TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:I checked out your site...especially liked the Santa's Helper photos.....my kind of photography, but my wife doesn't share my "photographic vision."

Not unlike a spouse who has a different perspective on guns and CHL.

rp_photo wrote:

VMI77 wrote:I checked out your site...especially liked the Santa's Helper photos.....my kind of photography, but my wife doesn't share my "photographic vision."

Not unlike a spouse who has a different perspective on guns and CHL.

Yep, but she's fully supportive of my CHL and my gun use and acquisition.

VMI77 wrote: Yep, but she's fully supportive of my CHL and my gun use and acquisition.

Just like gun owners have a duty to eductate the public that gun owners aren't crazed and trigger happy, photographers need to educate them that that they aren't "pervs" who are out to cheat.

And more often than not, this begins with spouses and family.

I was surprised that anyone characterized Linda Blair as an actress.

Purplehood wrote:I was surprised that anyone characterized Linda Blair as an actress.

They were just excorcising their right to free speech

rp_photo wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Yep, but she's fully supportive of my CHL and my gun use and acquisition.

Just like gun owners have a duty to eductate the public that gun owners aren't crazed and trigger happy, photographers need to educate them that that they aren't "pervs" who are out to cheat.

And more often than not, this begins with spouses and family.

That's actually somewhat difficult to do, and more so in some places than others.....I'm not talking about my family here, but the general public. I think there is a widespread assumption among the general public that photographers, especially male photographers, are pervs --and now, perhaps "terrorists." At the very least many seem to feel that there must be something wrong with a grown man taking photos of peeling paint, rusted metal,abandoned buildings, and even animals. I didn't feel this way 30 years ago, but then 30 years ago I took photos of just about anything and everything and was never once challenged for it. I never take photos of children in public anymore, but I've been challenged for talking photos of abandoned buildings, objects, billboards, and street scenes --and not by the police either, but strangers who were not even the subject of the photo (or their property) and didn't even have the lens pointed in their direction. A couple have been pretty nasty about it too. And I think it would happen more often if I didn't have professional looking equipment, because it's obvious to me that some who would otherwise have challenged me if they thought I was just some guy taking photos, assumed I was a "journalist" and it was therefore alright (numerous times I've been asked if I'm a newspaper photographer or what publication I work for).

VMI77 wrote:That's actually somewhat difficult to do, and more so in some places than others.....I'm not talking about my family here, but the general public. I think there is a widespread assumption among the general public that photographers, especially male photographers, are pervs --and now, perhaps "terrorists." At the very least many seem to feel that there must be something wrong with a grown man taking photos of peeling paint, rusted metal,abandoned buildings, and even animals. I didn't feel this way 30 years ago, but then 30 years ago I took photos of just about anything and everything and was never once challenged for it. I never take photos of children in public anymore, but I've been challenged for talking photos of abandoned buildings, objects, billboards, and street scenes --and not by the police either, but strangers who were not even the subject of the photo (or their property) and didn't even have the lens pointed in their direction. A couple have been pretty nasty about it too. And I think it would happen more often if I didn't have professional looking equipment, because it's obvious to me that some who would otherwise have challenged me if they thought I was just some guy taking photos, assumed I was a "journalist" and it was therefore alright (numerous times I've been asked if I'm a newspaper photographer or what publication I work for).

We must be ready to defend both the First and Second ammendments at any time, as we face haters on both fronts.

My experience with this as a photographer actually helped me know what to expect in my more recent eveoultion into a gun owner.

Unlike guns where the rules are clear-cut, photography rules are far more subjective and often more restrictive than they are for concealed carry. Of course that's due in part to the open nature of photography.

VMI77 wrote:

RSJ wrote:

rp_photo wrote:

RSJ wrote: Not in my opinion, if I am at risk of my camera or my life, that camera is longgggggg gone. Not worth it

They could have shot him even if he submitted, and he would have put hinself in greater danger by reducing the distance between him and the BG's in order to hand it over.

I have already lost a gunfight if they are pointed at me. I will try to cooperate to put the camera on the ground and slowly back up. I would only pull and fire in this situation if I thought they were going to shoot regardless. In this scenario the good guy went from normal to red-mode too soon. 21 feet rule!

Maybe, maybe not. I saw a video of a jewelery store robbery where an armed robber across the counter had a gun pointed at the owner's head....about two feet away....and the owner still pulled his revolver and shot the BG, without getting shot himself. In fact, I don't think the BG even got a shot off. The best thing for this photographer might have been to just run perpendicularly to their line of sight.

