Why does printing matter?

[Howland937]

Fun fact...if you want to call it that.
On a recent trip to take my S.O. to a specialty hospital clinic 4 hours from home, I called ahead to verify their policy on concealed handgun carrying as it wasn't posted on their website. Was informed to simply arrive, kindly approach the first uniformed P.O. I encountered and explain that I was legally carrying a concealed handgun. They will then escort me to a police post to check in my firearm and put it in a lockbox. Had my SIG UC .45 in Desantis IWB under a tshirt. Some printing noticeable from grip. I did as required, to which the officer looked me up and down and said "you have a gun on you? Where?" Then everything went on as they'd described. Thought it odd that it wasn't obvious to him where my gun was, especially after he knew I was carrying.

 

[Tallball]

Yes, it matters.

Otherwise we would have to have monks copying books by hand, and that is would be very expensive.

Thank you Johannes Gutenberg!

 

[Styx]

Yes, it matters.

Otherwise we would have to have monks copying books by hand, and that is would be very expensive.

Thank you Johannes Gutenberg!

 

[bdickens]

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.

Thus demonstrating what I've said before: what is legal and what you can get away with are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[entropy]

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

The two are unrelated; Walmart's actions were in response to the shooting incident in El Paso. Do I agree with them? The stopping pistol and certain rifle ammo sales? No. Asking people not to open carry? Sort of, mostly based on the majority of open carriers I see at work have a Hi-point in the $7 Crosman holster with it hanging out and the strap loose or unhooked. Basically it is the same as a sign in that they can ask you to go put it in the car. If you are belligerent about it-we've all seen the video.

 

[herrwalther]

The two are unrelated; Walmart's actions were in response to the shooting incident in El Paso. Do I agree with them? The stopping pistol and certain rifle ammo sales? No. Asking people not to open carry? Sort of, mostly based on the majority of open carriers I see at work have a Hi-point in the $7 Crosman holster with it hanging out and the strap loose or unhooked. Basically it is the same as a sign in that they can ask you to go put it in the car. If you are belligerent about it-we've all seen the video.

I have noticed that as well. People still open carry in my local Wal-Marts and I never see any employees say otherwise despite the new policy.

In any case, we as "gun people" notice more. Someone carrying a gun already is more likely to notice other people carrying a gun, either open or concealed. While printing while concealed is a valid concern, take realistic approaches to mitigate it. There is no reason for a person who wears Large shirts to guy 4X shirts because they are worried about printing.

 

[CDW4ME]

Thus demonstrating what I've said before: what is legal and what you can get away with are not necessarily the same thing.

That is relevant.
Those unconcerned with printing should be consistently lackadaisical; if it (printing) don't matter at the store, then it shouldn't matter at a family reunion or nice restaurant.
"I don't care about printing" should apply equally regardless of location or whether around strangers vs family / friends.

 

[Kleanbore]

In any case, we as "gun people" notice more. Someone carrying a gun already is more likely to notice other people carrying a gun, either open or concealed.

Can you cite an objective source for that?

 

[Howland937]

Can you cite an objective source for that?

Can't verify that statement, but I can verify on a personal level that I've become better at noticing. Whether it's because I try to be observant in general or learned from things I've done myself.

 

[bdickens]

I'm a "gun people," of sorts, and I spend little if any of my time worrying about other people's business. That includes whether or not they are carrying.

 

[herrwalther]

Can you cite an objective source for that?

As you should well know, much of the gun world is anecdotal experiences. When it comes to open carry, there are people who notice and people who do not say anything about noticing. Distinguishing between the 2 is difficult. From my experience, the vast majority of spectators do not notice/do not care about an open carry firearm. I have open carried on the rare occasion. With several instances of people getting well into "bad breath distance" before they even realized I had a firearm. These were all non violent/casual encounters. I am not trying to "make" or find every carried firearm in the building. But I will notice an open firearm faster than a printing concealed firearm.

For a concealed firearm that is "printing" to any degree, but not exposed, more fall into the do not notice category.

 

[Kleanbore]

From my experience, the vast majority of spectators do not notice/do not care about an open carry firearm.

How would you know who notice,s what and who does not?

But I will notice an open firearm faster than a printing concealed firearm.

Good for you.

So, you have no basis for saying that "gun people" notice more.

 

[herrwalther]

How would you know who notice,s what and who does not?

I don't. That is what the word "anecdotal" means.

Good for you.

So, you have no basis for saying that "gun people" notice more.

Feel free to conduct a study if you feel so inclined. The methodology will surely be sloppy as observation is one variable that is difficult to measure. Then you can have your objective source.

 

[Kleanbore]

Feel free to conduct a study if you feel so inclined

I do not see the point. It is you who is making unsubstantiated claims.

The methodology will surely be sloppy as observation is one variable that is difficult to measure.

Why would that be? See Post #108 for a high level design of the experiment. Do you knowhow to execute it?

Then you can have your objective source.

