Crimes against photographers

[Jim Buescher]

I haven't seen this topic discussed here before and am curious as to what many of you think. Many of us routinely carry thousands of dollars worth of photo gear with us on our photo quests, whether it's into the backcountry, a local park or maybe the city streets after dark which would make us an easy target. Has anyone ever been the victim of a robbery or other hostilities while doing photo related activities (assuming you're not paparazzi;))? I don't mean your equipment being stolen from your car, hotel room, airport etc., but taken from your person. What measures, if any, do some of you use to protect yourselves in the field (e.g. never go alone, use of lethal or non-lethal weapons such as pepper spray or licensed handgun) or don't you worry about it, or haven't thought about it. The reason I ask is that recently while carrying my 500 f4 and other gear to my car, which was in a secluded parking lot at a local park, there was another car with four young men in it smoking pot and drinking. They said something to me that I couldn't understand so I just ignored them, quickly packed up and left. Thats when I thought, boy that could've turned out differently.

What are your thoughts and ideas?

[Dan Brown]

I am shooting from the hip here, but my first thought is to have a good insurance policy, maintain a good equipment list and just give the thief your stuff!! Then, you can upgrade!!:D

[James Shadle]

I feel safe in the wild or in well populated parks.

In areas I call "tweeners"(parks on the fringe of populated areas) I really feel it is unsafe to shoot alone.
If you need to create images in a "tweener" parks, take a friend with you and have your cell phone handy.

[Tell Dickinson]

I feel safe in most places where I have to pay to get in or if there are a few other people around. I have not personally had any 'incidents' but like Dan I would just hand everything over if 'mugged' as I have good insurance and you never know how bad a situation can get until its too late.

Tell

[Michael Pancier]

I feel safe in the national parks and especially in places like Maine and Utah. When I'm in cities, I like to shoot with a buddy and I always carry a sturdy tripod in case I need to use it for protection.

The RRS Ballhead I think can probably deliver a good blow.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Well speaking from a womans perspective. I have a concealed weapons permit and practice quite frequently at my local indoor range, and carry my 9mm Sig Saur with me anytime I am out alone. Hopefully just to scare anybody off, and or for me to leave the scene but any closer well....

[Charles Glatzer]

Well speaking from a womans perspective. I have a concealed weapons permit and practice quite frequently at my local indoor range, and carry my 9mm Sig Saur with me anytime I am out alone. Hopefully just to scare anybody off, and or for me to leave the scene but any closer well....

A Sig gal ;)

Chas

[Nancy A Elwood]

A Sig gal ;)

Chas

Yes Charles!:D I love it! I have the P239. And for me it is not just the equipment but of course for a woman the bodily attack issue is always there.

[Rocky Sharwell]

I agree with James on the tweener parks--There is one area near Tampa in the Florida Birding Guide where they say not to go unless you are with a large group.

I went to high school and college in the Bronx during the late 70's and early 80's when the Bronx was decaying rapidly and the "South Bronx" (bad area) was growing rapidly. I was taught to be aware of your surroundings--and to have a plan just in case. We had an NYC detective speak to us more than once. The one thing I have always done since then is to have some money--just in case I get mugged.

One thing to be more concerned about in more isolated areas is large scale marijuana cultivation. It was a bit of a problem when I lived in Southern Vermont after law school. It was like a scene from Apocalypse Now when they would fly national guard helicopters to look for large plots from above.

I am accident prone so I avoid guns--but Nancy has an excellent point about staying in practice with your weapon. I have seen many situations where things did not quite go as planned.....

[Marina Scarr]

My first thought was make sure you have a good insurance policy and let "them" have your equipment. Believe it or not, this issue has never crossed my mind while in the field. Maybe it should. At many of these remote areas, cell phones do no good at all b/c there is no reception. Being with a photo buddy whenever possible is a pretty good deterent. Good insurance however gives you some peace of mind.

