"Nor, at least in my opinion, is there a good reason to make concealed carry illegal"
Yet that was the exact solution chosen for hundreds (thousands?) of years upon first invention of concealable weapons in much of Europe and the world at large. Concealed carry was the way of the highwayman, and visible carry that of the nobleman (or extraordinarily privileged serf). If the risks posed by being a "target" outweighed the utility in notifying those adjacent of your violent potential, I doubt it would have been the standard operating practice from Britain to Japan for millennia.
At the risk of sounding like some sort of progressive, I would argue we have evolved beyond the need for such restrictions on concealed carry, simply because the primary reason for visible weapons in the ye olde days was to indicate authoritarian status of the bearer amidst a largely disarmed populace (though it's not like the various spades, picks, and hammers they used as tools weren't effective in a pinch, themselves). We enjoy a nicer standard of life these days, where personal choice and freedom are to be preserved whenever possible, and the means of defense is available to just about anyone. There is no need for a ruling class to assert its monopoly on force openly in a bid to coerce unarmed subjects by threat in a free society (not that you'd be able to tell in some parts of the US)
There is one aspect of this discussion/debate/fracas or whatever we want to call it that open carry opponents need to understand; almost always the criticism of OC is tinged with condemnation. More importantly, it is pretty much always one-way condemnation, since the utility and convenience of concealed carry in a sometimes gun-adverse society cannot be denied. This makes these 'tactical' discussions --if that's really what they are-- inherently confrontational. It's not enough that OC is not as effective as CC, that it also has to be intrinsically irresponsible is often a core argument of OC opponents, and we all know how law-abiding gun owners get when you call them irresponsible (let alone when you conflate them with the absolute worst individuals of some group with passing similarities)
The chief argument of the OC proponents on the other hand is essentially an affirmation of peace through threat of mutually-assured destruction. At the nation level it has certainly worked, since no one has had the stones to light their candle off in warfare since the second nation on Earth armed itself thusly. Even in a situation where the conflict is between a superpower and an absolute pissant of a nation, whose asymmetry would otherwise strongly favor a decisive beat-down with few consequences for the former (for better or worse, as far as the rest of the world is concerned), conflict is reserved due to potential consequences for all involved.
If we subscribe to the idea that most all people are rationale at the individual level the way nations generally are, and that most criminals are as well (that is certainly how the legal system governing our use of force sees it) but ruinously short-sighted, then the idea of a deterrent by way of ultimate/instant violent demise looks very promising. Yes, your means of defense could be stolen by a savvy attacker, but doing this greatly complicates the operation and endangers the criminal. Pulling your gun off your by force entails a lot of very close, careful motion since the attacker will be unlikely to trust you to disarm yourself, and neither party's adrenaline will help the matter. On the contrary, threatening with an edged, blunt, or ranged weapon at speaking distance is far less complicated for the aggressor.
As a corollary to the above mutually assured destruction, it is vitally important that all parties capable of the same clearly understand the other side's capacity for defense. This is why we were so helpful in notifying the Soviets of bomb development, deployment, and test activities. Miscalculation --channeling Kissinger-- is the true danger when there is a conflict with very high stakes. The goal above all is to not get into a shootout in the first place, so informing a would be attacker of your capacity to match him goes a long way towards preventing his pea-brain from making a very dangerous mistake that could end one or both of you. If keeping the gun hidden truly kept the baddie from escalating the situation, it would be safer to go unarmed. Now, if you are the type of person who escalates things or "just happens" to get into altercations frequently, I would agree that having a visible Trump Card is not productive. This is the 'polite, armed society' we always hear about.
And before you say it, Collateral was just a movie. I don't care if "Cirillo blah-blah-blah", concealed carry is slower than a pistol out and already pointed at you as depicted in the famous scene. The choreography was very good, but it was still a classic "super-spy vs. duo of mooks" depicting a god among men cutting down chaff. No different than Bruce Lee taking out a room full of baddies with very effective but also very staged martial arts.
TCB