Why does printing matter?

[entropy]

And if they identify you as carrying, they can nullify the threat (to them.) Some criminals might leave and choose other victims, some might not. I'd rather not bet my life on what's going through anyone's mind. I do enough of that already on the freeway.

Criminals like easy victims. They tend to avoid people that can fight back.

Some. Not all.

A certain type of garment isn't called a "shoot me first" vest for nothing.

 

[Old Dog]

And if they identify you as carrying, they can nullify the threat (to them.) Some criminals might leave and choose other victims, some might not. I'd rather not bet my life on what's going through anyone's mind. I do enough of that already on the freeway.

Some. Not all.

A certain type of garment isn't called a "shoot me first" vest for nothing.

I had just done a tactical retreat from this thread as it was devolving into getting bogged down in semantics, but I really, really want to see documentation of a concealed handgun carrier wearing a safari/photographer's (whatever you want to call them these days) vest who was shot by a criminal at the beginning of some type of criminal action(s).

 

[entropy]

Well, photographers in war zones get shot wearing them....
Seriously, there probably hasn't been. But everybody knows that they are used for CCW. It defeats the purpose of concealed carry.

 

[Kleanbore]

Your "proof" wasn't a criminal. I want to hear proof that criminals worry about such things as trying to see someone's firearm printing. And then I want to see proof that if a criminal saw you printing, they'd then shoot you first as opposed to just leaving.

That request is utterly ridiculous, for several reasons.

And then I want to see proof that if a criminal saw you printing, they'd then shoot you first as opposed to just leaving.

also ridiculous ,and of course that is not the only risk.

Another risk is that a person my be mugged for the gun, or be asked to leave private property, or alarm someone, or create a poor impression on someone whose favor may be needed, or start a ripple that starts the process of causing the area to be posted or the process of anti-gun legislation. How lilely? Maybe not very, but why risk it?

Look: in developing a pharmaceutical preparation or an herbicide, or designing a bridge, or testing an airplane, we do not base our approval on an absence of knowledge or observation, we prove that failure will not occur. You are tying to prove a negative. That cannot be sone. It''s basic logic.

Criminals like easy victims. They tend to avoid people that can fight back.

I've heard that too , and I believe it to be generally true, but I would never bet my safety on it.

I really, really want to see documentation of a concealed handgun carrier wearing a safari/photographer's (whatever you want to call them these days) vest who was shot by a criminal at the beginning of some type of criminal action(s).

Why????

What would you do with that?

What does your not seeing it mean to you?

 

[Mr. Mosin]

Sounds good, but if you are stopped, that is not the time to try such stuff.

My source: Attorney Andrew Branca

Exactly. Comply first - sue second. AFTER you've made it out unscathed- especially with all of today's trigger happy LEO's. You get into a gunfight with a cop, regardless of whether you were in the wrong or the right- the hammer of the law is fixing to smash you flat, in full, overwhelming force.

 

[Koroner]

Well that's life,.. nobody gets out alive.

I would simply tell Mae West that I was just glad to see her.

I often carry in a fanny pack that allows quick access, makes people think that I'm gay, and frees me of printing concerns.

 

[jimbo555]

Most of the time it's easier to spot the criminal types before they can spot my concealed firearm!

 

[Kleanbore]

Most of the time it's easier to spot the criminal types before they can spot my concealed firearm!

That could be.

But you do not know that.

We would have to conduct two scientific experiments, each with a control group.

On would assess how many "criminal types" are spotted, how many are not, and how many false positives are recorded.

The other would measure how many concealed weapons are spotted, how many are not, and how many false positives are recorded.

Would it be worth the effort? I think not.

But the answers would be a lot more credible than unsupported opinions.

 

[jimbo555]

That could be.

But you do not know that.

We would have to conduct two scientific experiments, each with a control group.

On would assess how many "criminal types" are spotted, how many are not, and how many false positives are recorded.

The other would measure how many concealed weapons are spotted, how many are not, and how many false positives are recorded.