[Charles Glatzer]

Yes Charles!:D I love it! I have the P239. And for me it is not just the equipment but of course for a woman the bodily attack issue is always there.

Holstering a 229, 239, or 232 depending on clothing, etc

The first rule is to be situationally aware of your surroundings at all times, and avoid or diffuse confrontation as much as possible.

Chas

[Paul Lagasi]

In Canada we can't carry a handgun, I frequently go out alone...I'd give my equipment to them...my insurance will pay up....as Dan said "keep an up to date list of serial numbers"..it can happen anywhere, anytime.
Having said all that, I've driven alone (my wife flies), over 100,000 miles (Canada and US), with my equipment never had a problem yet.

My two cents

[Ed Cordes]

I have never had an issue in the field. I have good insurance and if confronted the thief can have anything they want. That said I do try to be aware of my surroundings and the people in them. I always feel safer among the wild critters than the humans we sometimes encounter.

[c.w. moynihan]

too bad NY has gun laws that protect the criminals (will have one anyways) and not the victims(cannot carry-felony). Got to love FLA.

[mariakruse]

Here in the border towns, it has become quite unsafe to go out into the desert for photos in some areas. We have a group a women photographers that try to always go as a group to places like the desert parks and such, but it is still an uneasy feeling. The drug runners and people smugglers are less than kind hereabouts. And women are more likely to suffer a physical assault. I guess that's why there are so many more male nature/landscape photographers than female. Even in our city parks it's not always safe. Best to keep an eye open to surroundings.

[Gene Potter]

This is something I am constantly aware of. I like to carry my equipment to public places as well as out in the wild. In public, I’m constantly approached by people with comments and questions like “nice camera, WOW what a camera, how much does that cost?”. For the most part this does not bother me, depending on the person. Some have caused me serious concern.
The point about being aware of your surroundings is basic to everyone’s personal security. I know a woman who has had her purse snatched 3 times. Each time, she didn’t see it coming. Now I’m a pretty big guy and was once a fairly decent kick-boxer. But now I’m getting old and way out of shape. So I’m diligent about keeping an eye out for potential problems. I also keep a strap on the camera hold the equipment securely when in public.
The thing about carrying weapons is that more people are injured by their own than those of assailants. Also, if it’s not readily available for you to use (quick draw), it probably won’t do you much good. If it’s buried in your back-pack you’ll most likely lose it with your equipment. The gal I mentioned above lost her Walter PBK in the last attack. And, sorry Nancy, your carry permit is no good in a national park or pretty much any state or county park. If you take a weapon to these places you could be subject to some pretty harsh penalties. Check the laws in your area.
Insurance is great when you need it, but it’s costly. At around $30 per thousand, it adds up. On top of that, you’ll need a professional policy or a member ship in national photography organization. Many of us who live in South Florida suffer from insurance burn-out and find it hard to carry the cost.
There is no perfect solution here Jim. The first and foremost thing in protecting yourself is being aware of your surroundings and when possible travel with a group. Insurance is great if you can afford it. Weapons should be ruled out entirely.

[Jackie Schuknecht]

I try to photgraph in populated areas; parks, etc. I don't think I really thought about this issue too much until I got the 500. I live in a condo, so I try to get in my condo fast when I finish shooting and keep a watchful eye, especially with the 500. You never know who is looking. Not that it isn't a safe place....... Also I have an Airport bag from Think Tank which I keep locked up when I am not using it. And all my other incidentals go in my dishwasher, which I never use.:)

[gary rouleau]

My 2 cents. Being a Canadian living in New Mexico I was completely shocked when two photographers told me they were packing side arms. My big question -Why? Their answer was because you never know when you'll need it. They had trouble with hunters and gangs. What gangs were doing out photographing birds I'll never know -probably some initiation thing. They also had a friend who was severely beaten when he refused to hand over his camera -they thought he was photographing them. I'll never pack a gun but I will walk away without photo gear if it comes to that. Buy insurance not a gun!
Be care out there!
Cheers
gary

[Nancy A Elwood]

Gene they have since, very recently, changed the law regarding National Parks. Plus the gun is mostly for my personal, bodily, safety. I will hand over equipment, but not have bodily harm without a fight!! I carry mine as Chas does.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . I'll never pack a gun but I will walk away without photo gear if it comes to that. Buy insurance not a gun! . . .

