Best article on open carry debate. From MSNBC, no less

CONCEALED CARRY

The most prominent reason given by proponents of carrying concealed is the element of surprise. There are many hypothetical situations which have been posed to prove this point but they all boil down to the CRIMINAL not being aware of the ARMED CITIZEN as anymore of a threat than the UNARMED CITIZEN. The result is that the ARMED CITIZEN may reserve the option to use deadly force until the situation is favorable or not, should the threat cease.

What are the negatives associated with this logic and why is it not perfect in all situations? Well, one must first assume they will not be the sole primary target but rather a third party or in a group setting. The element of surprise is quickly rendered null once you are at knife or gunpoint with nothing to distract your attacker. Assuming the attacker becomes distracted sufficiently enough to attempt a weapon draw the victim must consider the risk and added time needed to draw from a concealed location. If all factors are not in the victim’s favor then the attacker is likely to win as his weapon was already in the ready position.

****snip***

THE CASE FOR OPEN CARRY

A sign, be it text, picture, or symbol, is something visual which communicates a clear message to the observer. The observer can choose to disregard the sign but nonetheless they are forced to consider the message before proceeding. Examples of signs conveying an important message would be "BEWARE OF DOG", "NO SMOKING", "EMERGENCY EXIT", or the more ominous "DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED". Each sign aids the observer in any potential decision making. Of course, the observer may choose to ignore the warning but this choice will be made based on whether the potential reward outweighs the risk.

The case for open carry is simple. I would submit that in much the same way that a sign works, when the ARMED CITIZEN carries his weapon in the open it communicates a clear message to any observer. To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless. However, when the CRIMINAL observes this same sign he must reconsider whether the potential reward outweighs the risk. Where the risk was simply being caught or having to physically overpower the UNARMED CITIZEN it now suddenly rises to potentially enduring great pain and death when confronting the ARMED CITIZEN. Do insane or even desperate CRIMINALS exist who would disregard such an obvious sign and follow through with an attack? As with any possibility the answer is YES but even though they exist their actions do not support the opposing view that open carry should be avoided. They can still be potentially stopped by the ARMED CITIZEN once he becomes aware of the CRIMINALS intent to present a lethal threat.

With regard to the element of surprise discussed earlier, open carry actually supersedes the need for surprise. If carrying openly causes the CRIMINAL to avoid you and those around you as his victims then the need for surprise is negated. Your display of an ability to employ deadly force has avoided the confrontation before it even began, avoided the threat to your life and having to actually use your weapon. As the CRIMINAL moves on to easier prey you will likely never be aware it even happened.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php%3Fid%3D7507%26forum_id%3D6%26highlight%3DOC%2Bvs%2BCC&usg=__uKO3-FDi2P1c-uNn7IpX0lzHFcM=&h=515&w=296&sz=36&hl=en&start=46&um=1&tbnid=4wJ752jsjTl8MM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=75&prev=/images%3Fq%3D1911%2BColt%2B.45%2Bopen%2Bcarry%26ndsp%3D21%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN%26start%3D42%26um%3D1