Firearms and weapons in general used as photographic props.

[I @ M]

To any member that is considering using any firearm or any form of weapon in general as a photographic prop please do some research regarding the legality of ownership and usage of those items in your state of residence.
We have radically differing legislation between states in Australia as to what is considered a "real" firearm, a replica firearm, a controlled weapon and a prohibited weapon.
It appears that some items that are perfectly acceptable to be owned and used in some states have the potential to land you in jail in other states.
If you want to pose someone with firearms or weapons and publish the images on the 'net please make sure first that you and / or the subject posing with them has the appropriate license, permit or exemption to possess, carry or use those items.

[livio]

Hi Andrew thanks for the advice, I'd generally give weapons the big miss but I'm curious has something like ever really come up or is this in the same vein as OHS where potential dangers are treated as though they have happened even though there is no recorded incident. Still this is good advice and the underlying point of issue is to be aware of your state laws they do differ State to State and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Kind Regard
Livio

[ricktas]

Livio...here is the other thread that explains it all a bit more : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...ographic-props

[livio]

Arghh!!, Thanks Rick, I followed the link and I now see where this was coming from, alas we are indeed becoming the nanny state, The compliance industry is hard at work over regulating everything we do, soon we will find it hard to take any photo without having release forms in triplicate, state permits for the mountains we photograph and a national permit to photograph the sky as for bugs and sports that will be deemed to dangerous oh what a wonderful world. . On a more serious note though I would not have given this any consideration at all unless someone took the time to mention it, we may not agree with, or get frustrated by the level of regulation introduced by governments but thanks to forums like these we get to hear about them.

Kind Regards
Livio

[Jakbob]

Hmmm... Maybe not the point of the thread, but I have a firearms license, and I practiced some macro photography once using some bullets as the subject, but I wasn't game to post the photos anywhere other than a shooting forum. Do you think people would have an issue if I was to post something like that on this forum? In my mind there was nothing remotely distasteful about the shots, and its all legal and above board because I'm licensed, but sometimes people can be a bit funny about that sort of stuff.

[I @ M]

Do you think people would have an issue if I was to post something like that on this forum?

AP has an extremely diverse user database.
Some may take offence to an image of piece of steak ( cooked rare ) on a plate because they dislike animal products being used as food.
Others may become upset at an image of motor sport because they feel that all that petroleum product being burned only adds to environmental issues and promotes unsafe driving on the roads.
Yet more members may become upset at image of a brilliant yellow field of canola flowers because they hate the thoughts of genetically modified food sources.

Can't please everyone all the time but in general from what I have seen on AP there has been no howling backlash against images featuring firearms or ammunition, quite the opposite in fact where some extremely well done shots have been lauded very positively.

[Xenedis]

Hmmm... Maybe not the point of the thread, but I have a firearms license, and I practiced some macro photography once using some bullets as the subject, but I wasn't game to post the photos anywhere other than a shooting forum. Do you think people would have an issue if I was to post something like that on this forum? In my mind there was nothing remotely distasteful about the shots, and its all legal and above board because I'm licensed, but sometimes people can be a bit funny about that sort of stuff.

I've posted a few firearms and ammunition images here, and nobody has expressed any displeasaure.

I say go for it.

[Xenedis]

AP has an extremely diverse user database.
Some may take offence to an image of piece of steak ( cooked rare ) on a plate

I would object most vocally.

Steak should be well done, not mooing.

If it's not crunchy, it's a cow.

[ricktas]

I would object most vocally.

Steak should be well done, not mooing.

If it's not crunchy, it's a cow.

I object! Steak should be medium rare.. and kangaroo steak is allowed to have the occasional lead pellet from the gun to make it crunchy (trying to keep on-topic)

[Xenedis]

I object! Steak should be medium rare.. and kangaroo steak is allowed to have the occasional lead pellet from the gun to make it crunchy (trying to keep on-topic)

No wonder kangaroo meat is a bit heavy...

[bobt]

Hmmm... Maybe not the point of the thread, but I have a firearms license, and I practiced some macro photography once using some bullets as the subject, but I wasn't game to post the photos anywhere other than a shooting forum. Do you think people would have an issue if I was to post something like that on this forum? In my mind there was nothing remotely distasteful about the shots, and its all legal and above board because I'm licensed, but sometimes people can be a bit funny about that sort of stuff.

If one were to complain about pictures of firearms simply because they have the potential to kill, then we'd have to ban photos of alcohol, knives or even people if it comes to that!

[Kym]

If its legal post it. Damn the nanny state/cotton wool/PC brigade!

