With some differences, the same general premise would apply to the civilian world - having mass quantities of people openly carrying firearms will make the rest of the populace get accustomed to a) seeing them around and b) realizing that they don't do anything unless interacted with. Subsequently, reducing the places where openly carrying a firearm is allowed mitigates the above goal. I would also say that it's especially crucial in locales where people really get upset at the sight of a firearm (read: schools).

Unfortunately, it seems as though there are those in the firearms community, the proclaimed "pragmatists", that think "compromise" is the best option at combatting a total ban on being able to carry firearms in these concealed-carry-free zones. It is not. Compromising under the premise that granting the ability to carry concealed in exchange for restricting the open carry of a firearm will hurt the visibility of firearms, which as stated, would hurt the acceptance of firearms in general.

If anything, using this as an appeasement measure could very well (to say it will would technically be a logical fallacy) lead to further erosions. Would we still compromise then with other things? If so, what would they be?