The Nov. 8 Point of View column “Reflections on open-carry of firearms” was excellent.
The writer explained in detail, by use of the Washington State RCWs, the correct and lawful way firearms can be carried and used.
His stated purpose is to call attention to the possibility of “post election unrest” and how “well-intended, law-abiding gun owners, the good guys,” can help the organized militia (police, sheriff, state patrol, or national guard.)
But some points worry me.
First of all, not all gun owners are “well-intended.”
Think about the Proud Boys or some of the vigilante militias that advertise in gun magazines.
Secondly, even good guys can lose their self-control.
Think of road rage, a bad day at the office, or a disagreement with the spouse.
In contrast, the organized militias are trained to suppress violence, not lose their temper.
Open-carry is legal, but when I see someone with a gun, even properly slung or holstered, I question that person’s intention and character.
Are they among the good guys or the bad guys?
Is their intention to intimidate and/or to look tough?
What is the purpose for open-carry?
If it is for self-protection, from what?
From another gun carrier?
Welcome to the old Wild West.
The best way to minimize violence is to eliminate open-carry.
Let the police or other “well-regulated militias” deal with the problem.
Don’t even give the appearance of looking for trouble.
Leave your guns at home.
Mel Rudin
Port Angeles