Same as it ever was. It's the ones complaining about the "nanny state" that need it the most. I got called "antigun" the other day. I got my first gun at 8, . 410 break open single. It's enough to warn predators to stay away from the stock but I was never unsupervised. I held leadership positions in Boy Scouts, taught a few youngsters to shoot but never turned them loose with a gun until they could demonstrate they could handle them responsibly; still own a gun today. So when I see some "open carry" advocate with a poorly secured firearm out shopping I worry. I'm not anti chainsaw, fine in the woods not in Walmart.
I don’t open carry myself as I think it gives to many advantages to the bad guys but I have no problem with it as if enough people open carried that would definitely deter criminals.
Saw a guy in Walmart the other day with wife and kids. Would have been child's play to chickenwing him and take his gun or if I was an armed criminal shoot him first. He was also kind of a skittish Barney Fife so if I were choosing up sides for an OK corral ....
Like I say - responsibility. I offer the "gun nuts" (And I, too, had guns early and later military (brother and father - pushed safety on me) the option of returning to 60's gun laws, which would make ownership easier, but return the need to responsibility. If someone got shot back then, you had better have had a damn good reason - or jail or fine. And there weren't tragic accidents- again, someone got shot, someone got in trouble, even parents who were "grieving." No one likes my offer. It also bans assault rifles.