Several others have made this same argument. The argument assumes people who would take your photo gear are like you, just wanting the money that the gear would bring, but not otherwise wishing you any harm. The fact is that most people who would take your gear are nothing at all like you and might choose to beat you, possibly kill you, for entertainment. Your eagerness to hand over your property might even, by signaling weakness, provoke them. You don't decide whether you can walk away, they do--unless you have the means to enforce your decision.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Several others have made this same argument. The argument assumes people who would take your photo gear are like you, just wanting the money that the gear would bring, but not otherwise wishing you any harm. The fact is that most people who would take your gear are nothing at all like you and might choose to beat you, possibly kill you, for entertainment. Your eagerness to hand over your property might even, by signaling weakness, provoke them. You don't decide whether you can walk away, they do--unless you have the means to enforce your decision.

Amen:) to that.

[Jim Buescher]

"Be aware of your surroundings"....sound advice, but kinda' hard sometimes when your eye is glued to a viewfinder and your entire mental capacity is focused on capturing an image of that rare neotropical migrant twenty feet in front of you:) As for insurance and handguns, I guess the familiar adage that " It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" would apply here (I suppose the handgun can also be used to protect yourself in the unlikely but possible encounter with a rabid, injured or aggressive animal). It all comes down to personal choices; what you're comfortable with and what risks you're willing to take...just be prepared.

[Gene Potter]

I would be very surprised about any change in law about carrying weapons in a federal park. I hope you’re not referring to the Supreme Court ruling about owning a hand gun in Washington DC. It’s still against the law to carry a weapon there. Besides that, I hope you are very capable with your pistol Nancy. There’s a big difference between punching holes in a target at the range and drawing down on a real person, even if you are danger. Statistically, you’re more likely to do yourself harm than protect yourself. :D

[mariakruse]

It's not that the gangs and smugglers are interested in photos. They're interested in intimidation and macho posturing. They like hurting people and they enjoy frightening people. Theft is just the excuse. Nasty creatures. And if you stumble into an area used by those who don't want to be see, well...
There are so many wonderful places to take photos here in New Mexico I really resent those creatures who make it unsafe for us to do so.
Anyway, in groups or along well travelled trails it's mostly all right. And most places really are quite safe. Prolly no worse out here than in some large inner cities. Oakland at night scared me to death.
take care and have fun shooting
m

[Jim Buescher]

I would be very surprised about any change in law about carrying weapons in a federal park.

If you live in a state that allows concealed carry (Florida does) and you have a permit, it is legal to carry it in a national park in that state and other states that have a reciprocity agreement with your state. It became law early this year. A responsible gun owner like Nancy would know this.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . Statistically, you’re more likely to do yourself harm than protect yourself. :D

Gene,

Do you have a source for your opinion? There are some, though the methodologies are flawed because they include injuries to criminals. My source, Dr. Gary Kleck of the Florida State University College of Criminology, has shown that resisting a crime reduces the chance of injury compared to non-resistance, and that resisting with a firearm produces the least chance of injury:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publication...aspx?id=208339

Of course, we can guess that the 27,000+ crimes analyzed by Kleck mostly occurred in urban and suburban areas, where the risk of discovery or the arrival of outside help are higher, and where criminals would be more likely to grab your property and run. In the remote locations under discussion here, a criminal's risk of discovery would be far lower, which might make the risk of injury to the victim even higher ("Aintry? . . . You done taken a wrong turn somewhere. This-here river don't go nowhere near Aintry.")

