The first was "where did the bullets go". Well, it turned out that several (I recall 8) of the slugs traveled INTO the bank, where the customers, employees and police officer were huddled inside.
The second was "how did he miss"? I have zero training in combat tactics, but his situation seemed pretty ideal. He was 20ft. from the contact point. He had the benefit of superior cover (it was a Subaru :)). He knew exactly where his enemy would appear, and that spot -- a doorway -- was the ultimate chokepoint. The day was clear, and visibility was excellent. He had a full clip -- enough bullets to incapacitate his enemy given his situation. And surprise was on his side.
But he missed. A lot. He was 1 for 11 at 20 ft, behind cover, perfect visibility, in a superior tactical position. Why? What went wrong?
Truthfully, everything. The only thing he did right that day was call the police. His tactical situation, in truth, sucked. His enemy had hostages -- if things went south, was he willing to watch them sacrificed to avoid giving himself up? While he had some advantages, they weren't anything that would be difficult for a trained group of armed men to overcome. They all got outside, where they could have quickly outflanked him, and killed him. The enemy was retreating -- they were trying to LEAVE the bank. What if shooting at them forces them back into the bank? A situation defused now becomes a situation amplified.
Here's the deal. I firmly believe that Americans have the right to own firearms. I don't need to defend that belief -- its mine. People don't have to like it, and I'm okay with that.
But carrying a handgun -- that's a huge responsibility. HUGE! When things go wrong with guns -- its final. No take backs. No do-overs. Its done. If you carry a handgun, you need to be trained in how to use it, but more importantly, be trained on WHEN to use it. You could easily argue that this shooting never needed to occur.
If you decide that carrying a gun is the right thing for you, I implore you to invest wisely in the appropriate time and training. Owning a gun and using a gun are altogether two different things.
cops often miss as well
i have a permit for mace. But now in CA i can buy pepper spray over the counter. I also have a flash light that is police style (on off button on the back metal front) I say protect yourself but do not cary a firearm.
This is one which will for sure polarize the reading population. I grew up sport shooting so have no 'irrational fear' of guns, but when I travel to the US I absolutely feel in harms way from the moment I get out of arrivals, and I've traveled to some pretty risky places over the years. For me it's simple, the more guns there are - whether in the hands of villains or civilians, the more chance you have of having a bad day if it all goes pear shaped. The statistics bear this out, but of course that, like everything else, is up for grabs in any gun debate..
I love when Guns are brought up in this blog. I photograph vintage exotic cars for a living. Sometimes I am forced to drive a million dollar car to a location, to everyones surprise, I really dont want to, but the owner does not want to pay for towing. The places they are stored are in a very not so great area. Plus, I have 20,000 in equipment in the back seat. I carry. If idiots steal the car fine, if idiots steal my equipment fine. If they try to hurt me in the process, not fine. My situation is that common sense says have the ability to be able to protect myself. if anti gunners think their charming smile will keep a theif/murder away. Good Luck.
What I find so comical about all this is in the last year on this blog, there were two post I found offensive. Not gonna say which ones. but It was two things I am strongly against. things hurtful in my mind to society. BUT, figured id keep my mouth shut. I knew if I commented, id get slammed. called every name in the book. But I figured everybody has a right to their belief and opinion. Even tho I did not agree, I stayed silent. But when the Gun debate comes on this blog, Its amazing how those who do not agree come baring fangs, and how America gets trashed. THEY have to fight tooth and nail to have their way, even tho they choose not to acknowledge facts. And you get bashed if you choose not to agree. Sounds like a double standard to me. I would love for all the anti-gunners to say, "You know what, I dont agree, but its their right to own one, and have their freedom even if I dont agree. I will respect their right." BTW, Does anybody have a bridge to sell me? or maybe ill win the lotto today... To all, America is a great, wonderful, extremely safe country. You should be so lucky to get to come here and see it. Conservitive, Liberal, Democrat and Republican, We may not agree on everything, but we do love freedom, and thats what makes America great. and btw, people on all sides here enjoy owning firearms.