Would it be worth the effort? I think not.

But the answers would be a lot more credible than unsupported opinions.

The entire notion that criminals are looking for printed concealed firearms is "unsupported opinions"!

 

[Kleanbore]

The entire notion that criminals are looking for printed concealed firearms is "unsupported opinions"!

We do not know how many criminals may be "looking for printed concealed firearms", but we do have evidence that criminals are very concerned about the risk of encountering armed citizens, and it would certainly stand to reason that they would tend to be cautious about them. It would not make sense to assume otherwise.

 

[Speedo66]

Most of the time it's easier to spot the criminal types before they can spot my concealed firearm!

Sometimes that 100%, no doubt about it criminal type is an undercover officer. Best not to make assumptions.

 

[Old Dog]

Why????

What would you do with that?

What does your not seeing it mean to you?

Why? Because it's almost silly how often some folks repeat these silly themes such as someone who's wearing a vest must be concealing a handgun, therefore, when a bad actor intent on committing a bad act sees that person, he will shoot the vest-wearer first. I responded to this statement:

A certain type of garment isn't called a "shoot me first" vest for nothing.

by asking for documentation that some vest-wearer, somewhere, even once, has been taken out first by the bad guy simply because he was wearing that vest. Until I hear of a case, I shall ask that people quit using the term, "shoot me first vest."

But everybody knows that they are used for CCW. It defeats the purpose of concealed carry.

"Everybody knows." That was a great Leonard Cohen song, by the way, but no, not everybody knows that "they're used for CCW." That's the purpose of many comments in this very thread, people who understand that for the most part, the people around us on a daily basis are totally oblivious of the fact that there are folks carrying concealed firearms. Look, if you all want to believe there's an active cadre of criminals out there studying in their little criminal groups teaching each other that photographer's vest means the wearer is packing a gun, have at it.

What would I do with that? I'm asking for examples to back up the common hyperbole that is spread so thick around here sometimes.

What does my not seeing it mean to you? What do you think? It means I'm continue continue wearing this great Cabela's safari vest when I'm out hiking in the mountains, of course ... It's got a lot of pockets, and that's why I wear it.

 

[kidneyboy]

"Everybody knows." That was a great Leonard Cohen song, by the way,

Best comment in this thread so far

 

[kidneyboy]

If you're worried about what other people think then printing matters.

 

[Kleanbore]

Why? Because it's almost silly how often some folks repeat these silly themes such as someone who's wearing a vest must be concealing a handgun, therefore, when a bad actor intent on committing a bad act sees that person, he will shoot the vest-wearer first. I responded to this statement [deleted] by asking for documentation that some vest-wearer, somewhere, even once, has been taken out first by the bad guy simply because he was wearing that vest.

Yes, you did. The question was "why".

Until I hear of a case, I shall ask that people quit using the term, "shoot me first vest."

You may ask, but I do not know that anyone would honor your request.

I'm asking for examples to back up the common hyperbole that is spread so thick around here sometimes.

You have made that clear.

It means I'm continue continue wearing this great Cabela's safari vest when I'm out hiking in the mountains, of course ... It's got a lot of pockets, and that's why I wear it.

Do as you like.

I would not advise against it. It sounds like a good idea to me.

But do not ever base any course of action on the conclusion that, because you have not heard of something, something does not exist. One cannot prove a negative.

In a prior life, I used to hear the argument "I have never heard of anyone being charged with...." from executives, who later learned the hard way

It would have been rewarding to be permitted to say "I told you so", but of course it din't really need to be said.

 

[Kleanbore]

And if they identify you as carrying, they can nullify the threat (to them.) Some criminals might leave and choose other victims, some might not. I'd rather not bet my life on what's going through anyone's mind.

Some of the recent videos on Attorney Andrew Branca's Law of Self Defense Blog, and some here in ST&T, show how trying to predict the actions of, or reason with, an "Emotionally Disturbed Person", a can be a fruitless and dangerous exercise.