[gary rouleau]

Cliff, I'm the last person you would want to piss off in the woods. I would never show weakness nor eagerness to hand over anything. I was raised in northern Canada and fighting in my town was a way of life. If someone pulls a gun they have only one of two things in mind, either robbing you or killing you for the fun it. Dr. Gary Kleck is right the cowboy days are over, gun vs gun doesn't work.

Cheers
gary

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . Dr. Gary Kleck is right the cowboy days are over, gun vs gun doesn't work. . . .

Gary,

I think you didn't understand Kleck's finding, which is that your best chance of avoiding injury if attacked by a criminal is pulling a gun. Next best is resisting with other weapons or without a weapon. The worst approach is not to resist. So to paraphrase your words, it's an armed victim that produces the best results for the victim, a disarmed and passive victim that produces the best results for the criminal.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Cliff I'm speaking from personal experience, being help up at gun point. Your best option for coming out alive is NOT RESISITNG. You do what you are told and hope for the best.

The local police would give talks on what to do and how to help yourself. The best way to keep from being in the situation is awareness of your surroundings. Carrying a gun is an option but will not a very good one. If confronted its unlikely you will have a chance to use it, even if you are vigilant.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Gary,

I think you didn't understand Kleck's finding, which is that your best chance of avoiding injury if attacked by a criminal is pulling a gun. Next best is resisting with other weapons or without a weapon. The worst approach is not to resist. So to paraphrase your words, it's an armed victim that produces the best results for the victim, a disarmed and passive victim that produces the best results for the criminal.

Exactly Cliff! Also, it is much easier for a fit man to give resistance by hand than myself, 5' 5" and 120#. I would NEVER just give in to a possible rape!! Which is what I would have to think as a possibility as a woman, besides equipment.

[Gus Cobos]

A good insurance policy is the best way to go...cameras, lenses and equipment come and go; not you...:cool:

[Cliff Beittel]

Hi Cliff I'm speaking from personal experience, being help up at gun point. Your best option for coming out alive is NOT RESISITNG. You do what you are told and hope for the best.

The local police would give talks on what to do and how to help yourself. The best way to keep from being in the situation is awareness of your surroundings. Carrying a gun is an option but will not a very good one. If confronted its unlikely you will have a chance to use it, even if you are vigilant.

Al,

Your personal experience, as important as it was to you, would count as only one of the 17,000+ cases Kleck studied. Likewise the experience of a friend of mine who shot two home invaders and saved his 10-year old daughter's life, as the judge ruled he did, by itself proves nothing. But if you study a huge number of such cases, as Kleck did, and find that one choice on average works best, then statistically that is the best approach.

I certainly agree with the need to be aware, but I'm not sure why you think a vigilant victim wouldn't get to use a gun. People do so successfully all the time. A jeweler in our area did it just the other day. While under gunpoint from one perp, the second perp started putting plastic restraints on the customers (not a good sign). A customer resisted, the jeweler grabbed his own gun and fired at the perp with the gun. Both perps ran, but a suspect was later found wounded along a highway south of here. Much of the time, just showing a weapon is enough to make a perp look elsewhere.

[Gene Potter]

Jim & Nacy, Before you take your weapon into a federal park, read hear. If they changed it, it's not nps.gov.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2004&TYPE=TEXT

[Roman Kurywczak]

OK......I'll chime in......as a person who has spent over 1000 days in the NP's......crime....besides theft...is not high on my list.....(do take into account that I am from NJ and 6' tall and 250lbs).....that being said Gene....I have no probelm with Nancy carrying.....although I do agree with Al that more than likely....someone isn't going to announce their intentions.....but I do hope Nancy feels that she can take care of the situation before it escalates and have no problem with her choice as a woman!.....I would recommend it to every woman traveling alone.......let the NPS give her/them crap after the fact if she defends herself!!!....I hope it never comes to that choice!....
.....and for Cliff.....the NP's are not hotbeds of crime like NJ or Florida.....how would you know/asses...that the person in the backcountry is looking to harm you?......again....devils advocate as someone who has spents 1000's of days out there......Do you think they are going to announce themselves?.....best to have the insurance....and let them take it!..even at my size.....my equipment isn't worth my life......mark the serial #'s.....etch the equip.....but let them have it!.....not the same situation as we have in urban areas....my 2 cents.

