Do you care if you "print"?

[NavyLCDR]

I guess it depends on what you feel is more effective, a .380 that holds 6 rounds that would take a serious frisk search to detect... or a 9mm that holds 17 rounds or a .45 that holds 10 rounds that shows an outline under a shirt.

I know there a lot of people that rely completely upon "the element of surprise" to save them if they are attacked. Personally, I prefer to rely upon firepower.

 

[ForumSurfer]

I know there a lot of people that rely completely upon "the element of surprise" to save them if they are attacked. Personally, I prefer to rely upon firepower.

Yeah I've seen that repeated and repeated. If I need a firearm, they already have the element of surprise by putting me in a life or death situation...the only elements I need are firepower and skill at that point. I've never seen the "element of surprise" argument, personally. Maybe someone will argue it in such a fashion that I it makes more sense to me but for the moment, it doesn't. We've all seen the threads that bring to light even carrying openly doesn't make you a target, so why would a slight bulge that could be mistaken for a sloppy ironing job be any different? Just sayin...

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Do I care, NO. If I really don't want to print, I just take my PT709 with me. Otherwise it really isn't an issue for me.

 

[flphotoguy]

I carry my P3AT in a Desantis Sting holster. We don't have open carry in Florida but if your concealed weapon is accidentally exposed it is no longer a crime. My Glock 36 or Ruger P95 is carried IWB and does not print unless I raise my shirt too high reaching for my wallet.

 

[WinThePennant]

I do not yet have my concealed carry permit. But, it is my opinion that you should make every effort to be 100% concealed with no printing.

The reality is that the law abiding probably don't mind, but the criminal class sees your "print" as a sign that reads, "Hey - Kill me first!"

Nothing is gained by "printing."

 

[Mainsail]

...it is my opinion...

The reality is ...the criminal class sees your "print" as a sign that reads, "Hey - Kill me first!"

You are aware, I hope, that there is a big difference between opinion and reality, right? Can you provide any empirical evidence to back up such a statement, or are you presenting idle speculation as 'reality'?

 

[Joe Demko]

I care, even though open carry is legal here. I don't want to have my pistol print any more than I want to display my underwear above the waistband of my pants. Printing is slovenly.

 

[WinThePennant]

You are aware, I hope, that there is a big difference between opinion and reality, right? Can you provide any empirical evidence to back up such a statement, or are you presenting idle speculation as 'reality'?

And, how do you suggest that I do that? Conduct a survey of people who plan on going on a killing spree?

I think it's common sense. Put yourself in the shoes and mindset of someone who is about to murder a room full of people. Upon spotting a person who has a gun, where in the priority selection process are you going to put that person? #1? #5? #20?

 

[ForumSurfer]

I think it's common sense. Put yourself in the shoes and mindset of someone who is about to murder a room full of people. Upon spotting a person who has a gun, where in the priority selection process are you going to put that person? #1? #5? #20?

This same point has been hammered relentlessly regarding open carrying, yet no one has ever cited incidents where open carriers (much less someone slightly printing) became random targets. Open carriers have in fact stopped criminals. There was a post not too long ago where the criminal didn't notice a fellow standing there with a big, honking black powder revolver...which ended up being used against the criminal.

It isn't common sense. It is an assumption.

That criminal will pay far more attention to your demeanor than a small bulge in your shirt that could be anything from an iPhone to a shoddy ironing job.

 

[WinThePennant]

You are making entirely different points. First, you mention open carrying, and then you remark on criminals who lack observation skills.

Again, put yourself in the shoes and mindset of someone who is about to murder a room full of people. Upon spotting a person who has a gun, where in the priority selection process are you going to put that person? #1? #5? #20?

 

[ForumSurfer]

You are making entirely different points. First, you mention open carrying, and then you remark on criminals who lack observation skills.

Same point...carrying a weapon partially concealed or openly does not make one a target.

Again, put yourself in the shoes and mindset of someone who is about to murder a room full of people. Upon spotting a person who has a gun, where in the priority selection process are you going to put that person? #1? #5? #20?

Again, that is your assumption. If all criminals thought logically, they wouldn't be criminals. They aren't always stupid, but their logic flow is completely different. It is the same reason that if you present a problem to three separate groups, each group will offer different solutions via different logic flows. They may not even have a "priority." If I was a criminal, I wouldn't. If the LEO's I interact with up close and personal can't tell that my oh-so-slight bulge is a handgun, do you really think the criminals will from across the room?

There are no statistics to the fact that ccw'er who "print" are targets. The only thing remotely close would be open carriers. If you can't nail them down as a target, you can't nail a ccw'er down as a target.

 

[Strykervet]

I don't care, particularly in summer. I try not to, but in light clothes when you bend over or some such, it is unavoidable. Sometimes I wear an unbuttoned Tommy Bahama shirt over it, which hides it very well (Hawaiian prints work VERY well for this) but the wind blows and it shows sometimes. Oh well.

While concealed usually means concealed, it depends on your laws and the application. I'm not undercover trying to dupe someone, I just carry for defensive purposes, so it isn't absolutely necessary that I don't print or even show. It isn't illegal here.

