She is not advocating no carry, but open carry,
Not overtly. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that given the choice, she'd prefer no carry to OC. In my past interactions with gun haters who profess a desire to see OC, they are not really supporting OC or any other carry, but are hoping that social stigma or even various levels of official harassment will result in de facto no carry.
Once the realize that isn't going to work and people are going to carry, they change their tune to demanding CC only so they can delude themselves into believing nobody has a gun....or, more importantly, denying carriers the opportunity to normalize the possession of guns.
Anonymous armed does not have the same affect,
To be fair, discretely armed carries a different and perhaps larger benefit for society. With OC, criminals can pretty quickly determine who is armed vs who is an easy target. With discrete carry, criminals have a harder time determining which are the easy targets.
10% of Utahns have carry permits. (Not nearly that many actually carry on any regular basis, but let's pretend they did.)
10% is a very small minority. But when carried discretely, it presents a serious problems for criminals. To make a living stealing $20 to $100 at a time, a mugger has to be pretty prolific. A one in ten chance of facing an armed victim are high enough odds to make many criminals rethink how they operate. Hence, Lott's findings that as the number of carry permits increase, violent crime decreases while property crime increases. Smash and grabs from unattended cars at the mall is a lot safer than a 1 in 10 chance of staring down the barrel of a gun.
In an interesting parallel, 10% or even 5% of a jury pool committed to justice would make it all but impossible to convict unjustly. If 10% of the jury pool is committed to restraining the state, there is a 72% chance that a 12 person jury will refuse to convict (with a hung jury) if the jury is not screened to weed out the troublesome persons. Even a 5% minority results in an almost 50% chance of a hung jury. In this parallel, OC is a bit like allowing the prosecutor to ask enough questions to figure out who the 5% or 10% are and then exclude them.
On the flip side, OC concentrates the benefits of carrying to the individual carrier. I'm not relying on the crook being good enough at math or having had enough personal experience to know that he might face an armed victim. All he has to do is notice that gun on my hip and he is likely to wait for an easier target. Plus the benefits of normalizing possession of firearms by private citizens.
So your phrasing was spot on. It isn't that CC offers fewer benefits than OC. It is that OC and CC provide different benefits, potentially to different groups.
Charles