I'm not saying it WONT happen, rather that if they are after a camera, I'd gladly give that up first before moving my shirt, drawing the gun, aiming, firing at possibly multiple people, if successful waiting for police, getting booked, spending 10-15K just to get a no-bill at a minimum.

If I had reason to believe (situationally dependent on many factors) that my life was imminently in danger, I would be ready to protect myself and others.

rp_photo wrote:It is very easy to lose SA during a photo shoot, as we tend to "zone out" / develops tunnel vision when concentrating on getting the images.

In addition, we see concentrate on the positive and artistic aspects of the location and tend to minimize the dangers.

That's one great reason to have a friend or acquaintance acting as an assistant on any on-location shoot. Been there - done that - learned the lesson (in not quite so dramatic a way as the OP's post).

...excellent advice...good for when out shooting, also...lets the shooter relax and concentrate on the target without concern as to what's going on around him...always good when someone has your back...

I saw a video of a jewelery store robbery where an armed robber across the counter had a gun pointed at the owner's head
....about two feet away....and the owner still pulled his revolver and shot the BG, without getting shot himself.
In fact, I don't think the BG even got a shot off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV4Xqt62pf8

The above link is the robbery to which you referred. It happened in Batavia, NY on 2/13/2005.

The jewelry store owner was a Marine veteran of the Vietnam war. The gunman in the photo was wearing
the black coat, but it was the BG in the white who got shot. That young man was paralyzed from the waist down, for life.

The jewelry store owner showed quick reaction and great warrior spirit to draw on a drawn gun.

The downside of his reaction was that he was using a 5 shot revolver. He thought that he had shot only 3 rounds, but had shot
all 5. Then he went out onto the sidewalk. If the other bad guy had engaged him, the jewelry store owner had no ammo.
Plus, he didn't know it at the time, but the white jacketed BG had his pistol under him, but didn't draw.

It all came out well for the GG. That's what counts.

SIA

...one was undecided...one had his mind made up long before the robbery...great story...

VMI77 wrote: I think there is a widespread assumption among the general public that photographers, especially male photographers, are pervs --and now, perhaps "terrorists." At the very least many seem to feel that there must be something wrong with a grown man taking photos of peeling paint, rusted metal,abandoned buildings, and even animals.

That's interesting to me. I'm not a photographer, but i have friends who love photography. To me it's interesting to see what a dull rusty building can turn into when photographed with different levels of exposure and in different lighting. I had no idea that anyone felt there's something wrong with taking pictures of such things. Not everyone feels that way. I think most of ya'll are creative geniuses. Some of the pictures my friend takes are downright amazing. Keep doing what you love. Don't let others get you down.

ajwakeboarder wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I think there is a widespread assumption among the general public that photographers, especially male photographers, are pervs --and now, perhaps "terrorists." At the very least many seem to feel that there must be something wrong with a grown man taking photos of peeling paint, rusted metal,abandoned buildings, and even animals.

That's interesting to me. I'm not a photographer, but i have friends who love photography. To me it's interesting to see what a dull rusty building can turn into when photographed with different levels of exposure and in different lighting. I had no idea that anyone felt there's something wrong with taking pictures of such things. Not everyone feels that way. I think most of ya'll are creative geniuses. Some of the pictures my friend takes are downright amazing. Keep doing what you love. Don't let others get you down.

Well, you're on here, so you're smarter and better informed than the average....but I think if many of those who are critical actually saw some of the results you've seen it would change their opinion --it's mostly ignorance. Also, I should clarify, that when it comes to inanimate objects, the responses are more like bewilderment or bafflement....they simply can't understand why anyone would take such photos. OTOH, when it comes to taking photos of people in public, some of them get downright mad and threatening. It's not a majority, but it's happened to me frequently. Then again, I've also had people see the camera and spontaneously pose.

I like street photography best but don't live where such photography is practical. So lately, I'm concentrating on wildlife photography, and night-time still lifes.

VMI77 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. I saw a video of a jewelery store robbery where an armed robber across the counter had a gun pointed at the owner's head....about two feet away....and the owner still pulled his revolver and shot the BG, without getting shot himself. In fact, I don't think the BG even got a shot off.

Action will always be a half step ahead of reaction.

Several years ago, I saw training video that demonstrated a guy on his stomach on the ground be able to draw and shoot a police officer before the officer could react.