Is there any proof of anything at all you claim in your first two paragraphs? Funny (peculiar funny, not humorous funny) that you'd ask for proof from someone else when you just blurt out uncorroborated hypotheses/cliches.

It was posited that there would be a significant deterrent effect, this is something that would require a bit of study to prove. Just because there is a bit of logic behind the thinking doesn't mean it would play out in real life. I am not saying it wouldn't be a good deterrent, rather I am saying I haven't seen much actual evidence supporting that assertion. Furthermore I see no reason to accept the premise of the meme, that open carry will prevent gun rights from being taken away. You have made two assertions about how open carry would affect people psychologically and socially but have provided no proof.

My other comments about ccw vs open carry are not on the same level. I am talking tactics, not psychological effect. Open carry means people can see your gun, thus there is no element of surprise. I figured this was common sense, do you need me to find a study to prove this? Open carry allows for a faster draw, again I figured this is common sense given simple mechanics. Do you need me to produce a study to show that drawing from an exposed holster is faster than a covered holster?

If I had said that concealed carry is better because mystery was a good deterrent then sure, I could be expected to produce some level of proof, but I didn't. I said that open carry means people will see you have a gun and that this could make you a target.

Researcher Gary Kleck found that 92 percent of criminal attacks are deterred when a gun is merely shown (or, rarely, a warning shot fired). By inference, this means that open carry would have the effect of deterring crime in the same way that a thief might choose another restaurant when he sees police eating at his intended target.
Also, larger handguns with more potent ammunition are easier to carry openly.

That one has a gun making one a target, is too simple a statement.

It must be given context, which means one must also keep in mind that millions (billions?) of people every day are targeted, despite not having a gun on them.

It's also possible some people are targeted BECAUSE they carry a gun.

Agreed, and I did say that I think open carry should only be practiced in certain situations. I wasn't saying open carry is always a bad idea, I was saying I think CCW is preferable in most cases. In other cases open carry is definitely preferred.

Of course there is no way we can perfectly predict what a criminal would do so we cannot tailor our carry choices perfectly but when it comes to a tactical decision you never have the perfect option, you are always just choosing the option you think works best given the risk assessment.

Dude, first you said we need to study the deterrent effect of open carry to prove it exists.  I showed where it has been studied, and now you want to talk about not being able to perfectly predict a criminal's behavior?

Do you even research your opinions before posting, or are you making shit up just to argue?  "Can't perfectly predict what a criminal would do" sounds like a weak attempt to just argue against the study you said needed doing!   

Nonsense. What I am explaining there is that no deterrent effect can be perfect because human beings do not follow neat rules. There will always be someone who won't follow conventional behaviors, this is what makes sociology and psychology complicated. For example, as a general rule people avoid being shot but there are those exceptions to the rule where someone wants to be shot, suicide by cop would be the most obvious instance. So what I am saying is that even though a deterrent might deter 99% of people, there will always be that 1% who won't react in the same manner. Thus no statement that one tactic will always be better can ever hold true. I am basically inserting a disclaimer in my argument because I know that no tactical choice is foolproof.

I am glad that you brought in some actual data to the conversation. I absolutely expect that presenting a gun is a good deterrent though I am surprised 8% would not be deterred! My only issue with the excerpt you posted is that I hesitate to concur with the authors inference. The author is equating a gun being shown to having a gun visible which may be stretching the results of the study.

Do you think there are surveys asking people who decided not to commit a crime what made them change their minds?  LOL!  Inference is the best you can do, since there has to be some kind of event to be reported.  Scaring a crook off by having a holstered sidearm isn't a reportable event, but presenting a firearm in the direction of a bad guy is a confrontation that might be reported.

and if you want to keep saying this or that isn't perfect, I suggest you read over some of your own comments!  Nothing about human behavior can be measured or predicted any where close to perfect.

and the 8% shouldn't surprise most people.  There are lots of criminals with psychological and pharmaceutical issues that alter their judgement.  I doubt some tweaker can be expected to act rationally when he's looking for his next fix.

That is not really saying much. Because in MY risk vs reward analyses I would choose Open Carry.

With Open Carry, the visible gun serves a continuous purpose all day long when visible to others, AND serves a further purpose if it is necessary to be drawn from holster.

CCW serves no purpose EXCEPT when drawn from concealed, when the situation has deteriorated to requiring it, with a further penalty of delay compared to open drawing.

Fundamental rule:

Do not draw your gun unless it is in a life threatening situation where you fear imminent death or severe injury to yourself or another innocent, unless you draw your weapon and use it with full effectiveness.

I know that.  But if someone SAYS you drew on them when you didn't, the Cops will need proof of something you didn't do.  That's always a tough one without other witnesses or video.

That group of teens picking knock out game targets might not pick you because they don't want to get shot!

To me, when that was getting common (I hope it's not common anymore), that was one of the more scary threats or attacks.  Seemingly random and that they catch the target/victim unawares and usually from behind.  Not that you can see all threats coming, but in the other two scenarios you mentioned, there is usually some indicators of trouble coming.  That's not to say that a mugger or someone picking a fight can't come randomly at you from behind, but those stupid knock out game punks seemed to be just another level in my mind with the randomness and sort of ambush-like attacks. 

With regards to open vs concealed carry in the knockout game scenario, if they say one was armed could certainly be deterrent.  But that they typically catch one off guard, if they notice that you are armed and go after you anyways that would tell me that they don't care if you are armed that they can get away with it regardless.  They may even do it to get your gun.  However, if one were carrying concealed, there is no obvious opportunity for deterrence.  Interesting one where even if I am typically in favor of concealed carry, where I don't think it would matter that much in this case if you one was carrying concealed.

It's not like we would be able to poll these punks and ask them what they would or would not do.  That and when you try to rationalize or find reason in a given situation, you can't really rationalize with an unreasonable person.  Or at least who doesn't follow the same line of reasoning as you.  Getting off topic here, but I used to work with a guy from Syria and a few coworkers used to have some good discussions with him about this.  He lived in that culture for most of his childhood even when he tried to explain some of the thinking of the Syrian people from someone who had lived in the US for decades and I remember those conversations leaving me thinking "you can reason with an unreasonable person".  And that was all before 9/11.

Fundamental rule:

Do not draw your gun unless it is in a life threatening situation where you fear imminent death or severe injury to yourself or another innocent, unless you draw your weapon and use it with full effectiveness.

Never heard this one before, particularly the last part. 

So, if you draw your gun and it's not a life threatening situation, what does "(using) it with full effectiveness" entail? 

Not being a smartass or argumentative here.  Really just trying to understand that statement.