My wife thinks that e-mails are vile. She says they allow people to respond immediately to anything that they want while hiding behind the veil of anonymity.

I disagree, mostly. Because at least up to this point, unlike posted letters that have no return address, I’ve had a simple rejoinder to any e-mail sent to me: the reply button. But I received at least one e-mail to a story that I wrote about concealed-pistol permits that, when I replied, bounced my response right back at me.

Three straight times.

So I decided to say what I want in this blog.

First, the e-mail that I received earlier today:

Dear Mr. Webster:

With all due respect to your eminent qualifications as a journalist, my opinion of your article in the Spokesman-Review "7" magazine entitled "Hidden Heat” is that it is another example of irresponsible journalism. Further, it is my opinion that your article – rather than supporting an important right by which responsible and law abiding gun owners of Washington State are permitted to own and to carry concealed weapons - has stereotyped permit holders as typically inadequately trained and not carrying concealed weapons for a valid purpose. Since you are a permit holder, I thought it was irresponsible of you to let your readers know that you own four handguns and that you hold a concealed carry permit. The fact that you are a Vietnam veteran trained by the Army more than 30 years ago to operate .45's, .50 caliber machine guns, and M-79 grenade launchers appears not to be by your own standards a compelling argument to support your own qualifications for a concealed carry permit. I worry too. I worry about people like you who believe that everybody else except them are unqualified to own and carry concealed weapons. For example, do you know for a fact how many of the 16,990 concealed permit holders in Spokane County are unqualified to hold the permit by your standards? Did your research into this subject show how many Spokane County permit holders are better qualified than you to hold a permit? I worry too that we could lose an important right through apparently irresponsible journalism by people such as you. If you're so concerned about other people's qualifications, then like other responsible citizens why don't you just write a letter to your representative and express your concerns rather than to misuse the media to further your own personal agenda? Frankly, now that you have come "out of the closet" concerning your own concealed carry permit; I'd sleep better at night knowing that you will voluntarily turn in your permit. Give it some serious thought, will you please?

William Kelley
Colbert, WA

Here was my response:

Dear Mr. Kelley:

I’m a bit baffled by your letter, to tell you the truth. If you know a good way to discover just how well trained the many permit holders are, I’d be willing to listen. But I doubt there is one.

The important point, which you are simply glossing over, is that there is no obligation for such training. Virtually anyone not convicted of a felony can own a gun and can carry a concealed weapon.

Period.

If that doesn’t give you pause, then you’re a much braver man than I am.

Furthermore, I have no agenda. What I have to say is right there in the story. I hoped admitting that I, too, am a gun owner would prove that I have no grudge against anyone else who chooses to possess firearms. You, on the other hand, attack me for reasons that I find confounding.

You criticize me for “stereotyping,” as you put it, permit holders “as typically inadequately trained and not carrying concealed weapons for a valid purpose”? Where in my article do I say that? I merely suggest that it is easier to get a concealed weapons permit than to get a license to drive a car.

If you see that as irresponsible, then I think you are the one with the agenda. I, of course, can’t say what that agenda is. But it doesn’t seem reasonable.

Sincerely, Dan Webster

---

---