takesome1 said:
Yup, can't shoot if they're running away. In some states it can be used to protect property, not just the gun owner.
Upvote
0
Tips on deterring forcible equipment theft while carrying camera?
- Thread starter Kit Lens Jockey
- Start date
Yup, can't shoot if they're running away. In some states it can be used to protect property, not just the gun owner.
While I am extremely tempted to get into the various facts that clearly demonstrate that there is a direct relationship between the number of guns and the number of people who unnecessarily die from guns (including the fact that a guns are more likely to be used on a family member than an intruder), we are really digressing from the original question.
The poster wants to know how to protect CAMERA GEAR from being stolen forcibly. Disregarding the insanity of gun ownership, recommending a gun for this situation is impractical for the following reasons.
1) As previously stated, in many states it is illegal to shoot someone for trying to steal camera equipment.
2) For those of us who travel internationally, bringing a gun is not an option.
3) For those who live in countries with fewer than 10 gun deaths per 100k population (basically any 1st/2nd world country other than the US), you aren't allowed to conceal carry anyway.
4) For those who travel domestically in the US, different states have different laws about concealed carry. You also have yet another thing to pack on tops of lenses and cameras.
So if you're American, own a gun, have a concealed carry permit, and have no desire to travel domestically or internationally, go for it and hope when you brazenly walk into that crime infested area with a 10k camera held high that you have the quicker draw.
However, I have photographed at night in many cities and I have never owned a gun, nor ever felt the need to have one - especially to protect my gear. Instead, I have relied on the following advice.
- When in a new city, consult your hotel and/or locals to learn where it is safe to go
- Travel in a group when possible
- Consider bringing a cheaper camera if you must travel in an unsafe area
- Insure your equipment
- Keep an eye on your surroundings
- Never let your gear leave your hands/body
- Don't look for trouble. Have some common sense.
The poster wants to know how to protect CAMERA GEAR from being stolen forcibly. Disregarding the insanity of gun ownership, recommending a gun for this situation is impractical for the following reasons.
1) As previously stated, in many states it is illegal to shoot someone for trying to steal camera equipment.
2) For those of us who travel internationally, bringing a gun is not an option.
3) For those who live in countries with fewer than 10 gun deaths per 100k population (basically any 1st/2nd world country other than the US), you aren't allowed to conceal carry anyway.
4) For those who travel domestically in the US, different states have different laws about concealed carry. You also have yet another thing to pack on tops of lenses and cameras.
So if you're American, own a gun, have a concealed carry permit, and have no desire to travel domestically or internationally, go for it and hope when you brazenly walk into that crime infested area with a 10k camera held high that you have the quicker draw.
However, I have photographed at night in many cities and I have never owned a gun, nor ever felt the need to have one - especially to protect my gear. Instead, I have relied on the following advice.
- When in a new city, consult your hotel and/or locals to learn where it is safe to go
- Travel in a group when possible
- Consider bringing a cheaper camera if you must travel in an unsafe area
- Insure your equipment
- Keep an eye on your surroundings
- Never let your gear leave your hands/body
- Don't look for trouble. Have some common sense.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:
Sure, shooting a fleeing criminal is a lawyers wet dream and only an idiot would do so (unless you live in Texas
).But laws very state by state. For instance many states passed 'Castle Doctrine', i.e. Right to stand your ground. You are under no obligation to withdraw/submit to a criminal. That includes handing over you gear.
Additionally, more often than not one need not even discharge his weapon to prevent the crime. Unarmed criminals will likely back away rather slowly when confronted with and armed citizen warning then to back away
Upvote
0
kirispupis said:
Disregarding your 'insanity' concerning your need to call all gun owners insane...
1. It's not illegal to defend your property. As previously stated you are well within your right to NOT peacefully hand over your belongings to a criminal.
2. & 3. Obviously you have to abide by international laws as a guest or the laws of your own country.
4. Owning a concealed carry permit for 3 states covers you for conceal carry for all 48 states. The other two I'll gladly either not visit, not carry in, or have insurance on the gear I bring.
All other points I agree with. Common sense, knowing your surroundings, and having insurance goes a long way.
Upvote
0
Fatalv said:takesome1 said:
Sure, shooting a fleeing criminal is a lawyers wet dream and only an idiot would do so.
