Am I to understand that you are suggesting some sort of reverse psychology on someone who wants bash your head in with a rock on a backwoods trail?
If they're determined and are inclined to make a violent stealth attack from the get-go, there's not much that can be done to deal with them.
Here's the way I see the possible situation.
Deterrence effect on attacker.
D1. Attacker is deterred by the sight of an openly carried weapon.
D2. Attacker is not deterred by the sight of an openly carried weapon.
Attacker's modus operandus.
MO1. Attacker is inclined to approach and use coercion to achieve the desired ends.
MO2. Attacker is inclined to attack decisively with violence and without provocation to eliminate resistance immediately.
Defender's carry choice.
C1. Concealed.
C2. Open.
Notice that MO2 isn't really compatible with D2. Why would someone who plans to instantly neutralize the target be concerned about whether the target is armed or not? Once neutralized, an armed person is exactly as effective as an unarmed person.
So MO2 is pretty much a lose for the defender no matter how he chooses to carry because he's never going to get a chance to do anything other than die.
That leaves us looking at MO1 combined with the other cases.
Let's consider MO1 + D1. An attacker inclined to use coercion who is deterred by the sight of an openly carried weapon.
If the defender open carries, the attacker is deterred. Win. So MO1 + D1 + C2 = Win.
If the defender conceal carries, the attacker is initially undeterred but since he believes the defender is unarmed, there's a chance for the defender to turn the tables. So MO1 + D1 + C1 gives the defender a good chance but doesn't save him from being in a confrontation. MO1 + D1 + C1 = Good chance for a win.
Open carry is better in this case, but the concealed carry defender still has a good chance for a win.
Let's consider MO1 + D2. An attacker inclined to use coercion who is not deterred by the sight of an openly carried weapon.
If the defender open carries and the attacker is still not deterred now there is a confrontation but the attacker knows the defender is armed and would be expected to take precautions to eliminate the defender's ability to use his weapon. That's bad. So MO1 + D2 + C2 = Probable lose.
MO1 + D2 + C1 is essentially the same as MO1 + D1 + C1 where the attacker confronts but doesn't know the defender is armed. This gives the defender a chance but doesn't save him from a confrontation. MO1 + D2 + C1 = Good chance for a win.
Concealed carry is better in this case. The open carry defender has a chance for a win, but not a good one because the attacker knows exactly what cards the defender holds.
MY choice after hashing through the various situations is that I will accept the slight disadvantage compared to OC in the case of MO1 + D1 because I feel the advantage in MO1+D2 outweighs it.
Other people may have hashed through the different options and come to a different conclusion. That wouldn't surprise me. Or maybe they haven't really thought all the options through and just picked what felt right to the. That wouldn't surprise me either. But that's how I see the strategy of OC vs CC and how I made my decision from a strategical standpoint.