Besides, you'd be surprised how many people don't even notice it when it does show. And printing? They are oblivious. I truly think the only ones that notice 99% of the time are other folks that are carrying.

 

[WinThePennant]

Based on your logic, you are stating that a gun is not a deterrent, no? In logic, the contrapositive is always true as long as the original proposition is true.

...carrying a weapon partially concealed or openly does not make one a target.

You are, in effect, suggesting that a criminal engaged in murder and mayhem does not view an armed adversary with any more derision than he'd view someone armed with an ice cream cone. The fact that you aren't answering my simple question suggests tacit and begrudging agreement.

And, what is printing? I'd suggest that if the "lump" is not discernible as a gun, then it's not printing.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Based on your logic, you are stating that a gun is not a deterrent, no? In logic, the contrapositive is always true as long as the original proposition is true.

Quote:

...carrying a weapon partially concealed or openly does not make one a target.

You are, in effect, suggesting that a criminal engaged in murder and mayhem does not view an armed adversary with any more derision than he'd view someone armed with an ice cream cone. The fact that you aren't answering my simple question suggests tacit and begrudging agreement.

And, what is printing? I'd suggest that if the "lump" is not discernible as a gun, then it's not printing.

Here is where your argument fails in real life, WinThePennant:

1. First, let's assume the bad guy is capable of intelligent reasoning. If he/she is evaluating targets, there is simply no reason, whatsoever, for them to attack the person or place where there is a visibly armed citizen present. Since the assumption is that they are logically and thoughtfully evaluating targets, it would be an equal assumption that they have a logical and thoughtful desire to complete a crime without getting caught, without getting shot, and without turning a robbery into an attempted murder.

Given the parameters of intelligent reasoning, it only takes an ounce of intelligence for the criminal to figure out that there is only about .5% of potential targets that are visibly armed - so why not move on to the any part of the other 99.5% of targets that aren't? As evidence, look at the Kennesaw GA Waffle Robbery that was diverted due to the presence of armed citizens.

2. The Columbine, Ft. Hood, Sen. Gifford, etc. shooters can hardly be considered to be in a logical and thoughtful frame of mind while they are blazing away randomly trying to kill as many people as they can, or focused on one particular target such as Gifford. History has proven that they aren't going to evaluate every person in a group to see if they can detect a gun or a person open carrying. They go in and shoot as many people as quickly as possible, or their particular target as quickly as possible. Even in storm in and shoot robberies this proves to be true. Look at the open carrier with the SA revolver that killed the convenience store robber in Richmond, VA.

The simple truth is that your theory does not and has not proven itself to ever occur in real life because you are attempting to combine two criminal mentalities that have, so far, never combined in reality. That is the criminal who wants to shoot a group of people and carefully evaluates who may or may not be carrying a gun to shoot first. That criminal simply has not existed, yet, in reality.

 

[WinThePennant]

Here is where your argument fails in real life, WinThePennant:

1. First, let's assume the bad guy is capable of intelligent reasoning. If he/she is evaluating targets, there is simply no reason, whatsoever, for them to attack the person or place where there is a visibly armed citizen present. Since the assumption is that they are logically and thoughtfully evaluating targets, it would be an equal assumption that they have a logical and thoughtful desire to complete a crime without getting caught, without getting shot, and without turning a robbery into an attempted murder.

Given the parameters of intelligent reasoning, it only takes an ounce of intelligence for the criminal to figure out that there is only about .5% of potential targets that are visibly armed - so why not move on to the any part of the other 99.5% of targets that aren't? As evidence, look at the Kennesaw GA Waffle Robbery that was diverted due to the presence of armed citizens.

2. The Columbine, Ft. Hood, Sen. Gifford, etc. shooters can hardly be considered to be in a logical and thoughtful frame of mind while they are blazing away randomly trying to kill as many people as they can, or focused on one particular target such as Gifford. History has proven that they aren't going to evaluate every person in a group to see if they can detect a gun or a person open carrying. They go in and shoot as many people as quickly as possible, or their particular target as quickly as possible. Even in storm in and shoot robberies this proves to be true. Look at the open carrier with the SA revolver that killed the convenience store robber in Richmond, VA.

The simple truth is that your theory does not and has not proven itself to ever occur in real life because you are attempting to combine two criminal mentalities that have, so far, never combined in reality. That is the criminal who wants to shoot a group of people and carefully evaluates who may or may not be carrying a gun to shoot first. That criminal simply has not existed, yet, in reality.

Point #1: You are correct about the logical reasoning. Criminals who are incapable of logical reasoning are very rare, and are irrelevant since the selected victims are no different than random selection. Thus, making that scenario effectively moot for either of our positions. And, you are correct that armed citizens are viewed as a deterrent by criminals who are capable of logical reasoning. Assuming, however, that they choose to not "move on," it is my position that they will direct their attention to perceived threats, ie, another person observed to be carrying a gun.

Point #2: I mentioned in my address on point #1. Criminals who are incapable of logical reasoning are very rare, and are irrelevant since the selected victims are no different than random selection. In other words, they are not discerning judgment as to the presence of another person holding a gun. Thus, making that scenario effectively moot for either of our positions.

