Re: the general strike idea, touché.
As for the whole concealed versus open bearing of arms, my state, Kentucky first prohibited the concealed bearing of arms in 1813. That's Eighteen-Thirteen, Napoleon was still breathing then. Many other Southern and southwestern states have or had similar bans on concealed weapons of comparable antiquity. The general thinking behind such laws seems to have gone something like this: "It's a fine, manly thing to go about openly armed, instantly ready to defend the weak or respond to any challenge to one's honor. But only a sneaking footpad or assassin would want to carry his weapon concealed."
Kentucky's flat prohibition on concealed carry by private citizens, even inside their own homes or places of business, persisted from 1813 to 1996. (No permit or licensing system even existed. I mean there was no way to even apply for a permit/license.) Police and certain public office holders (such as, oddly, coroners) were exempt.
During that whole time it was indeed legal, theoretically, on paper, to go about openly armed. Theoretically, you could walk around town all the time with a seven-foot harpoon like Queequeg or a Winchester like Chuck Connors in The Rifleman, and it would have been legal.
The reality was a little different. The police would find a way to make you stop it. Usually you'd be charged with Disturbing the Peace. The other problem with open carry was that it tipped your hand prematurely to any potential aggressors, a certain small percentge of whom were provoked to mindignation rather than deterred by the sight of someone they regarded as their lawful prey going armed. It got worse if you were not very large or tough-looking otherwise. To them you seemed like a small person attached to a large gun, which they figured they ought to be the one holding. "Hey, free gun!" many of them thought as they sneaked up behind some armed citizen standing preoccupied in a check-out line somewhere, writing a check or counting his change.
I'm not actually against open carry. But anyone who does it regularly in public had better have some other tricks up his sleeve in case of a sudden attack and attempted gun snatch. He should also be prepared for frequent tense encounters with multiple heavily armed and jittery police officers.
All in all, I generally preferred to be discreet about it, and to retain some element of surprise, though of course nothing is 100 percent, and there are ways to spot or "make" even someone who is carrying a concealed weapon. Subtle details of dress and posture and bearing, and certain distinctive gestures, may give the game away. This happened to me a time or two, and in at least one case "the other fella" was as indignant at the unfairness of it all as I suppose a wolf would be to discover a rabbit was carrying a derringer in its fur.
I actually had to take some steps to defend myself. This fell short of actually drawing on him, or even threatening him directly. Chiefly I used "tactical movement," suddenly placing a barrier between myself and him, to baffle a sudden charge. He understood he'd been outmanouvered (onemight almost say "check-mated"), and kept his distance, taunting me to shoot. "You ain't got the guts! He bawled. "I can tell just by lookin' at you that you ain't got the guts to look someone right in the eye and shoot!" (qv: Mark "Animal" MacYoung on "Famous Last Words.")
"I always look at my front sight when I shoot," I said.
Finally he stormed off with parting threats of lying in wait outside to ambush me in the dark. However, I had a small but powerful flashlight on me as well, and was able to surveil the likely ambush site before entering it, and he made no attempt to carry this out.
Something I don't think many people quite get is that a pistol is conceptually a defensive arm, made to be carried with no particular expectation of trouble, but just in case there might be. It doesn't necessarily mean its wearer is in any sense "on the warpath" or "gunning for" anyone. A long gun such as a rifle or shotgun, on the other hand, is conceptually offensive in nature, and carrying one in public often means the fight is on, or just about to be.
Huh, I think I am actually paraphrasing someone else here:
' The pistol is the defensive arm. You wear it with no specific action in mind, but when you pick up a rifle you intend to go after something - or someone. Thus the difference in purpose of the two arms is one of concept, and training with either must be carried out with that in mind. The purpose of the pistol is to stop a fight that somebody else started. The purpose of the rifle is to "reach out and touch someone." Thus the objective of the rifleman is to achieve a first-round hit, on an appropriate target, at unspecific range, from improvised positions, against the clock.' -- Jeff Cooper, March 1996
Of course there are exceptions, and many people will use a tool to do a job for which it is poorly suited.
Specialized troops like the Schwarzritters in the European Wars of religion in the late 1500s, and other specialized cavalry units in the Thirty Years War and the English Civil War of the 1600s, did use large wheellock pistols offensively, as "shock" weapons against opposing lance- and sword-armed cavalry, and to break the ranks of infantry pikemen from just outside their reach.
Also, during the American Civil war many cavalrymen on both sides, but especially on the Confederate side, largely abandoned the saber in favor of the revolver (preferably multiple revolvers). This was especially the case with "irregular" cavalry such as Quantrille's Raiders and other "Border guerillas" bands. (qv: the film The Outlaw Josey Wales, and the song "Bad Company," signature song of the 1970s band Bad Company.)
DWM