Even if your children attended that school, and you didn't know the person?
Aaaaaand here we go with the supplementary qualifiers.
The answer to your question lies within that one portion of my posting that you quoted for your question. I'll repost that quote here, unchanged except for the emphasis on the important part...and then I'll directly answer your question:
"Personally...if all I saw was "printing" with no other warning signs, I'd be more likely to tag the person in my mind as someone to be more aware of and move on with my business"
So, my direct answer to your question is "Yes, even if my children attended that school and I didn't know that person".
My actions are predicated upon my interpretation of the holistic circumstances present at the time I observe them. On hypothetical postings online, they are predicated upon my interpretation of the specific circumstances prescribed in the posting itself. (Usually with my own qualifiers.)
If people come along after answering the posting and say "well, what about (fill in the blank)", then they're changing the specific set of circumstances. (Usually in a way that tends to invalidate a previously given answer.)
I don't play that game, unless it's for something like instructional purposes.
LOTS of things can be interpreted as "printing", and in reality MANY of those things may be the result of non-weapon items.
And even the fact that an individual MAY be carrying a weapon does not, in fact, automatically mean they are a danger to children, mine or anybody else's.
LET'S PUT THIS IN ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE:
The ONLY thing that makes any given person carrying a firearm into a designated gun free zone, such as a school, "bad" is the law which SAYS it's bad. Carrying a firearm is not, in and of itself, "bad". Or, in legal latin terms "malum in se", which means "evil in itself". It's an example of a law that makes something "bad" ONLY because the law SAYS it's bad. The legal latin for this is "malum prohibitum", or "wrong because it's prohibited".
There is no difference in the inherent danger of carrying a firearm in many gun free zones than in any other area where such an activity is not deemed "illegal".
My children had/have more contact with the world than just gun free zone schools. The inherent danger of any given person carrying a concealed weapon in any of them was not, and is not, any different.
Why should my answer, therefore, be any different than the answer I would give in any other circumstance outside of a gun free zone?