Thanks for clearing that out. Now, back to the other issue: media and a number of lobby groups are keen on claiming that the majority of people would feel uneasy in presence of visibly armed individuals. Namely civilians. In some long-indoctrinated urban settings like NYC that may well be the case, but as it's a completely learned and discriminating model of behavior as uniformed government officials are visibly armed everywhere, that's not something that should be taken as a natural, preferable or even universally common approach.
People not only react to first-hand observations. They react to other people's reactions as well, as a evolutionary method of self-preservation. It just takes one person to react adversely to start the chain reaction. Much like it isn't advisable to shout "FIRE!" in a packed movie theatre (even though not everyone will hear you, they'll react to people panicing around them, assuming that other people have noticed something they haven't), the learned reaction of artificial fear in presence of firearm can be subdued, providing that fewer individuals are conditioned to that kind of behavior. Extreme politeness can't change the learned presumptions any more than making the person feel ridiculed for their conditioned reaction.
When the majority of people stay calm, even indifferent, when someone feels compelled to react adversely, there's a good chance to change the behavioral pattern in the long run. Bystanders are also perceived as objective reference points for appropriate behavior.
