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.
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.
Every time an innocent little American kid's brains spill out onto the pavement during a gun massacre, there is a Pete Miller loudly denouncing everyone who questions his gun-loving ways as irrational and bizarre. Before the kid is even buried, you can be sure he will be hollering from the rooftops in worship of the almighty gun.
Pete Miller, which of the following statements is not true? Pete Miller worships guns. Guns are the most important thing Pete Miller owns. Peter Miller dreams about guns, enjoys the feel of a gun in his hands, and enjoys looking at them. Pete Miller would rather die in a hail of bullets than live in a society in which his guns were taken away from him. Pete Miller would shoot dead an unarmed teenage thief attempting to steal his property. Pete Miller believes himself to be a freedom loving, rugged, patriotic American. Pete Miller believes children should be raised to be respectful, obedient, well-behaved and well-mannered, and that the problem these days is that kids are not raised that way. Pete Miller thinks people should know their place in society, and that those who stick their necks too far out deserve to be put in their place.
You (Pete Miller) claim your car is the most important thing you own, but would you die in a hail of bullets defending your right to drive it? Given your passionate and apparently absolute defence of guns and gun culture, I find it hard to believe that you do value cars as being more important than guns.
My final question is this: do you agree with this statement? - "Honor the two who died for you: Jesus and the American Soldier."
Now Pete you know full well (as does anyone paying attention) that you're being deliberately disingenuous with your replies, being overly pedantic only when it suits you. The fact is you've got most of the attributes of a down-the-line right-wing authoritarian, and an apparently egotistical one at that. It's thus no surprise that gun culture is so compelling to you, to the extent that you'd rather be dead than live any other way.
I do like the Constitution part of his statement.
The second amendement, which protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, but that it is what is is, an amendement to the Constitution.
What happens to people like Peter if someday there will the twenty-eight amendment (or any number as 4 amendements are still pending) , an amendement to reverse the second amendement. In the end any new ratified amendement can change the Constitution.
Peter?
I gave up on Peter in discussion mode, as he does not believe in any normal adult discussions.
Since my first post here I am (according to Peter): a non-American (obvious, that is correct), anti-American, taught and conditioned to have an irrational fear of guns, emotionally irrational, a fascist, arrogant, disrespectful, obsessive, a Nazi, “interrogate, condemn and insult Americans”, having lack of knowledge on my own country status in Europe, obsessively focused on American domestic affairs, silly and I missed a few I guess as well.
That is besides other people being called the same or different as well as unconstitutional enemies of the state, stupid and so on.
He is not bashing other people (that is what he states), we all are simply having lack of common sense and logic in our ignorance and denial on the case. So my guess is, this is an endless no-go discussion with him.
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.
The article doesn't stipulate American photographers, only. It applies to ALL photographers. True fact: the Internet extends beyond America's shores. I know, crazy, right? But true. You can actually bump into fer'ners here in the Intertubes. And, you can't even tell that they're smelly and dress funny. They're in cog nito! Watch out!
Well, my "world" is a bit broader and in "my world" a concealed weapon has not become more normalized ;-) But you are right, if we narrow "the world" it is not our business.
Perhaps we should change Fstoppers in a .com (the world) and a .us (a US world). In the end, that is were the domain structure was meant to be for. Naming Fstoppers: fstoppers.com it means tou want to reach the world as our planet.
The key point of anyone who has ever made a successful change or implemented a solution to a major problem is that they have had the sense to look outside their own (or their countries own) views to realise where their problems lie.
In a country with the most gun related deaths to deny that there is a problem by saying that an article should only be discussed by Americans shows closed mindedness and an inability to enter into reasoned and sensible debate.
My response to the article provided sound, thought out solutions to something which is killing your countries children and by extension your countries future. To be so flippant as to state "you are not American, you cannot express an opinion on this matter", flies directly in the face of how your own countries foreign policy has impacted the world itself.
Were America to take that attitude about affairs outside its borders would be to see a world with a much different political and war torn landscape.
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?
Pete its only an odd question if you misunderstood what I was asking. A little reminder, you're on a photography website largely used by professional and semi professional photographers. This post is about whether or not photographers bring guns to their jobs (commonly known as photoshoots). Admitedly I can see where you got confused but by "shoot" I meant in a photography sense.
I understand the issue being discussed is largely a US issue thankfully as legally owning gun is neither an option or a right in most other countries.
What I noticed though is most of the reasons given for owning a gun seem fairly universal. Certainly most of what are being mentioned as the perceived threats are threats in almost every country. So what I'm wondering if any of the photographers here who do carry a firearm, do any of you travel internationally for work? Would you feel particularly vulnerable in that situation? Would it even prevent you from travelling out of the US for work?
You're projecting far more meaning into my wording then was intended in order to make points I neither asked or care about. You sound like you'd make a fantastic politician. Feel free to interpret that however you want.
Also reading back on my original post. If you really need additional clarification of what I meant you're probably not the kind of photographer the question was aimed at.
Your "conclusion" isn't really a concern to me. You obviously have a hard on for the issue of gun ownership and you're entitled to do so. It's just not an issue I care about one way or another. As I said previously I'm thankful I live in a country where people don't believe they're entitled to carry guns. If you feel that's condescending then so be it. The opinion of some stranger on the internet is about as big an issue to me as whether I have my next coffee in my blue mug or maybe my red one (I think I'll go for red one).
OK does any photographers other then Pete want to volunteer an answer? No offense Pete but I'm really only curious about the photographers angle on this, not somebody on a photography website who needs clarification on what's meant by a "shoot".
I've a seen few photographers with a fairly professional body of work say they bring a gun to a photoshoot. My question still stands. Im curious given that all the reasons for feeling the need to carry a gun seem to be universal worldwide threats. Surely a few of you have worked outside the US so would you feel particularly vulnerable working on a shoot in this situation?