There are a couple of disjointed explanations given for the rifle carry actions, and they really need to be dealt with separately:
1) OCT uses carry of rifles as a protest to try to push changes to TX law that currently prohibits the open carry of HANDGUNS. They essentially say, "
since we can't carry handguns openly, we HAVE to carry rifles openly instead ... wouldn't it make more sense to let us carry our handguns like we want?" (They've done the same thing, to less negative effect, with cap-and-ball antique revolvers.) So, to that end, the carry of rifles is a political protest/awareness demonstration to try to get the laws pertaining to handguns changed.
2) Some folks are doing this, or at least supporting these folks, with the idea that carrying rifles is "reasonable" and a rational answer to self-defense in public. A rifle is more powerful than a pistol and easier to make some kinds of shots with, so therefore isn't it better than a handgun for defense? And no one else should be able to tell me that carrying any gun I want isn't "reasonable."
Now there are problems with both tracks. Track one, which I see as OCT's actual avowed strategy, has the deficit of not really following a cause-and-effect narrative that makes a whole lot of sense. Alarming people by carrying big rifles around is probably not a great way to get lots of your average fellow citizens to call their legislators and push them to vote for your open-carry handguns bill. In fact, without a lot of explanation, that doesn't "read" very well to most folks.
"You're carrying that rifle here in the underwear aisle ... WHY? So the legislature will make open-carrying HANDGUNS legal? Why would that ...make...any... Oh...ok...well, good luck with that then. 
"
So there's a basic problem with this aspect of the movement hoping that Action "A" will produce Result "B" when it takes a huge leap of faith to see why one would lead to the other. And which requires ignoring all the negative fallout produced by Action "A."
Kind of like the guy who shot his lawnmower because it wasn't working right. Shooting it probably wasn't going to make it work better, and meanwhile he's hit by a bullet fragment and fined for discharging a firearm in the town limits. Action A didn't lead to Result B, and the negative consequences were worse than the problem he started with!
Now track 2 really has two fundamental problems. One of them is that it ISN'T why OCT is doing this stuff, so there's a basic disconnect between the explanation given by some and the reasons of the folks actually DOING it. The more profound is the basic misunderstanding or mistaken belief that a rifle is a rational choice for self-defense in public in the peacetime USA. Rifles are slower to get into action, VASTLY harder to use against an up-close and personal attacker such as one is likely to face in our cities and towns, and are awkward, cumbersome, and difficult to carry SAFELY during day-to-day life in social settings. Even the uninitiated understand innately that slinging up a carbine isn't the right choice for warding off muggers, rapists, robbers, vicious dogs, or any of the other threats common to our society. Folks who ARE in-the-know -- who actually DO carry rifles a lot -- are even more aware of how much they SUCK as a daily life accouterment. No soldier returning from a combat theater wants to lug his M-4 through the grocery store. Heck, he didn't want to have to carry it across the darned FOB once he got off patrol if he could help it! And the folks we HIRE to go armed in public (law enforcement) and to face down threats, stop the law-breaker, and deal with very violent people DON'T ... EVER ... carry rifles or shotguns around unless there is a known, present threat they have to deal with right now.
So that puts "paid" to the whole notion that anyone would or should think that carrying a rifle through Target is a good idea.