I was location scouting a warehouse here in vegas and there was a male photog and a model there already and he had a gun on his hip. Thought that was a bit odd. So i asked a bunch of my female friends if they would feel comfortable being on a shoot with a photog packing heat? All of them said they would of left if they knew he had a gun. All the girls felt more uncomfortable with him having a gun moreso then getting mugged.
Why do so many americans think someone is out to get them anyways? If someone really wants to steal my gear. they are more than welcome to take it. My insurance covers everything.
Guns and art do not mix. Cue the douchebag who says they do....3....2.....1...
Cameron, you talk of Americans in third person, so I'm assuming you're not American and the ladies you surveyed were also not American. That is definitely going to impact the answers. Secondly, had you rephrased the question with the photographer being their favorite male celebrity, then the answers also would have been completely different. What does your point or any of this prove? Nothing! HA HAHA HA
On a serious note I believe it would be unwise for a photographer with his hands full to open carry on his hip; that leaves you vulnerable to your weapon being targeted. Alternately you can simply conceal the weapon under your shirt and you won't spook the ladies.
What's odd about carrying a gun while scouting a warehouse? For a liberal you would think that would be an appropriate occasion. That's whatever, there is no appropriate time; if you're going to carry then you carry all the time. Cannot predict when you'll be attacked.
There's no one out to get us...there are simply bad people in the world who will kill you AFTER you give them your camera.
It should be noted that study's show no correlation between carry laws and violent crimes. I bring this up because I feel the author could have at least fact checked the NRA source to give some context to their claim. For that I find this article pretty useless from a journalism perspective, and no more than a bar room argument to which the comments proven it has become.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/24/study-says-concealed-carry-permi...
I don't have an irrational fear of encountering violence, and my life is worth far more than a few thousand dollars of gear, so I see no reason to carry a lethal weapon that is more likely to get me in trouble or be used against me or be stolen and used for evil than to be of any actual use to me. I've walked alone at night all over the world and live in a NYC neighborhood known for its high crime rate, and never faced a serious threat. Awareness and smarts are the best defense. I don't trust myself to handle a firearm appropriately and competently under pressure, and I sure don't trust most other people to do likewise. Much happier not having guns around. If someone is ready to threaten my life with a weapon for my cameras, they can have them. That's what equipment insurance is for. If they don't have a weapon, they'll get a kick in the balls.
Oh, also this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/wedding-guest-fired-shot-w...
If it were the photographer and not a guest, career over.
"my life is worth far more than a few thousand dollars of gear" this rationale would make sense as to why you would WANT to carry. Everyone thinks this about simply defending gear...you can hope that your peace offering is enough to send them away, but there are plenty of times the victims are killed/mutilated AFTER giving up their valuables.
The man in the article had the gun in his pocket. If you want to base your decision on another's negligence to properly handle a weapon, then live forever in defenseless fear. I admire your ability to admit that you simply are not capable of safely handling a firearm, because they scare you; however please don't force that weak point of view upon the rest of us through voting.
You value your career over your life.
Firearms don't scare me. I was a very good shot on my school's target team and with my air rifle. I am perfectly capable of safely handling a firearm, under normal circumstances. Panicky untrained people with the ability to instantaneously and mistakenly deal death are what scare me. Just the other day, a guy mistakenly shot two firefighters at his door who were trying to save him, killing one and seriously injuring the other. Mistakes happen, especially when folks are scared, and I have the self-awareness to recognize that this includes me. I don't want to be the one who shoots an unarmed teenager in the dark when he's just reaching for his phone.
"By the time I can put my camera down and draw my weapon, either I or my clients could be hurt or killed.”
Non sequitur. That sentence admits the possibility of injury or death regardless of your actions.
The question is, are you safer with one or without one?
No brainer.
Statistics indicate you're safer without one.
Statistics would indicate you're safer without a car, or walking on the sidewalk, or flying in a plane. Do you let statistics run your life? If you're going to side with statistics, then you ought to just stay in your house forever.
There are so many things that are statistically dangerous, but for some reason everyone targets guns; so far the common denominator with those folks is they do not carry a firearm. They are chiming in on what they are ignorant of.
