The other kind of printing

[TOPOS_]

I'm sure that most people who are interested in firearms and concealed carry already know about printing. For those who don't know, it is when your firearm or holster is showing through your clothes, or creating a bulge or otherwise visible outline of the gun.

In my opinion, there is a second kind of printing, when the gun itself is not showing but you (being someone who knows a bit about concealed carrying) can make an educated guess that it's there, for example, you are sitting outdoors at a restaurant and somebody walks past in a smith and Wesson sweatshirt with a multicam pack decked out with molle gear. They're wearing some new looking 5.11 pants with a half dozen pocket clips and other miscellaneous effects.

in this situation, you can probably be safe in assuming that they're carrying. I guess that really the reason why I made this post is to ask the questions, who really cares; and does printing of either kind really matter?

 

[wz3mo]

Personally I do everything I can when I'm getting dressed to prevent any kind of printing. I just prefer other people don't know I'm carrying. Comes from my training and having the element of surprise.

 

[gadgetgeek]

With things in the US the way they are, one has to admit that a portion of the CCW crowd is carrying out of some sense of paranoia. No way around that, it might not be big, but it has to be there. The risk then of having any indication that you carry either in clothing, behavior, or any other factor, could mark you as someone to watch in their mind. You are then relying on another human being to remain calm, cool and collected while they evaluate you as a threat. Now maybe that isn't a problem, but maybe another inciting factor becomes involved, and that person now feels the need to escalate and draw first, regardless of if you are armed or not. Now I'm not suggesting a full wardrobe change, because there is always going to be some loony person out there, but it may be worth keeping in mind that it could happen.

The reverse of this is also true. Lets say you see a young man in new-ish semi-tactical clothing, with a generally aggressive posture. (standing tall, chest out) and some sort of other carry rights, state rights, or other emblem, you are going to be watching that guy, with the probable assumption that if someone is going to go off half cocked, its the kid with the new bang-stick in his pocket and more ammo than sense.

I guess what I'm saying is that presentation is what counts, look like a dad, act like a dad, no one will notice you. But if your going for the sheep-dog vibe, it might be misinterpreted as looking more like a wolf.

I can recall when I lived in a much more urban area (Calgary) that often you would see little tells, a guy in a suit and danners garrison boots, a shirt front that was a little too crisp in front. Or a younger guy who was wearing what would be a normal security guard uniform, but with all the bits bought himself and far more expensive than what an employer would buy. A guy who's "cold day" gloves are a little more armor than insulation. The thing is any of them could be totally innocent, but its the incongruity that sets things apart. No one notices the punk in combats and scuffed boots before 0200h, but after that the only person who will approach is either wanting to buy drugs, or offer sandwiches... Context is everything.

 

[leghog]

I OC, so no guessing. I couldn't really give a rat's ass about printing, one way or the other.

And for you tactical mental midgets out there, spare me the arguments. I've heard them all. The best and most frequent being the "element of surprise" argument. Firstly, you are not in the offense which is where the element of surprise is an advantage, and secondly, deterrence is better in the defense than surprise ever will be.

 

[robgmn]

If you don't live where open-carry is legal, printing is a very real concern.

As far as "assumed" printing, people who present themselves in a way to cause the assumption are not too bright, in my opinion.
If the SHTF and that road warrior has to use his gun, the lawyers will tear him apart. Nothing speaks more to "wanting" to use that gun than being THAT guy with the S&W shirt, mud flaps that say "they can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from it", the NRA bumper sticker, combat belt knife, etc.

Open carry?
Do it all you want. Cops get shot because criminals know who they are. I'll remain stealth, thank you very much.
The element of surprise is actually in benefit of the criminal when people open carry. Criminals rarely open carry; they know YOU are armed, but you don;t know THEY are.
They win.

 

[leghog]

If you don't live where open-carry is legal,...

If I didn't live where open carry is legal, I'd move.
If I didn't live where open carry is legal without first gaining the government's permission, I'd also move.
No man should be required to first ask and gain the Nanny State's permission to exercise his rights. It really is as simple as that.

 

[sideways]

and don't even get me started on the multicam, combat boots, and s&w shirts.

These things are crimes of fashion.

 

[robgmn]

If I didn't live where open carry is legal, I'd move.
If I didn't live where open carry is legal without first gaining the government's permission, I'd also move.
No man should be required to first ask and gain the Nanny State's permission to exercise his rights. It really is as simple as that.

Point missed. Entirely.
But, carry on.

At least we don't have to worry about the nitwits who can't pull their pants up having a Glock covertly tucked in their waistband.
Not when their waistband is at their knees...

 

[leghog]

Point missed. Entirely.
But, carry on.

Point not missed at all which is precisely why I choose to live where I do.