Where there are rights people seem to always find reasons. Sometimes one has nothing to do with the other. I'm always amazed at the historical reach for "logic" when the discussion of Constitutional Rights come up. Its great when one's brain kick in and consider the situation and reality..... or slim possibilities. I can't imagine a realistic reason to carry a weapon on this type of job. That's like taking your weapon to your kids play.....of course I'm sure some of you do this too
corndog wrote:
I can respect the fact that you don't think it's a good idea, but know that it's because you are imagining the worst possible scenario, there can also be some pretty great outcomes too. Odds are probably 999,999 out of 1,000,000 there is no notable outcome because nothing happened. If these numbers are right, there's about 60 million cars and 40k auto deaths annually, versus 300 million guns versus 30k gun deaths annually, it may be more logical to be afraid of driving.
So then why pack the heat? Don't give me some Constitutional rights thing.
Obviously this thread seems to be degenerating into a discussion/argument about the 2nd amendment. I think we can all agree that an internet thread on a photography forum is not going to change anyone's opinion on gun use.
Agreed?
Ok good.
So, the question simply becomes "Should you take a gun to a wedding?" I think StarNut has a very good point regarding the bride's feelings at a wedding...
What Anti-Gun people need to realize:
There are places and people groups where having guns is not just an afterthought, but a part of life. For people who have grown up in this environment, the thought of guns being taboo is hard to understand.
What Pro-Gun people need to realize:
There are people who have never seen or touched a real gun other than on a police officer's belt. To them, even the sight of a gun is enough to scare them or at least make them uncomfortable.
Regardless of your personal feelings on this matter, we are in business to serve our clients. If you live in an area where most of your clients and/or their friends/families have and carry guns, then I don't think they'd blink and eye. If you don't live in those areas or associate in those circles, it's probably a really bad idea.
More than anything, I think StarNut is right, though, that the overwhelming majority of brides would be uncomfortable knowing that there was a gun at their wedding. Regardless of if this feeling is justified or not, their opinion is the one that matters in our chosen profession.
It's a different thought process. You're thinking that a person carries a gun to the mailbox, then you evaluate whether that person needed to carry it to the mailbox, then the person carries a gun to make coffee, and you wonder if the person needed to carry a gun while making coffee. It's not quite like that, it's simple whether you carry a gun or not. Do you evaluate whether you needed your cell phone when you went to get the mail? Same kind of thing, you simple integrate it into the things you carry, or you don't.
corndog wrote:
There's too many to post, no specific thought in mind, just referring to times when having a gun has prevent someone from being victimized.
I understand that mindset, but I mean in a wedding photography situation.
cordellwillis wrote:
Where there are rights people seem to always find reasons. Sometimes one has nothing to do with the other. I'm always amazed at the historical reach for "logic" when the discussion of Constitutional Rights come up. Its great when one's brain kick in and consider the situation and reality..... or slim possibilities. I can't imagine a realistic reason to carry a weapon on this type of job. That's like taking your weapon to your kids play.....of course I'm sure some of you do this too
My daughter isn't old enough for school. But, probably....school shootings never happen though...
corndog wrote:
I gotta say, your second sentence is disappointing, it sounds so small the way you wrote it.
So what you're saying is that a wedding photographer should pack heat just because he has a Constitutional right to do so? I can agree with that if you can agree that just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I feel I've addressed this, maybe not to your satisfaction...but I've explained my position. I will agree generically that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.
Evan Baines wrote:
Not taking sides here, but pointing something out:
In most states, defense of personal property in a public place is NOT grounds for the use of lethal force in self defense. The ONLY acceptable reason for use of deadly force in many states is when one is directly and immediately threatened with deadly force. This varies from state to state, and also depends on where you are located. Point being, you cannot simply shoot someone for attempting to steal your camera gear. You can only shoot someone who is threatening you with deadly force.
+100
and reasonable people should know this and not come off like idiots...