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED - Get over it!!
I really hate the way society and the law is going, free speech and freedom of expression are MUCH more important than so called offensive speech.
My perspective is that of my Dad who survived Nazi Germany, then had to escape the Russians to eventually emigrate here.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (mis-attributed to Voltaire); means you have to tolerate other opinions and expressions.

There are limits, esp. when it comes to violence, eg: Muslims shoud have the right to say that they disagree with the way that Australians live their lives (if that's what they think) but not the right to stir up Muslims to kill Australians. Australians should have the same rights to disagree with some of the Muslim practices (towards women, for example) but not to stir up violence against Muslims.
Australia has one law, and that is not sharia.

That all said, the current trend to legislate 'tolerance' in the form of anti-discrimination laws is heading in the wrong direction because of the legal blow back on basic freedoms.

[Xenedis]

If one were to complain about pictures of firearms simply because they have the potential to kill, then we'd have to ban photos of alcohol, knives or even people if it comes to that!

I have created images of wine, people and cutlery.

I'm personally not worried about what people think of firearms. Firearms aren't problematic; the problem is people misusing them.

The only person who has ever objected to my status as a shooter said she didn't understand why anyone needed to fire a gun.

Well, nobody needs to kick a football either. Nobody needs to collect coins. Nobody needs to go bushwalking. Nobody needs to play a musical instrument.

That person, by the way, had earlier told me that she'd once hit an elderly pedestrian with her car.

Oh, the irony.

At the end of the day, people will like firearms images or they won't. As long as the people photographing or being photographed handling subjects such as firearms are abiding by the law, there is no problem in my book.

[Steve Axford]

And nuclear weapons aren't problematic either, it's just the people who have them. Oh the irony!

[Xenedis]

And nuclear weapons aren't problematic either, it's just the people who have them. Oh the irony!

In Australia, licensed, law-abiding civilian firearms owners use them for sporting purposes (target shooting and hunting), not as weapons.

Unlike the US, self-defence is not a genuine reason for having a firearms licence.

[Steve Axford]

Do you need a licence in the US? I thought that was part of the "slippery slope".

[Xenedis]

Do you need a licence in the US? I thought that was part of the "slippery slope".

I'm not across the licensing/permit systems over there, but as is the case in Australia, gun laws in the US vary from state to state. In some states such as California, firearms laws are very restrictive.

[norwest]

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED - Get over it!!

You actually don't see how the above contradicts the comments below?

I really hate the way society and the law is going, free speech and freedom of expression are MUCH more important than so called offensive speech.
My perspective is that of my Dad who survived Nazi Germany, then had to escape the Russians to eventually emigrate here.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (mis-attributed to Voltaire); means you have to tolerate other opinions and expressions.

Being a country boy and for the record, I've owned and used multiple rifles and shot guns in my time.

[bobt]

If its legal post it. Damn the nanny state/cotton wool/PC brigade!
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED - Get over it!!
There are limits, esp. when it comes to violence, eg: Muslims shoud have the right to say that they disagree with the way that Australians live their lives (if that's what they think) but not the right to stir up Muslims to kill Australians. Australians should have the same rights to disagree with some of the Muslim practices (towards women, for example) but not to stir up violence against Muslims.
Australia has one law, and that is not sharia.

That all said, the current trend to legislate 'tolerance' in the form of anti-discrimination laws is heading in the wrong direction because of the legal blow back on basic freedoms.

I agree to a large extent - although perhaps in a slightly more moderate way. I would not condone deliberately inflammatory "freedom of speech" if the only aim is to get up people's noses. However, I do feel that religious people of whatever faith need to stop assuming that their faith is beyond criticism. If a non believer wants to draw a picture of a "God" or wants to dispute some aspect of a particular faith, then that is just as much their right as the right of others to believe in that faith. This particularly applies in a country such as Australia where (at present) we are entitled to hold different views.

The Internet is another area which is currently threatened by both political correctness and excessive Governmental intervention. It has been a massive step forward in democratic communities, and allows the common individual to be a participant in global affairs. The current trend is to try and limit these freedoms, and we need to be vigilant that freedom of speech isn't a casualty of excessive Governmental control and censorship.

[JanOD]

I have found this conversation to be very interesting and informative. Being a US citizen, you can imagine what I think... lol Be assured, I do abide by the law here, as I did there when I did own guns for self defense, among other reasons.

I have never thought of using a gun as a prop in a photo, but I do know someone who is licensed and owns guns for sport here. I'd love get some photos of her, holding her weapon.... I'll have to look into the laws here though, as I'm not licensed. What a great idea!