We would have an objective study, but I would not necessarily expect it yo support your off the cuff assertion.

 

[herrwalther]

hat 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.

Not a single thing in this post illustrates external validity outside of a sample.

I do not see the point. It is you who is making unsubstantiated claims.

Anecdote.
: a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident

We would have an objective study, but I would not necessarily expect it yo support your off the cuff assertion.

You already mentioned it would not be worth the effort in 108. So would it be objective? No. Not if the time and external validity are not applied. If you are feeling argumentative and want to argue semantics I am not interested in your feigned objectivity.

 

[Kleanbore]

Not a single thing in this post illustrates external validity outside of a sample.

Nor was it intended.

Anecdote.: a usually short narrative of an interesting, amusing, or biographical incident

What are you talking about?

You already mentioned it would not be worth the effort in 108.

I did indeed

What would one do with the answer?.

So would it be objective?

It certainly could be.

No. Not if the time and external validity are not applied.

How would one apply "external validity"?

You made a statement for the purpose of making some kind of a point. You apparently have no objective basis for the statement. It is therefore meaningless.

 

[entropy]

Can you cite an objective source for that?

I for one, was taught by my father, a cop, as soon as he thought I was old enough to not go "HEY DAD, THERE'S A GUY WITH A GUN!" He figured that two sets of eyes were better than one.

Kleanbore, think of it this way; When you buy a white Ford pickup, you all of a sudden notice a lot more white Ford pickups on the road. Did there all of a sudden happen to be more white Ford trucks on the road? Of course not. Your awareness of them increased. Same can apply toward concealed carriers noticing it more than the general population.

Btw, yes, I drive a white Ford truck.

 

[herrwalther]

Nor was it intended.

Then your "experiement" would not be objective.

What are you talking about?

You claim I made an assumption when I was talking about anecdotes. If you are still confused by what an anecdote is outside the definition, I have no means to help you further.

I did indeed

What would one do with the answer?.

You tell me. You are the one looking for objectivity here.

How would one apply "external validity"?

It is your "experiment." That is up for you to find out.

You made a statement for the purpose of making some kind of a point. You apparently have no objective basis for the statement. It is therefore meaningless.

This entire line of thinking is flawed and an assumption based on your personal biases. The venture into meaningless was all your doing.

 

[Kleanbore]

think of it this way; When you buy a white Ford pickup, you all of a sudden notice a lot more withe Ford pickups

Yes.

That might tend to indicate that some concealed carriers may tend to notice concealed carriers--for a time.

I didn't.

The legalization of concealed carry here may have cause others to be more alert, too--for a time.

One cannot say that "gun people" are more apt to notice concealed carrierr than police officers, store security people, police officers, or anti-gun people.

 

[C0untZer0]

 

[Kleanbore]

Then your "experiement" would not be objective.

That makes no sense.

You claim I made an assumption when I was talking about anecdotes

What assumption might that have been?

If you are still confused by what an anecdote is outside the definition, I have no means to help you further.

I know perfectly well what an anecdote is. I simply do not understand what you are trying to say.

It is your "experiment." That is up for you to find out.

What are you trying to say?

s entire line of thinking is flawed and an assumption based on your personal biases

What "personal biases"?

The venture into meaningless was all your doing.

I asked your basis for a statement that you made.

 

[herrwalther]

What are you trying to say?

An experiment that does not meet the criteria for repeatable results, internal/external validity etc is a waste of time. And proves nothing. Since you do not care your "experiment" from 108 includes these then it is not an objective result. When a person designs an experiment, study, survey etc it is up to the author to ensure the measured results will have validity. If you are confused, take Statistics 101 again or for the first time. I don't have the desire to walk you through it for the rest of the night.

 

[Styx]

Yawn...

 

[Kleanbore]

An experiment that does not meet the criteria for repeatable results, internal/external validity etc is a waste of time. And proves nothing.

True indeed.

Since you do not care your "experiment" from 108 includes these then it is not an objective result.

The fact that I do not think that such a study would worth the effort (and others may reasonably disagree) has nothing to do with how thew experiment should be designed, it it were thought to be necessary to proceed with it.

When a person designs an experiment, study, survey etc it is up to the author to ensure the measured results will have validity

Yeah....

If you are confused, take Statistics 101 again or for the first time. I don't have the desire to walk you through it for the rest of the night.

I made a good living in that field.

Are you still confident in asserting "In any case, we as "gun people" notice more. Someone carrying a gun already is more likely to notice other people carrying a gun, either open or concealed"? I asked for your source for that.

I know of two instances in which my carrying concealed was noticed. Neither was by a "gun person".

I do not recall ever noticing someone who was carrying concealed.

Moderator hat on: Reread Rule #4 in the Code of Conduct to which you agreed, and comply with it.

 

[JohnKSa]

And after doing some cleanup work, I'm going to close this disaster in spite of the temptation to leave it open and to see just how ridiculous it can get.