(MO) My Letter to the Post-Dispatch Reporter

[Gray Peterson]

Dear Mr. Ganey,

I just wanted to point out some terminology issues with previous reports on the recently passed concealed weapons bill.

St. Louis Post Dispatch, in it's online versions of news reports made in regards to the concealed carry endorsement law, makes references to "Hidden Guns".

I ask that the newspaper, and it's online presence, stltoday.com, to stop using the term "hidden guns". This has recently been coming up in news postings in regards to concealed carry laws being debated. It first showed up in the spotlight during the debates on concealed carry reform in Colorado and Minnesota. "Hidden Weapons", "Hidden Guns", and other various uses of the word "hidden" has a negative connotation to it. Hidden often is considered a word to be applied to something with sinister intent. It's a term often used by opponents to the reform law in a disparaging tone, that pro-concealed carry reformers have "something to hide".

I can assure you that people who go through the process of training for nearly 8 hours in a training course that will cost anywhere from $50 to $100 or even more, spend another $100 on a permit, and go through the process of fingerprinting and background checks with both the Missouri Department of Public Safety, as well as the FBI, are not sinister people with something to hide, as the term "hidden guns" imply.

The proper term for the law is a "Concealed Carry Endorsement" law. Under the law, you apply to a sheriff, or if you're in St. Louis County or St. Louis City, the Police Department, along with your proof of training, get fingerprinted, and then you have to wait up to 45 days. If a person who applies is approved, they recieve a certificate of qualification, which will serve as their concealed carry endorsement until the Missouri Department of Revenue gets up and running with their endorsement system, which by law must be in place by July 1st, 2004.

I hope that you'll find this information useful for your future reports on the recently passed law.

Regards,

Lonnie Wilson

 

[Henry Bowman]

Throwing pearls to swine.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...in it's online versions...

"It's" with an apostrophe is a contraction for "it is."

"Its" without an apostrophe is a possessive pronoun meaning "belongs to it."

Your point is entirely valid, but I'll be surprised if the presstitutes abstain from their efforts to demonize firearms and firearms owners. I've noticed the leftist extremists in Wisconsin are now referring to "hidden guns," too.

He who defines the terms usually wins the argument.

 

[John Ross]

Lonnie, your heart is in the right place but letters like this one rarely get printed, and then only after heavy editing. The main problem is length and detail.

Write the letter, then edit it for length and content until you get the strongest possible message in the fewest number of words. Avoid the passive voice--it's not as powerful.

As someone who has had dozens of letters printed in major newspapers, as well as 6-8 op-ed pieces, let me edit your letter in a way that I think would much improve its chances for publication:

==========================================

Dear Mr. Ganey,

Re: Hidden Guns

Your headline implies that concealed carry advocates have "something to hide". People who take an 8 hour training course costing $100 or more, spend another $100 for the application, then present themselves to law enforcement for fingerprinting and background checks with the Missouri Department of Public Safety and the FBI are not people with something to hide.

Don't use pejorative language when reporting the news. You wouldn't put "dark-skinned candidate" in an article about an African-American running for office, would you?

I expect better than this from a mainstream newspaper such as the Post-Dispatch.

Regards,

Lonnie Wilson

 

[Mark Tyson]

Yes, Mr. Ross is right: letters should be concise to be printed. Editors only have so much time to read them and so much space to put them in.

 

[Gray Peterson]

This is not a letter to the editor. It's a personal email to the reporter.

 

[Standing Wolf]

People who take an 8 hour training course costing $100 or more, spend another $100 for the application, then present themselves to law enforcement for fingerprinting and background checks with the Missouri Department of Public Safety and the FBI are not people with something to hide.

That's very well said. I'm going to bear that point in mind.

 

[LawRand]

Hello all. The only argument I have with any of the discussion thus far is the notion that the Post-Dispatch is a "mainstream newspaper." I understand John Ross' point however. I'm sure Mr. Ross also knows that we in the eastern half of Missouri have affectionately nicknamed it The Post-Disgrace.

 

[AZRickD]

Lonnie said: "This is not a letter to the editor. It's a personal email to the reporter."

Lonnie, I do the same thing. I write a note to the reporter, then, with my venting over, I take the time to write a letter to the editor.

I have sometimes sent three different versions. The ones that get printed are almost always the short, pithy ones with a touch of irony (such as Mr. Ross' reference to African Americans). I don't care if they get printed, but I want to make sure that these editor-swine aren't living in a vacuum.

BTW, any letter with the phrase, "editor-swine" will not be printed.

BTW2, do a search on "hidden guns" and you will find the phrase used by "The Brady Center" and "The Violence Policy Center" on their web pages and press releases.

Perhaps the editor would like to know that his reporters are doing some really "great" research and essentially publishing those press releases verbatim.

I would do so myself but you didn't include the e-mail address so that we could pile on.

Rick