Yes they can. They're just being willfully obtuse. That's what annoys me the most.
Based on some of the logically bankrupt diatribe I've encountered from otherwise very rational, logical-thinking and well-informed persons, I have come to the conclusion that these activists approach open carry as if they are fundamentalists and open carry is their religion.
In other words, they have been inculcated (or have inculcated themselves) with a system of beliefs related to open carry and are completely unwilling/unable to apply logic, rationality or readily available and verifiable information to those beliefs if to do so would cast those beliefs in a negative light. That's true even when they are more than capable of doing so with other topics.
For example, I encountered an open-carry supporter, a person who is in many other respects remarkably logical, rational and well-informed. He was able to go so far as to admit that the particular actions of these specific persons involved in the Chipotle incident were ill-advised (which actually surprised me) but appeared to be almost bewildered as to why the restaurant "over-reacted" and why the gun community was irate with these persons who, in his estimation, simply blundered in a way that we should all be able to understand, empathize with and therefore readily forgive.
In another example, I engaged in an exchange with several open-carry supporters. My position was that open-carry should be done prudently to avoid alienating people and creating an atmosphere which could be readily used to drive anti-gun legislation. That position was, to say the least, not popular. Rational persons should have immediately realized how disturbing it is for anyone to argue against someone recommending prudence and yet that point seemed to be completely lost on them.
Finally, at one legal seminar, I watched several open-carry proponents buttonhole a speaker after his presentation and babble nonsense about the law and open carry until the speaker was forced to make an awkward escape. I found just watching the scene to be very distressing since the speaker they were "educating" was a lawyer who donates time to the TSRA.
Once it's understood that these folks are fundamentalists in the religion of open carry, it explains why exchanges tend to be peppered with cliché-type responses which are often poorly thought through, illogical, or simply (and often obviously) fallacious and why "debates" generally result in vitriolic attacks on anyone with the temerity to speak out against their "religion". You are debating, they are evangelizing. You are discussing the facts, they are promoting and defending their religion. You are reasoning with them, they are trying to explain to you why you're going to hell and how you can be saved.
