Only 13 states had open carry bans prior to 1900, 3 of which were repealed before 1900, and 2 more shortly thereafter. Mainly it was in the South where all forms of carry were banned before the 20th century. You’ll notice from reading these that there is often an evolutionary process and the legislators were basically guessing on what might make violence stop.

After the 20th century, immigration pressures and increasing urbanization seem to have spurred the adoption of greater handgun regulation. Before this, the history shows concealed weapon laws were an attempt at crime control; "If they can't carry guns, then they won't shoot each other!" Well, we know that experiment failed.  

My research is incomplete and stops around the 1920s-1930s due to the limitations of online databases. I've also stopped at the early modern era, going up to the late 1910s and 1920s "Model Pistol Acts" that were the predecessors and inspiration for the National Firearms Act.

You'll notice that western states repealed their bans, as did other states. The "why" is what remains to research. In some cases they just wrote the new laws to either exclude (or include, in those cases) open carry. Idaho's supreme court threw out the open carry ban, as did Georgia's, except the latter went ahead and reinstated it later anyway.

Some of these laws may be debatable: South Carolina's 1901 restriction made it so that basically any pratical handgun was unable to be carried; I suppose AR pistols would have been kosher. A Tennessee court decision that would do today's 9th Circuit proud allowed one to openly carry a pistol in the hand, i.e. as one would use while chasing a burglar or defending himself (sorta like California today!), although no one in their right mind would just walk around normally with a pistol in their hand.

So dude's dog little fluffy dog gets attacked by a Rottweiler, guy goes to grab the dog away, gets bit in the process, and shoots the Rottweiler. A human gets pepper sprayed ("maced") after.

Some interesting points.

Pepper spray came into play AFTER the defensive gun use. Note that the owner didn't try pepper spraying the dog first. Potentially, using it first against the dog v. shooting could have adversely affected the humans and the victim's ability to ward of further attack.

A verbal and possibly physical confrontation followed the dog attack. The witnesses were apparently pissed off. They didn't feel that the shooter was a threat to them. Also it looks like some of the bystanders tried to take the shooter's dog or the leash away.

Someone felt it would be safe enough to confront a guy who just fired a gun, possibly trying to whack the guy with a plastic thing (that person was pepper sprayed).

The newspaper highlights in addition to his pistol, the shooter had a pocketknife and pepper spray; all stuff that is routinely carried by prepared citizens as part of the EDC.

Following on such "blame the victim" lawsuits like:
Chicago Sues Glock Over Criminals’ Illegal Modifications, and
Cities Sue Hyundai, Kia After Wave of Car Thefts

Chicago is arguing that Glocks are machine guns because they can easily have "Glock switches" (autosears) added to make the guns into machine guns. Therefore, the Austrian gun company and it's American branch must be held responsible for the behavior of felonious hoodrats using Chinese-made products sold and imported illegally.

Austin, TX, not to be outdone, decided to sue several popular clothing manufacturers for rape. Their theory, articulated in their complaint, is that short skirts exposing women's legs cause men to rape women. Therefore, the skirt designer, retailers, and manufacturers must be held accountable.

"We know now that short skirts cause rape. Well, not directly, but these skirts make it easier for rapists. We need to hold these dressmakers accountable," said one city councilwoman.

Mohammad Bin Ahmed, a prominent advocate of Shariah law, agreed. "These short skirts entice men. Now, we in the corrupt United States we must forgive the women, but there is no forgiveness for the companies that sell these things."

The lawsuit was joined by several personal injury attorneys with prominent billboards in the Texas' capitol metro area. They could not be reached for comment and have not submitted briefs, but they do expect to receive a substantial settlement.

But contrary viewpoints exist. Many self-defense instructors and rape survivors have said "Get a gun and shoot the bastards. Wear what you want. You aren't responsible for someone else's criminal acts." Shrill anti-gun activists said "No one deserves to die over rape," and then promptly blocked us.