You don't choose to drive a car or fly on a plane or walk outdoors for the purpose of being safer. You choose these for the purpose of getting somewhere. A gun doesn't get you somewhere or accomplish any other purpose unless you're hunting. If the purpose of having a gun is to make you safer, and on average a gun doesn't make you safer, the rationale for having it is faulty, or at the very least the choice is unrealistically optimistic. Obviously, when you're discussing averages, some people will still benefit, while others will suffer the unfortunate alternative outcomes, such as shooting the wrong person, being shot by their toddler, having their gun stolen and used to shoot someone else, etc. I weigh the very low odds of being injured by an armed attacker and the low probability that I'd be able to deploy a gun effectively against one who surprises me against the frighteningly high odds of these other possible outcomes and decide to rely on my street smarts and unarmed combat skills instead.
Notice that nowhere have I prescribed what choice anyone else must make.
I am guilty of assuming you would [prescribe choice]. Conversely, all the alternative outcomes you mentioned can happen with a car, and are preventable with either (gun or car). There is truth to the unrealistic optimism also for the statistically low chance that I'll ever need one in my lifetime. I agree with you and the officer that street smarts are 99% effective. I just like having the choice to act or not, but I'd likely flee. I think it's the sensation of vigilance that I admittedly enjoy.
I believe the more likely scenario I am preparing for is finding myself in a terrorist situation; a position like in Paris where people had no chance whatsoever, I am frightened more by the idea of having nothing when I cannot flee.
Lastly there is a purely constitutional motivation underlying all of it for me. I believe tyranny is a forever threat; we've only been around for 3 lifetimes, so I choose not to rule out a possibility simply because I've never witnessed it. I feel if we outlaw guns from the streets there will be less participants, the spirit will eventually be forgotten and firearms eventually removed. I love my country, but fear my government.
As I say this, I've enforced your point that this is the wrong forum for discussion. Not one word about photography in anything I just said. Sorry, but I can't help not to defend what I believe, the slag fest is what lured me.
Stay safe in NYC brother.
Is that a trick question? You're not obligated to draw your weapon, you can leave it hidden, you can run away, you can offer up your gear, you can punch with your firsts. To believe one is safer with LESS options is lunacy. Would you drive a car that only makes left turns? Of course not.
Carry and decide at that moment whether to use it or not; every situation is different.
There's this incredible thing when people pull a gun without shooting anyone. Happens very often.
I carry my P938 daily, but especially if I'm going to be walking around with thousands of dollars of gear, or out in the middle of nowhere.
Lee, with another unrealistic scenario to compliment your weak man's argument. If the person is willing to stick around AFTER you are pointing a gun at them, then do you honestly believe they would have walked away by giving them stuff?
You're so focused on the "cost of a life" when it's totally irrelevant. Asking dumb questions to satisfy your delusion. Are you trying to prove a point or just intrigued and motivated to join the club of gun owners? I see your questions and your profile image and it's depressing. I feel bad for you in a sad and lame sense.
It's about defending a life whether there is camera gear present or not. You want to place a price tag on a life so anxiously like a child that's about to piss himself. You are obsessed with a monetary value. Here's a value question for you. Thief approaching Katherine with unknown intentions; which is more valuable: the thief's life, or Katherine's?
You have this deranged idea of entitlement of human rights for people encroaching upon someone else's. What is the threshold for Katherine to find out whether or not the thief just wants her stuff? Before, after, or during the rape?
You're so focused on the "cost of a life" when it's totally irrelevant...
dear lord Jordan, how can you even think this ?! The cost of a life is the most relevant part of all this discussion we are all having! I couldn't care less if the entire world would carry guns as long as there was a garantee no one needed to use them. the thing is, if you have one it's because you've thought about the idea of needing it, which means one day you might "need" to use it.
Given a scenario where you'd have to use it and i'd have to flee cause i don't have one and don't want it, i now quote Lee and his first question again : "Given the choice to hand over your gear and claim insurance, OR keep your gear by shooting someone (dead if needed), which would you choose?"
I was responding to Lee's obsession of badgering everyone here with the identical question; demanding a dollar value of a life.
It's loaded question that's, as you said, completely irrelevant. He's cornering her with a fabricated and ridiculous scenario, trying to prove his fantasized reality. Perhaps in his liberal fantasy land there are scenarios with two choices. YOU said yourself how deadly it is to predict a criminal's actions; giving up gear does not guarantee your safety.