But laws very state by state. For instance many states passed 'Castle Doctrine', i.e. Right to stand your ground. You are under no obligation to withdraw/submit to a criminal. That includes handing over you gear.
Additionally, more often than not one need not even discharge his weapon to prevent the crime. Unarmed criminals will likely back away rather slowly when confronted with and armed citizen warning then to back away
Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground are not the same.
Castle Doctrine gives you the right to protect yourself in your house, in some states your car, your work place even a tent. If someone enters unlawfully you have the right to assume that they intend harm.
Stand Your Ground means that you do not have to retreat if you are in a place you can lawfully be. Some states require that if you can find a way to remove yourself from a danger that you must do so.
In your senario would the criminal be armed? If so it may escalate and if you bring out the weapon it should be with the intent to use it otherwise you may die while you are giving your warning. Then the other thing to consider, in some states it is a felony to brandish your concealed weapon. The police arrive and talk to the criminal and he denies trying to rob you, it is his word against yours. Other bystanders see you pull your weapon, guess who goes to jail.
So many possibilities, maybe you die, someone else dies or you go to prison. Like I said in earlier posts, buy insurance, keep your camera equipment out of the thought process. Make the decision based on your safety only.
Upvote
0
takesome1 said:Fatalv said:takesome1 said:
Sure, shooting a fleeing criminal is a lawyers wet dream and only an idiot would do so.
But laws very state by state. For instance many states passed 'Castle Doctrine', i.e. Right to stand your ground. You are under no obligation to withdraw/submit to a criminal. That includes handing over you gear.
Additionally, more often than not one need not even discharge his weapon to prevent the crime. Unarmed criminals will likely back away rather slowly when confronted with and armed citizen warning then to back away
Castle Doctrine and Stand your Ground are not the same.
Castle Doctrine gives you the right to protect yourself in your house, in some states your car, your work place even a tent. If someone enters unlawfully you have the right to assume that they intend harm.
Stand Your Ground means that you do not have to retreat if you are in a place you can lawfully be. Some states require that if you can find a way to remove yourself from a danger that you must do so.
In your senario would the criminal be armed? If so it may escalate and if you bring out the weapon it should be with the intent to use it otherwise you may die while you are giving your warning. Then the other thing to consider, in some states it is a felony to brandish your concealed weapon. The police arrive and talk to the criminal and he denies trying to rob you, it is his word against yours. Other bystanders see you pull your weapon, guess who goes to jail.
So many possibilities, maybe you die, someone else dies or you go to prison. Like I said in earlier posts, buy insurance, keep your camera equipment out of the thought process. Make the decision based on your safety only.
Correct they are different but similar in many ways. The states that come to my mind all have passed both, but again it's state by state, so you have to know the laws of where you are.
I agree about escalation. IMHO a firearm should never be removed from it's holster unless you are prepared to use it. I would give a verbal warning without removing the firearm while readying my hand to draw if necessary.
Again, I'm advocating for multiple avenues of protection, so I agree. Common sense, insurance, etc. Having a firearm is just another form or protection if needed. I'm not advocating using it in every situation, but I'd rather have one and not need it than be without it.
Upvote
0
I'd be interested in the facts. I've always thought that the chances of being involved in an intentional gun-related incident were more closely tied to how left-wing your government is (with at least 260 million people being killed by their own government in the last one hundred years.)kirispupis said:
I wonder how many Venezuelans are now regretting handing over their guns in the recent gun bans?
Upvote
0
I think we have all learned an important lesson here.
Don't introduce gun topics into a non-gun thread unless you want the thread derailed.
Don't introduce gun topics into a non-gun thread unless you want the thread derailed.
Upvote
0
This is one of the reasons I own an EOS-M series body. And a gorilla pod.
Stand your ground, run like he__, the bottom line is that we can take great photos while not looking like we are carrying $15,000 of gear. Bad situations exist in the world. I got lost heading into downtown Brussels 1 week before the Paris shootings. Turns out I was in Molenbeek. In Bogotá, my local representatives would not even let me in a cab by myself. It had nothing to do with camera gear (I had the M) just being an American was enough of a target. I had a very similar experience in Sao Paulo although that was more neighborhood driven.
Rough places exist. It doesn't hurt to have less expensive but very capable gear.