How about assailants who are in possession of their faculties?

One might reasonably assume that if they can, they will pass by the armed citizen, printing or carrying openly, and select another victim.

When might that assumption not be valid?

One possibility: one accomplice has already initiated the crime, and the other cannot stop it.

Another: desperation--they are fugitives who must have your car and your money now, to continue their flight.

Or simply if they perceive that the reward outweighs the risk.

The stakes make the guessing game a very serious one.

 

[entropy]

. Look, if you all want to believe there's an active cadre of criminals out there studying in their little criminal groups teaching each other that photographer's vest means the wearer is packing a gun, have at it.

Some people call it prison; if you don't believe they don't 'study up' there, ask some of the Corrections Officers here.

 

[Old Dog]

Some people call it prison; if you don't believe they don't 'study up' there, ask some of the Corrections Officers here.

See my earlier post (#69) for my response to that particular notion.

The thoughtful, successful (not behind bars) criminals quite probably do at least a modicum of planning for future criminal activity. Most of that, though, is crime of the white-collar variety, not involving violence. Prisoners don't sit around in their living units or cells in study groups plotting their crimes for their post-incarceration life. Many do, however, plot crimes to "improve" their lot while they're incarcerated.

Clearly, there's a danger when emotionally disturbed individuals are about, and we absolutely don't want one of them detecting our carry handgun. Nor would we want the team of armed bank robbers noticing us standing in the teller's line with our Glock 17 creating a huge bulge under our shirt.

I've never stated there was no risk involved with regard to printing, inadvertent or otherwise, nor am I an advocate of open carry. I'm always trying to help people learn more effective methods of concealment to avoid printing. But there's a certain amount of hysteria about this issue, almost some paranoia, and I'm seeing more than a little hyperbole surrounding this issue.

 

[CDW4ME]

Its not difficult to conceal a "decent" pistol and avoid obvious printing: loose fit, pattern, stripe, plaid, help break slight bulges.

Glock 19/23 strong side IWB:



Glock 21SF AIWB (its there)

 

[Kleanbore]

Its not difficult to conceal a "decent" pistol and avoid obvious printing: loose fit, pattern, stripe, plaid, help break slight bulges.

Yep.

Works for me.

 

[daniel craig]

It matters in my state because there are a lot of anti-gun people and the last thing you want is someone giving you a hard time or unnecessarily freaking out. On that note, given the number of people not into guns here, regardless of my opinion about guns, printing or displaying in my opinion is quite rude. It’s ASKING people to get freaked out and low key trying to start something. You know that saying ‘if you don’t start nothing there won’t be nothing’ that’s how I play it.

Plus the entire point of carrying concealed as that you don't want people to know you have a gun for whatever the reason is, and for me, it’s blending in. When you stand out, whether it’s hair style, dress, mannerisms or gun printing you make yourself a target, or at the very least you draw attention to to yourself more than others would. I go through life with the adage that drawing attention to yourself rarely works in your favor.

 

[wagonburner]

The entire notion that criminals are looking for printed concealed firearms is "unsupported opinions"!

Indeed, the same as criminals are looking for people flashing money. Nobody has ever been robbed after flashing money right?.

Criminals are not on the lookout for money, jewelry or guns. They want to rob people who don’t have anything of value.

 

[The Exile]

Some people see those who are uncomfortable around firearms for whatever reason as "the enemy", so they could not care any less about being polite. Other believe that they're going to beat others into submission by trying to force them to be around firearms. Both groups believe having the right to do something means it's okay to be inconsiderate, inappropriate, rude, etc by exercising the right whenever and wherever ever they personally feel like it, and to hell with everyone else.

The last group are the ones who believe no one will ever notice the gun shaped outline protruding from the inside of a shirt. Even if someone does notice, they'll assume Apple came out with a new handgun shaped iPhone, and will go on about their day...