[Gene Potter]

It's a bit dated, but hear you go...
"research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder."(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

Beware of the power of the NRA types. 99% of the stuff on the internet is pro-gun generated, backed by big money.

[Gene Potter]

Glade you chimed in Roman! All I'm saying is Nancy is more likely to bring harm to herself by try to defend herself. Your right... your not likely to see it comming when it happens. The best defense is to stay vigilant, travel in groups and stay out of areas that pose risk. And, I don't think the NP's are those areas.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . and for Cliff . . . the NP's are not hotbeds of crime like NJ or Florida . . . how would you know/asses...that the person in the backcountry is looking to harm you? . . .

Roman,

Who said anything about national parks? Not me. If you look at much of the discussion here, and especially in the early posts, it has been about parks on the fringes of civilization (which James called Tweeners), local parks with people drinking and doing drugs, etc. I suspect there are a lot of parks like that. About a year ago I agreed to meet a busload of school kids at a county park here in central PA. While I waited in the parking lot, I was astonished to see two men walking into the underbrush, then one of them sprinting back to his car 30 seconds later, jumping in his car, and peeling out of the lot. A neighbor later told me the parking lot is well known for drug activity.

As far as being on the lookout for trouble, you would look for the same kinds of behavior that would signal possible trouble anywhere--someone who seems nervous, someone who seems high or mentally unbalanced, someone who appears to be watching you or who has an inordinate interest in your activities, and especially groups of young men who fit in those or similar categories. I suspect most people intuitively know what to look for. The two women shot on the Appalachian trail near my home town in 1988 certainly suspected trouble when they encountered a "mountain man" who looked right out of Deliverance. But the shooting didn't occur until half a day later and at a different campsite.

[Charles Glatzer]

Suffice to say...I have faith in my abilities to act accordingly as trained and practiced should the need arise to protect myself, family member, or another in the unlikely attempt of sexual assault or fear of imminent death.

Respectfully,

Chas

[Roman Kurywczak]

[quote=Cliff Beittel;364009]Roman,

Who said anything about national parks? Not me. If you look at much of the discussion here, and especially in the early posts, it has been about parks on the fringes of civilization (which James called Tweeners), local parks with people drinking and doing drugs, etc.
I disagree...the OP said "backcountry"....that isn't a local park..at least not in NJ ...but if I did go off track.....fringe park...so be it.....last time I checked.....bad guys don't announce themselves in fringe parks.....home invasion is another story.....and that wasn't part of the OP discussion.
BTW....I go into NYC many times.....with my equip....unarmed....over 20 years.....no incidents.....is it my size?....maybe......not sure this was what the OP was about. BTW... pane #5 mentions NP and pane #10...by Marina....mentions safety by a woman.

[Joerg Rockenberger]

Even if the study Cliff is referring to is not paid/sponsored/inspired by the NRA it shows a serious omission if it tries to establish the advantage of carrying weapons for the benefit of individuals and society in general. Namely, the cost side - as to what's the cost of having many people being injured or killed in accidents involving guns used by others (Dick Cheney?) or themselves. Not to forget that the ready availability of guns in the US might actually further violent crimes to be attempted and committed in the first place...

Is the cost of having innocent people injured/killed worth the ability to be able to deal as an individual with presumably guilty ones? Keep in mind that you, the gun carrier, might find out the hard way that your assumption about the situation you might find yourself in might be wrong - e.g. like the gentlemen last(?) week who shot his wife in the middle of the night assuming she was an intruder. Let's assume for the moment that he was not looking for a speedy divorce...

