In response to the question asked by the OP, I have to say that I have wondered the same thing. I've read many (and responded to a few) threads in which this has happened, and I have come to one conclusion.
The reason these threads get pulled off topic is because there are so many (or a few VERY vocal) folks who:
- Know beyond a shadow of a doubt that open carry is the stupidest thing anyone could ever do unless you are a LEO and therefore required to do so.
- Are absolutely certain that open carry should never be considered, regardless of the legality of the practice or the desires/reasons of the individual.
- Have the uncontrollable need to try to convince anyone who may consider open carry of the error of their ways.
I should add that most of those who have these beliefs and express them so vehemently, freely state that they have never OC'ed, and (although they don't say this), therefore have no experience on which to draw from, yet refuse to acknowledge that there could be a single advantage to OC.
I have also encountered a fair number of LEO's who are rabidly anti-OC. (I'm not bashing LEO's here - I used to be one, and I have the utmost respect for the LE community - I decided it wasn't for me very quickly.) Most base their position on experiences of their off-duty or undercover brethren who encounter situations that the average citizen would never experience while carrying, and I have yet to find one who can offer an incident in which a citizen was targeted because he was OC'ing, although that is one of the first stories that will surface in these threads.
Conversely, most who OC also have CCW permits and also CC, depending on various circumstances, and are supportive of both methods and the right to choose.