Now that reminds me of a video of a guy trying open carry an AK into a police station.. because it wasn't illegal. I believe those were roughly his words actually after thirty seconds of getting screamed at with a gun pointed at his face at which point he *very reluctantly* laid his gun down and got on his belly.

 

[Styx]

Now that reminds me of a video of a guy trying open carry an AK into a police station.. because it wasn't illegal. I believe those were roughly his words actually after thirty seconds of getting screamed at with a gun pointed at his face at which point he *very reluctantly* laid his gun down and got on his belly.

Or the guys who Open Carried into Chipotle which cause Chipotle, Starbucks, Panera Bread, Chili's, Target, and a few others to ban it in their stores nationwide. Then the idiot who carried into Wal-Mart which prompted Wal-Mart (and later Kroger) who was already under pressure, to ban ammo sales and to ask customers not open carry in their stores (he was charged with a crime for doing so by the way even though it was legal, he took a plea deal). Then there are a PLETHORA of other stories I've heard over the years where the stubborn open carry types who are open carrying into inappropriate places because "it's legal" have caused problems and prompted a backslash that affects the rest of us nationwide... most of these businesses were formerly neutral on the Gun debate and went by state law until these people decided to disrupt their business, cause problems, and scare customers because "it's legal."

 

[Styx]

Indeed, the same as criminals are looking for people flashing money. Nobody has ever been robbed after flashing money right?.

Criminals are not on the lookout for money, jewelry or guns. They want to rob people who don’t have anything of value.

Criminals rob other criminals. Drug dealers rob other drug dealers. People are targeting and shooting cops. There have been stories about ArmsList robberies, and a gun owners being robbed after leaving the shooting range and gun shows. What makes these people have the false sense of security that it will not happen to them, and a gun displayed their hip is like kryptonite to criminals is beyond my comprehension.

Then there's the story of the conceal carrier who was robbed for is firearm in Wal-Mart. If I remember correctly, the conceal carrier very briefly flashed the grip of his gun, and the felon followed him into the bathroom where he, while unarmed, assaulted the conceal carrier, and ran off with his weapon.

Then there's the conceal carrier who was tackled by another customer inside Wal-Mart after the other customer saw the 62 year old conceal carrier "grabbed his handgun from his car and slipped it into a hip holster underneath his coat." The Wal-Mart shopper who tackled the man was inside the store when he seen this.

The victim, a 37-year-old Hampton man, told police he was robbed as he walked across Jefferson Avenue to the lot at the Windsor House after visiting a friend at the Travelers Inn. He was wearing his handgun in a holster, open carry, on his hip, Eley said.

https://www.dailypress.com/news/crime/dp-man-open-carry-gun-hip-robbed-newport-news-story.html

The above robbery of an OC'er happened a few years back just 35 minutes away from me in Newport News, VA...

Tyler, 48, had a concealed-carry permit, but his handgun was plainly visible that night in his holster, Johnson said.

"The suspects walk in and one immediately reached for Mr. Tyler's gun," Johnson said. Tyler did not draw his weapon.

According to court papers, Smith took Tyler's gun during a struggle and shot Tyler in the chest after the victim chased Smith inside the store. Authorities said they could not confirm that Tyler was killed with his own gun until they get the results of forensics testing. They also are awaiting test results to show whether the gun used to kill Tyler was the one used to shoot Cosby.

https://www.richmond.com/news/teen-...cle_970e24e7-dd5d-57e7-8fb8-a64a0a2b26ba.html

I remember the above story when it was first reported. This happened in Richmond, VA which is the same city the gun rally just took place. The man who had a CCW permit decided to open carry, he was targeted because of it, and was killed with his own gun.

There have been story, after story, after story that I've heard over the years not even including people who have had the police called on them, yet the naysayers still insist that no one notices anything, no criminal would DARE try to rob someone who's OC'ing or printing, and OC'ing will forced others to become firearm friendly....

There's just more risk, problems, and unnecessary drama that comes with printing and open carry whether the ones who choose to want to accept that reality or not...