From the article: "The open carrying of weapons is alarming to many people..."[/quote]
That's grossly overstated. It's only alarming to the few, but very loud radical anti-gun nuts who're incapable of understanding sound thinkers like Thomas Jefferson:
‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ - Thomas Jefferson
Unfortunately, although it's not alarming to the masses, to the half of our population who're in in the middle, comments from the alarmed anti-gun extremists sound like a siren's song, and for a very good reason: They're as tired of crime as we are.
That's the hook that convinces the swing vote, guys and gals. It's not "protect our 2A rights," as the middle masses don't care about our (or their own) 2A rights. They do care about crime, if all they're hearing from the left is "guns kill people, let's get rid of the guns!" then that's what'll start to assuage their fears on crime.
We know that OC and CC are not a "return to the Wild West," but that's the way we've been mischaracterized by the antis.
The message that'll swing the vote back in favor of reduced crime is to pitch the following facts:
1. 90% of us are honest, law-abiding citizens. 10% of us are not.
2. When you disarm the 90% of us who are honest, law-abiding citizens, you remove the deterrence against the criminal element.
3. You can't disarm the criminals, as they'll simply carry anyway. Why? They're law-breaking criminals, and that's what criminals do: they break laws.
4. Disarming various state populations in the 70s, 80s, and 90s resulted in serious increases in crime (averaging roughly 30%), while rearming other populations in the 80s, 90s, and 00s have resulted in serious decreases in crime (averaging roughly 30%).
5. During interviews with criminals serving prison terms for violent crime, all of them reported the one thing that scared them most was the privately-armed citizen. However, they don't keep a lookout for individuals who concealed carry, as that's absurd - their firearms are concealed. They keep a lookout for individuals who open carry, and avoid them.
6. Disarming citizens does NOT decrease crime. It encourages and emboldens the criminal, thereby increasing crime.
7. The simplest and most effective way to fight crime is to remove any and all restrictions against the 90% of us who're law-abiding citizens, some of us whom choose to exercise our 2A rights.
As for Boulder... Academic institutions are largely removed from mainstream society. They're inhabited largely by those who either work or attend the university. The criminal element still exists, but it's significantly different than everywhere else. Furthermore, many people who work in academia have a fairly utopian view of how the world "ought to be," rather than how the world really is. Thus, the "conclusions" reached by folks in Boulder do not apply well in the real world. They are skewed from reality, even within Boulder's city limits.