Open carry forces people to apply the same benefit of the doubt they expect for themselves to other citizens.
This is exactly why I am bothered by this kind of approach.
When someone FORCES you do to anything, what do you do? You resist, right?
JohnKSA said it well--"under favorable circumstances."
Those who want to "force" the anti's to confront this issue are thinking about it from their own point of view, not the point of view of the anti's. It's analogous to pushing someone on the chest--they resist.
Instead, I believe it will be more effective to look at things from the point of view of the anti's (and this is a variation of the "under favorable circumstances" argument), and create circumstances where they can entertain new ideas without being threatened by them.
In your face open carry is threatening. I've heard people say about anti's, "What do they think will happen, the gun will jump up off the table and shoot by itself?"
Well, yes, actually. People afraid of guns have seen them do horrific things in the movies. They see people pick up UZIs, one in each hand, and strafe their protagonists. (I've shot an UZI--and the idea of shooting that weapon with one hand while accomplishing anything other than decorating the sky is laughable).
They see movies like "True Lies" in which Jamie Lee Curtis drops an UZI and, as it tumbles down some steps, it keeps shooting and killing the bad guys. Lesson? A gun dropped will go off. Lesson? Guns have a mind of their own!
I'm sure everyone here can list movies and TV shows where inaccuracies about guns are rampant. Where does the non-gun public get their ideas about guns? From that junk.
Guns are scary. They make big noises. They JERK when fired. And that jerk is unsettling. They surprise you!
So when one confronts people with things that are scary, does one think a sort of desensitising is going on? No--what that does is scare the anti's, and make the middle-of-the-roaders more willing to entertain the arguments of the anti's.
What bothers me the most about all this: I think that the 2nd amendment rights we have, when exercised in this way, make it *more* likely that at some point there will be an effort to amend the constitution to modify or take away that right.
This, BTW, is why I think the 2nd amendment argument is a non-starter when discussing things with anti's. Those who are anti-gun don't care about the 2nd amendment. I believe they see it as a license to intimidate, as a mechanism whose result is a playing field that is decidedly unlevel--those with guns have an advantage over those without.
So, the way to resolve that inequity is to level the field by eliminating the guns (yes, I know there are other ways, but I'm looking at this from the point of view of the anti's, not the point of view of the RKBA people.).
I believe that the in-your-face open carry movement moves people closer to the idea of amending the constitution to restrict that right, and that is the real worst-case scenario for us.