Not an easy question to answer and if a case is being made for the benefit then it should include also a cost analysis.

And yes, I support the right of each individual, women and men, to defend themselves, even violently, against bodily harm and death. But camera equipment is not worth the pain you might inflict on yourself, your family or even your attackers' family.

That being said I've been wondering about the risk I am facing in the field with several $1000s of equipment with me. Frankly, I am convinced that it will be only a question of time until some "smart" folks figure us out as easy targets. Perhaps this is already the case in some areas here in the US.

JR

[Roman Kurywczak]

Gene,
I just read your response....while philosophically I agree with you....being a Jersey boy my entire life.....I feel for Nancy and other women....shouldn't be afraid to travel alone....and if the gun brings you piece of mind.......I'm all for it! The reality is that women are intimidated or harassed on far too many occasions.....in those instances when they can confront a would be attacker.....I support it!......it is the great equalizer. We can debate the effectiveness all we want.....but I will not tell a solo traveling woman not to carry one. Would we tell a single traveling man the same thing?

[Joerg Rockenberger]

..., it has been about parks on the fringes of civilization (which James called Tweeners), local parks with people drinking and doing drugs, etc. I suspect there are a lot of parks like that...

As far as being on the lookout for trouble, you would look for the same kinds of behavior that would signal possible trouble anywhere--someone who seems nervous, someone who seems high or mentally unbalanced, someone who appears to be watching you or who has an inordinate interest in your activities, and especially groups of young men who fit in those or similar categories. I suspect most people intuitively know what to look for.

LOL. We don't know where you're from but please don't come to downtown San Francisco. Or Oakland. Or any other major city where people of various backgrounds and economics tend to congregate. We might read about you "cleaning" up guns blazing...

And no, I don't appreciate being approached by homeless people or druggies for money or a ride. But in the big picture, it doesn't matter. More often than not, those folks are a mirror image of what everyone here turned out to be.

JR

[Su Meng]

Never take photo in zonas pocos pobladas alone but with your friends.

[Jim Buescher]

Jim & Nacy, Before you take your weapon into a federal park, read hear. If they changed it, it's not nps.gov.

Just to clarify. The law was passed in May but won't take effect until February. This gives the NPS time to change their printed regulations, train staff, take down signs etc.. BTW, I don't have a CCW and I don't carry a gun. Never said I did.

I didn't intend for this thread to become a gun debate, (let's leave that to other forums on other sites) I just wanted to know if people felt safe carrying their expensive gear to areas that most nature photographers frequent and what measures they took if they didn't feel safe. I respect everyones opinion, as we all should. People have made a decision to protect themselves and/or their equipment as they feel is best for them. There is no right answer, every situation is going to be different and it is up to us to react to a confrontation as we see fit - I wouldn't be in any hurry to hand over my gear to a 130 lb. drunk kid verbally threatening me, but I might give it to a 130 lb. masked gunman! I still feel pretty safe in the areas that I usually go to but I haven't become complacent.. none of us should. This is a subject we should think about but not worry about. Let's all enjoy the natural beauty out there and the passion we have for capturing it with all that expensive equipment.:)

[Arthur Morris]

Suffice to say...I have faith in my abilities to act accordingly as trained and practiced should the need arise to protect myself, family member, or another in the unlikely attempt of sexual assault or fear of imminent death. Respectfully, Chas

Hey Chas, I re-read everything above and could not find any mention that you own/carry a gun. Thus, I am confused by your comments immediately above. Please clarify.

[Arthur Morris]

I have sort of been amazed while reading this interesting thread. I have been doing this for 26+ years, have rarely even thought of the possibility of theft in the field, do not own or carry a gun, never thought of doing either, and have never heard of anyone in North America being robbed of their equipment while photographing. One of the original questions here went something like this: Has anyone ever been robbed of their gear while in the field? As far as I can tell, the answer is nobody...

