There was an image on social media – Instagram, Facebook, etc. -- of a person wearing a small pistol in a holster attached to her yoga pants. She’s in a commercial establishment, apparently addressing a store associate who is bent over examining something on a shelf. The holstered sidearm, causing the yoga pants waistband to sag perilously, is very close to the employee – or so it appears from the image. Seeing it concerned me, so I shared the image with the following comment:

“First, don't comment on the wardrobe. The focus is the non-secured firearm . . . Second, don't do this. Ever. If this is the only means you have to practice defensive arms -- well, give up . . . In these times, there are very good solutions . . . and then there's this soup sandwich.”

There's bad and there is bad. Should it be discussed -- and if so, how do we best address issues regarding carry of firearms

There was some blowback. Our own Tactical Professor called out posting the image and made salient points about the impotent and irrelevant cries to “get training.” As he noted, she did have a gun – which can be a handy thing – and the holster did feature a safety strap. However, judging from the location of the image, the fashions being worn and the sidearm/holster combination, I’m wondering who exactly will fund the price to get the object of the image sent to a major league gun school. See his comments so you can understand how thinly spread instructional assets are in this country – and consider what you could do to make it more available.

Then we had a worthy commentator who said that criticism of this nature was ‘just an effort to be heard,’ a cry for attention and the like. While that’s a hallmark of social media, consider this as well.

“And some speak out because we can help folks learn from observing others - hence the reason I didn't allow comments about 'fashion,' etc., but just the gun pulling her drawers down. She did have a gun, from the shot it appears nearly in the face of another person. Maybe she wants 'training' (more likely, advice), perhaps not. That doesn't mean we can't observe and enjoin others from that kind of “solution.””

Indiscreet carry isn't smart but it exists and people will do it. How best should they proceed? Below, this image was collected outside a US Post Office before the person pictured entered the facility - likely a good time to keep your own counsel and let this play out?

The day seldom passes that I don’t see a complaint about “tactard” – this and “Fudd” that, “okay, Boomer,” and other elementary school playground banter on the ‘error-net.’ Everyone has the answer to everything – until Claude Werner correctly asks, “how many gun owners are there” versus “how many instructors” (and how many of those are relevant?) versus “how many training venues – firing ranges –that allow actual training?”

Another observer pointed out that we have a duty to speak out when we see a problem, but need to consider how that’s best accomplished. “But there is a right way and a wrong way to publicly address these kinds of problems. If your criticism contains words like "tactard" . . . or something similar, it's a pretty safe bet you're not being professional nor constructive.”

I’m not seeing a lot of response to that issue. Nor do I see lots of people – who allegedly know something – offer their assistance.

You can have 'indiscreet carry' with the gun nominally covered up, as shown above. This isn't better than "open carry." (sic)

If you’re going to have an interaction with someone who’s carrying a firearm without any evidence of conscious thought, you may want to pattern it off of this – again, thanks to our Tactical Professor.