So official answer is neither. No one has to die. ---His scenario is so unrealistic he's obviously never carried a gun in his life. If someone is willing to attack you AFTER you have a gun pointed at them, that person is after more than camera gear.--- I pull my gun, crook takes a hint, I keep my gear, both parties walk away.
Why submit to criminals? Why enable them? If I'm down on my luck I'll go to a shelter and beg for food; not go steal a camera with a weapon! They're no different from me, I have no pity for them. Stealing is OK if you're in need? We're not talking about bread, we're talking about ARMED ROBBERY. So much sympathy for scum.
Are you a thief yourself? Is this why you're so defensive? Why don't you volunteer to bring prisoners out of jail and into your home? I can guess why you won't. I don't know about you, but of the few things in the world that truly anger me, being accused of lying or stealing tops the list. It's the lowest of lows.
It's truly a simple solution for the thief. Don't steal from people, they might shoot you. What's the problem?
is this really the kind of thing you need to be posting on here? this really has nothing to do with photography. this site has really really gone downhill.
I'll never understand the madness of your fucking country. Shame on you
Hard to when you're from generations of serfdom; you've been conditioned, and the idea of relying on yourself for protection is out of this world.
Are tasers legal in the US? I know I would personally rather a non lethal approach like that.
Also guns that only shoot beanbag rounds should be available to the public, with proper ammo only being available to law enforcement. If your intent is only to protect yourself and stop the attacker, a taser/beanbag rounds are more than efficient.
Bean-bag rounds and rubber ball rounds are available; however they are referred to as less-than-lethal. Traditional bullets have the advantage of sending the crook to the hospital after he flees. Tasers will allow him to continue preying on victims.
Less than lethal should be preferred if you want to protect yourself and not simply cause harm to others.
I say it, because, when approached for advice to peoples' first gun, I'm consistently asked: "Aren't there rubber bullets? I don't actually want to, you know, 'KILL' anyone."
My response is also consistent; "If you aren't prepared to take a life, then don't buy a gun. Rubber bullets can kill, and aiming for the leg is poor tactics."
I am loosely considering a taser, but they are appropriate for neither multiple assailants, nor armed assailant(s), nor distances out of reach of the taser as well as your comfort level. #4 in the article below involved a woman encountering a man with a grenade of all things! I also read of a man, armed with only a pistol, who stopped an attack from ≈50 meters away; I believe; I'll continue tracking the article, but it was an impressive range that required him to take a knee in order to make his shot.
Notice police carry both options; taser being secondary; either both, or only a gun; for the sake of wearing a full on duty belt, it's just not a realistic option for civilians. Additionally, the altercations cops frequently encounter in their roll of actively apprehending people causes a great demand; my roll is opposite.
Like I've said in this thread, and as reinforced by the stories linked below, brandishing a weapon is highly effective. I have control of that trigger, and the criminal is the catalyst; he has a vote.
I suppose it's a pioneer's attitude as American culture has origins; out with no one to count on, yet with a family counting on him, someone showing ill intent cannot be afforded hesitation.
http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass...
Adam, great topic (and article). I hope Lee and Patrick give you a raise because the amount of exposure this article is getting spells ka-ching in the bank from all the ad impressions.
You won't have much luck getting a CC permit in cities like NYC. The only people around here that walk around locked and loaded are the cops, and the thugs looking to rob you :-/
If you live in Southern Africa definitely! Make sure you know how to use it and be prepared to use it.
Moved comment -posted in wrong place
Hahahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahahahahaha Hahahahahahahaha You gotta carry a gun cause everyone else has guns. But guns are not the problem.
They have guns, knives, stones, fists with intent to bludgeon, and penis' with intent to rape....all kinds of fun stuff waiting for you.
Are we going to get follow-up articles on whether photographers should carry tazers, pepper spray, or pitchforks, or take martial arts or boxing lessons, or learn how to shout "Help! Police!" in 38 different languages? Sorry, but this is a really bad topic choice for a photography site. Guaranteed to drop the discussion level straight into the gutter.