I would suggest staying out of Venezuela and Guatamala though.

[Cliff Beittel]

. . . the OP said "backcountry"....that isn't a local park..at least not in NJ ...but if I did go off track.....fringe park...so be it.....last time I checked.....bad guys don't announce themselves in fringe parks.....home invasion is another story.....and that wasn't part of the OP discussion.
BTW....I go into NYC many times.....with my equip....unarmed....over 20 years.....no incidents

Roman,

Yes, the original poster said "backcountry," but that isn't the same thing as "national park." Not all parts of national parks would be classified as backcountry, and many areas of backcountry, like national forests, aren't national parks and are probably more dangerous (marijuana plantations, etc.). Also, you selectively quoted the original post. The full context of "backcountry" was this: "whether it's into the backcountry, a local park or maybe the city streets after dark." National parks were a later addition by someone else.

Of course bad guys don't announce themselves--anywhere. What is your point? Criminals always have the advantage in getting to initiate violence (the initiation of violence or the threat of violence is the very definition of what crime is). That doesn't mean that intended victims can't respond successfully, whether in a park or on a city street. It happens all the time. And yes, of course people who don't live in high-crime areas can go long periods of time without being a victim. But let me turn your question around. Not only do criminals not announce themselves, they also don't announce in advance how their crime will end. Even if they say "hand over your equipment and you won't be hurt," there's no way to know they aren't lying. As I said before, and which poster after poster has ignored, the decision to hand over your gear, walk away, and collect the insurance money isn't yours if you don't have the means to resist; your assailant determines whether you walk away or not.

A word about gun and crime statistics. We all know statistics can be used to mislead. We see it all the time in every field. Linus Pauling's theory that high doses of Vitamin C would prevent clogged arteries was dismissed by some after a study using very low doses of Vitamin C failed to show any benefit. From what I've seen, anti-gun people are at least as likely to use bogus statistics as any other advocacy group. For example, the famous Kellerman studies cited above claimed that keeping a gun in the home was strongly associated with a ligher risk of homicide. Yet Kellerman didn't even bother to look at whether the homicides in his study were committed with a gun kept in the home. In fact, in only a tiny percentage of the cases could it be established that they had. Moreover, in his first study, Kellerman included suicides, which made up the bulk of his "homicides." Yet we know that suicides in countries like Japan, where there is almost no private gun ownership, can be up to several times higher than in the U.S. Kellerman also studied only a three-county area, mostly urban, with high crime rates. Gun ownership tends to be low in such areas except among one group: criminals. And indeed, the homicide victims in Kellerman's study had significant histories of arrests, drug use, and family violence, and were not representative of the U.S. population as a whole. I won't pretend to have studied Kellerman's methods closely, but then neither have 99% of those who quote him. I do know that in our area, as apparently in Kellerman's study, homicides and crime are closely associated with drug transactions and gang activities, not with firearms ownership per se, which is widespread. I also know that gun ownership has risen significantly in the U.S. in recent decades as state after state has allowed concealed carry, and that violent crime has declined significantly over that same period.

[Arthur Morris]

Hey Cliff, I am curious; do you own a gun and carry it in the field while photographing?

[Nancy A Elwood]

Holstering a 229, 239, or 232 depending on clothing, etc

The first rule is to be situationally aware of your surroundings at all times, and avoid or diffuse confrontation as much as possible.

Chas

Artie, from above by Chas. 229, 239 and 232 are models of Sig handguns.

[Charles Glatzer]

Hey Chas, I re-read everything above and could not find any mention that you own/carry a gun. Thus, I am confused by your comments immediately above. Please clarify.

Hey Artie,

9th post from the top.

"Holstering a 229, 239, or 232 depending on clothing, etc The first rule is to be situationally aware of your surroundings at all times, and avoid or diffuse confrontation as much as possible."

Chas