If your objective is to make people comfortable having openly carried AR-15s, etc., around them, fine. But many people are, in fact, intimidated by a number of people entering a restaurant with those weapons slung over their shoulders, whether it be one or a dozen. The intention of the carrier may be honest and honorable, but if your intention is to desensitize, why intimidate? There has to be a better way to get your point across. A restaurant is not generally a war zone, a handgun in a holster, concealed or openly carried, IMO, is probably enough protection in this situation and would be much less intimidating. Many in the general public are fearful of guns. Whether that fear is rational or not is debatable. The more fear they have, the more they will fight you in your endeavors. You will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
And, no, I don't feel that my views are prejudicial or irrational, nor do I condemn you for your views on this subject.
So you are equating Open Carry to mean Long Gun Open Carry? I support both, to be honest, but this site's focus is the normalization of OCed, properly holstered PISTOLS; the topic of LGOC is really only considered on topic for localities where LGOC is the only lawful means of open carry (e.g. the state of Texas, where OC of modern handguns is prohibited entirely, and where a de facto ban on the OC of antiques is in effect).
One reason for OC and/or LGOC is to do exactly as you allude to, but not in the manner you described: imagine the surprise people get when they see someone visibly armed go about their day, not killing or hurting anyone, and no "blood in the streets" or "wild west shootouts" taking place. How many erroneous notions are disproven in 5 minutes' time of seeing absolutely NOTHING happen?
The sidearm or long arm is simply another tool that is carried along throughout the day. I imagine cell phones weren't too common at one time (sorry, I was born with those things becoming fairly prevalent already), but now they are ubiquitous and nobody seems to think twice when seeing someone calling or texting as they go about their day (unless it's in a reckless manner, such as texting while driving, but you get my point).
I'd like of you to understand that I say the following not in anger, nor condescension, but as a means of stimulating discussion on the matter
. Let's change the subject matter, and see what the argument sounds like:
"If your objective is to make people comfortable having
[insert historically "UNDESIRABLE" group of people, "HUGoP"], etc., around them, fine. But many people are, in fact, intimidated by a number of
[HUGoP] entering a restaurant with those
[insert TRAITS attributed to HUGoP], whether it be one or a dozen. The intention of the
[HUGoP] may be honest and honorable, but if your intention is to desensitize, why intimidate? There has to be a better way to get your point across." - Someone Else
Now, swap out "Historically "undesirable" group of people" ("HUGoP"), with any of the following, and see if you would still find yourself in agreement with someone saying that or you saying it to your coworkers and loved ones:
Native Americans, African-Americans, Irish, Catholics, Gypsies, Jews, Japanese, Gays (any of the LGBTQ), Muslims, Arabs, Mexicans, etc.
What's the difference between the subject being OCers or LGOCers as opposed to any of the HUGoPs? Isn't it true that "some people" felt intimidated by the HUGoPs at some point and time (and some still do)? Is their argument any less valid than yours? Is your argument (as presented above) any more valid than theirs? Are either points valid AT ALL in the absence of any active effort to intimidate, or is the argument based entirely off the emotion of the person(s) feeling illogical fear?