@john65pennington look at it this way, then.
We already know that there are irresponsible gun owners in society. That is, they carry when they shouldn’t, either because of prior convictions that specifically prohibit that, or they have bad intent (to rob, assault or threaten, for example), or they simply flout laws that say (prior to this one) that they may not carry just because it’s not permitted. Those people are going to do their bad acts regardless of what the law says. Responsible gun owners like @stranger_in_a_strange_land tend to obey the law. And if they’re in places where being armed is illegal, then more often than not they’ll be unarmed. How does that make sense?
If some of those irresponsible people actually commit bad acts with their weapons, whether sober or not, what can an unarmed person or group do against them? Not much, as a rule. Call the cops? Sure, I suppose. And then wait and hope that something can be done effectively and in time. Maybe.
When I go to bars (infrequently) most of the people there are well-behaved… and not drunk, either. If I knew that most of the people there were also armed (or could be), then I’m going to evaluate the crowd. If it’s the type of people that I normally associate with anyway, then I’m not going to worry much, whether I’m armed or not. If anything happens that shouldn’t: a drunk starts threatening or waving a gun around, or a robber tries to take the till, I suspect that the responsible, sober and armed people there would make short work of that.
And I wouldn’t be armed myself unless I went the way @stranger_in_a_strange_land says that he does: armed and trained effectively, and always responsible for my own conduct and handling of the weapon. I expect that most people are responsible until proven otherwise. That’s the whole underpinning of our entire republic, not just the Second Amendment.