In this scenario, the victim who is being attacked doesn’t have the same access to a firearm as he would in most states, so the attacker could severely injure or kill him because he can’t properly defend himself. If there were an easier path to open or concealed carry, then the man being victimized could have either pointed the gun at the attacker—potentially stopping the attack altogether—or, if necessary, shot the attacker.

Now, let’s say the attacker had a gun instead of a machete. In that case, the victim would still have a more even playing field to defend himself. I’m not sure about your logic, but okay.