 

[GLOOB]

One day I pulled into a gas station. I was boxed in by 3 police cars. I was asked to show my hands and exit the vehicle, slowly. All because I was printing.

So yeah, I care if I print.

 

[hvychev77]

dang!! that's a little bit much huh?? i hope they were cool after they realized you are a righteous citizen!!

 

[ForumSurfer]

One day I pulled into a gas station. I was boxed in by 3 police cars. I was asked to show my hands and exit the vehicle, slowly. All because I was printing.

So yeah, I care if I print.

Happened to me because I matched the exact description of a drive-by shooter (further proof that we nor the police can tell good guys from bad guys based on looks). I was open carrying at the time, so the situation was reallllllllllllllly tense for me at a young age.

Having been through that, I can fully understand why you don't want to print if that is what prompted the stop. Looking back now, it is even more tense now that I realize that their fingers more than likely tightened as they realized their "drive-by suspect" was armed.

The fact that you aren't answering my simple question suggests tacit and begrudging agreement.

Because you devised a question in which the only logical answer supports your point.

Again, put yourself in the shoes and mindset of someone who is about to murder a room full of people. Upon spotting a person who has a gun, where in the priority selection process are you going to put that person? #1? #5? #20?

Again, I don't believe they assess the situation as you or I would, so I don't think the question would be posed.

You are, in effect, suggesting that a criminal engaged in murder and mayhem does not view an armed adversary with any more derision than he'd view someone armed with an ice cream cone.

Yes, I am. Believe it or not, those people do exist. Many view the person as a threat, not the object they are holding. I've had interactions with convicted felons who wouldn't blink if someone pulled a gun on them, much less possibly carrying one.

You can debate with me all day long and you will clearly win since you obviously are a better debater. My experience and my interactions with experienced LEO's and people in the legal system tell me that a violent offender may or may not care if you are armed depending on his/her mindset or situation.

 

[Plan2Live]

Maybe I'm blind but over the past month or so since I have decided to get my permit and carry, I have been trying to spot other people carrying and I have yet to be able to pick one out in public even in a store where I found out that 90% of the employees carry. My point, I can't spot 'em and I'm looking. So printing must either be not that common or printing is hard to spot to begin with.

 

[mdauben]

One day I pulled into a gas station. I was boxed in by 3 police cars. I was asked to show my hands and exit the vehicle, slowly. All because I was printing.

Assuming you are in a state that issues concealed carry permits that strikes as more than excessive. The fact that you "print" is not evidence of a crime (unless your laws define "printing" as being not-concealed) and it would seem the police had no probably cause to stop you.

It seems to me to be the same as pulling a person over on suspicion of having stolen a car, just because they are driving a car. Sure, it could be stolen but since a person can legally own and drive a car, they can't just assume he's breaking the law.

I know that weapons are an emotional "hot button" for a lot of people, even LEOs, but that does not give them carte blanche to harass someone who is legally carrying.

Or am I living in a dream world...?

 

[GLOOB]

dang!! that's a little bit much huh?? i hope they were cool after they realized you are a righteous citizen!!

Yeah, they were cool throughout, other than the bit of surprise I got. One car pulled up behind me, lights go on as he boxed me in. Two more pulled in quick from the other entrance a couple seconds later, stopping 20 feet away, lights flashing. First officer yells for me to stay where I am. My window was already rolled down, so I slowly put both hands on the door in plain view and followed instructions to the letter.

After I showed my ID and CCW, the first officer said he saw me printing. He was in a parking lot, and he saw my gun printing when I was bent over, reaching into the trunk. (I have only ever carried appendix, since then). He then followed me for about 10 minutes while his backup rendezvous'd.

Happened in NC, which is a shall permit state.

 

[Skidawg]

To me concealed means condealed. I would rather nobody knows that I am armed unless I want them to. Find a great holster and carry with confidence.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Assuming you are in a state that issues concealed carry permits that strikes as more than excessive. The fact that you "print" is not evidence of a crime (unless your laws define "printing" as being not-concealed) and it would seem the police had no probably cause to stop you.

I know of a case in New Jersey where a friend of mine was recovering from surgery for a broken back. They were on a trip, his wife was driving, and pulled into a parking lot. She got out, got a pizza, and brought it back to the car so he could eat with her without having to get out of the car -- his injury made getting in and out painful.

Suddenly they were surrounded by police cars, pulled out of the car and put on the ground -- and her protests that her husband had a broken back were ignored.

Why did this happen? He had a quad cane, and someone saw it when she opened the door. That someone called the cops and reported a man with a gun.

The man is lucky he didn't wind up paralyzed for life.

 

[Mike1234567]

Awe hell... I'm just gonna buy a pretty little pink purse with purple sparkles to carry mine in.

 

[ForumSurfer]

Awe hell... I'm just gonna buy a pretty little pink purse with purple sparkles to carry mine in.

If you did that while open carrying a black snub nose revolver or small, sub compact semi in a black holster...I bet if we interviewed a group of random people 95% of them will mention your purse, not the gun.