Stand your ground, run like he__, the bottom line is that we can take great photos while not looking like we are carrying $15,000 of gear. Bad situations exist in the world. I got lost heading into downtown Brussels 1 week before the Paris shootings. Turns out I was in Molenbeek. In Bogotá, my local representatives would not even let me in a cab by myself. It had nothing to do with camera gear (I had the M) just being an American was enough of a target. I had a very similar experience in Sao Paulo although that was more neighborhood driven.
Rough places exist. It doesn't hurt to have less expensive but very capable gear.
Upvote
0
AcutancePhotography said:I think we have all learned an important lesson here.
Don't introduce gun topics into a non-gun thread unless you want the thread derailed.
I would argue that the thread is partially a gun topic. The question was for tips on deterring forcible theft, and there are those among us that carry firearms for that reason.
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:
Hmm. Relying on a NRA website to get best advice on the pros and cons of carrying guns.
There's a message in there somewhere.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
Mike, every single article there is linked to a legitimate news story. The fact that the stories are listed on an NRA website means absolutely nothing as far as the veracity of the story. If you want to see that as an NRA conspiracy, be my guest. The stories are true no matter who has compiled them.
The study you quote is funded by the Joyce Foundation. So here you go: https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/10/26/anti-gun-study-filled-with-flaws-and-bias/
The fact is this: The more guns there are in the hands of law abiding citizens, the less crime there is.
Upvote
0
AJ said:
In the US just like a firearm you would need to know the laws where you are at.
A concealed pepper spray or concealed firearm will not deter a would be thief. He wouldn't know you had either until he actually confronts you.
While using pepper spray or the Kung Fu you learned from your local master, both run the risk of escalating the situation. The thief just wanted your camera and nothing else, you karate chop him in the head and now he wants to punch you back.
Like the saying, you brought a knife to a gunfight? You can change the word knife to , karate chop or pepper spray.
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:
Absolutely not true - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Of first world countries, the US has by far the highest number of guns per person - 112.6 per 100 people vs the next highest of Switzerland with 45.7. Switzerland is a special case since military service is compulsory and soldiers are allowed to keep their guns. However, they severely limit ammunition. The US as 10.4 gun related deaths per 100k population vs. Finland at 3.25. Americans are 3x more likely to be killed by a gun than a Finn, 10x more likely than a German, and 175x more likely than a Japanese. This is why the majority of the world limits guns.
Even within the US, there is a direct relationship between weaker gun laws and increased gun deaths - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html
Of course, we'd have even stronger statistics if the NRA didn't block gun research - http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html
You're free to have your Trump-esque ignorance, but the majority of the free world and anyone sensible already knows that the majority of guns are completely unnecessary in private hands. Americans love guns because they like guns. It has nothing to do with protection (the gun is more likely to be used against your or a loved one), nor defense against the government (they have a lot more guns).
This Australian makes it even clearer - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:
Sorry, but the fact is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Is Kellyanne checking your facts for you?
Upvote
0
An example; We have much (as in MUCH) stricter weapon control here in Norway, than you in the US. However, since we are a nation of hunters, we have lots of hunting rifles (we are actually in 11th place globally on weapon density), but you have to go through special training and screening to get one. Hand guns, assault rifles etc. are banned and the control with ammunition and use is significant.neuroanatomist said:CanonFanBoy said:
Sorry, but the fact is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Is Kellyanne checking your facts for you?
The rate of people getting killed in the US is 50, FIFTY, times higher in the US, compared to what we have. But, of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with your liberal weapon legislation :
Upvote
0
Eldar said:An example; We have much (as in MUCH) stricter weapon control here in Norway, than you in the US. However, since we are a nation of hunters, we have lots of hunting rifles (we are actually in 11th place globally on weapon density), but you have to go through special training and screening to get one. Hand guns, assault rifles etc. are banned and the control with ammunition and use is significant.neuroanatomist said:CanonFanBoy said:
Sorry, but the fact is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Is Kellyanne checking your facts for you?
The rate of people getting killed in the US is 50, FIFTY, times higher in the US, compared to what we have. But, of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with your liberal weapon legislation :
But how would you explain Mexico, Brazil and South Africa which are near the top of the list of murders per capita. All of which have strict gun laws that do not permit or severely limit ownership and carry.
I think all you can derive from the "my country has fewer" discussion is some countries have a higher murder rate than others.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
