So, let me get this straight, the only way to ensure a, well, I'm not sure what the hell your point is, is to publish articles in a general interest magazine which offend your subscribers and readers.

I haven't read PM in a long time, but I've always thought of it as a "how-to" magazine (for example how to replace incandescent bulbs with LEDs in a flashlight). So, aside from how to use a handgun as a remote control on your teevee, what's the point. Handguns are made to kill people. From a PM perspective, if you don't kill people with your handgun, then you're not doing it right.

So when do you get all offended about the little ads for French berets in the back of The New Yorker being carried in The Weekly World News?

Maybe you'd be happier with Popular Mechanics if they stuck with less controversial topics, like the intricacies of building motorized floats for Gay Pride Parades and circumventing Alabama's ban on sex toys with a little help from our friends at Black & Decker.

Jim,

You are Canadian, so I wouldn't expect you to fully understand the intricacies of Liberty and the black and white reasoning of our Bill of Rights.

And as far as upsetting your readership, if you read my article you would see that it is a vocal minority which is upset.

My father-in-law uses a gun most every day. He is a semi-professional sharpshooter and NRA pistol champion.

He has shot a gun most everyday for the last 20 years and no one is dead. Only paper targets have suffered his wrath.

Just because a gun is capable of killing people doesn't mean that is its sole reason for being.

Isn't that usually prefaced with: "You shore got a purdy mouth", and some banjo playing?

You are Canadian, so I wouldn't expect you to fully understand the intricacies of Liberty and the black and white reasoning of our Bill of Rights.

As a consumer the people who don't like the editorial content of the magazine have every right to not read the magazine, or just ignore those stories. They don't have the right to try to shut those ideas and stories down.

Since when? I thought we all supported the Dixie Chicks boycotts, the FCC boobie-thon-athon, and the public outrage against Whoopie's bush, no?

Since when don't consumers have a right to tell the people who make the products they buy what they do and don't like in those products? Since when don't customers have a say?

Oh, only since what they're saying goes against what you like to see in a product.

Popular mechanics has'nt been an interesting magazine for years. Did you catch the US Army / Alien preparation / First Contact issue?

I'm not a big gun fan, but those people should be writing to the editor complaining about boring content, not gun content.

I am not a Canadian. However, I believe consumers, of whatever political persuasion, have a right to try to influence businesses they have or might make purchase items from. So, it seems to me that buyers of and subscribers to PM have a right to let the editors know they don't approve of its advocacy for gun ownership. Gun nuts, in turn, have a right to scream for even more articles affirming 'the Gun is God.' If the publishers want to sacrifice wider readership to advocacy for a gun in every pot, they are free to do so. But, I believe it would be a bad decision. Mechanics include a lot more technology than guns.

In the interest of disclosure, I believe the author of this entry should have acknowledged he owns at least fourteen guns. When I write about the iPod, I always make it clear I own one (have had three, starting with the first, in fact) so people know they are hearing from an advocate of iPod ownership. The same disclosure should apply to gun ownership.

Ditto Padhraic's comment about PM seeming to be out-of-touch. I accessed the magazine online a few days ago when writing a piece about the iTunes Music Store. I was surprised to see that most of the content consisted of snippets. Furthermore, the snippets were not necessarily accurate. For example, PM is under the impression that iTMS works with only Apple computers. The majority of users of the store (and iPods) have been Windows users for months.

Your right Mac,

In the interest of fairness I will disclose my gun collection. I do own 10 guns. I've sold a few.

Most are shotguns and rifles, used for trap or hunting. I do own a few handguns for personal protection.

Y'know what really offends me, is that Popular Mechanics would be worrying about such a pussy subject as handguns. Handguns? What, the pink ones from Smith and Dildo?

Real men don't care about handguns! Real Men Who Read Popular Mechanics care about Atomic Airplanes, and watching teevee. Robots and Flying Submarines, and things which look like a penis with more balls than anybody else.

Those whiners and their handguns, they probably just have, as Oprah calls it, "issues" with their dinks. Hey, pal, if you gotta brandish your gun, just remember, "this is my rifle, this is my gun, one is for killing, one is for fun".

I bet the current editor of PM goes to the boys shower in his NRA underwear.

Actually, I didn't think you needed to say that you are a gun owner, Tom. I guess I assumed you were, but it doesn't really matter because you're not reviewing the quality of a specific gun or even guns in general, you're commenting on a magazine's editorial policy and the "backlash" against it.

Actually, I didn't think you needed to say that you are a gun owner, Tom. I guess I assumed you were, but it doesn't really matter because you're not reviewing the quality of a specific gun or even guns in general, you're commenting on a magazine's editorial policy and the "backlash" against it.

Very true. I was just getting that out in the open. Every time I post anything it seems like Mac brings up that fact that I am a gun owner.

I'm wondering about Popular Mechanics's obvious bias against people who are able to "defend" themselves with a hankerchief, a stick and a handful of poo. Obviously, they are just dissing the huge MacGiver audience.

Every general magazine (I'm leaving out niche pubs like "Monkey Spankers Monthly") depends on two things, attracting as wide an audience as possible, and avoiding alienating any of the audience they already have.

If PM insisted on running ads and articles on bed-wetters, and bed-wetting prevention devices, and they get a lot of complaints from the general readers that they don't like the emphasis on bed-wetters, wouldn't it make sense to run editorial more to the general public.

Or should they give in to the militant bed-wetters?

I bring up the topic because Tom is as much an advocate for guns as I am for the iPod. Maybe more. Tom has been known to cop provocative poses with parts of his arsenal over at the Naproom. (True, he does a good job of lovingly photographing his guns, but still. . . .) The Diva has so far resisted the temptation to go semi-clothed with her 40 GB iPod and post the JPEGs to her blog. However, Apple just released the fourth generation 40 GB iPod. Who knows what might happen when I get my hands on one?

Anyway, I appreciate Tom being forthcoming.

The Diva has so far resisted the temptation to go semi-clothed with her 40 GB iPod and post the JPEGs to her blog. However, Apple just released the fourth generation 40 GB iPod. Who knows what might happen when I get my hands on one?

lol .... women just don't seem to get as worked up over their hardware as men do, for some reason. I trust you'll keep your cool.

this will surprise nobody (especially tom): i don't own any guns.

this may surprise tom though: i think the assault(and other particular) weapons bans are just plain stupid. they don't have the intended effect (crime reduction) and are usually tossed around for political gain only.

oh, forgot to mention:

i have fired weapons:

a 22 rifle
a .30-.06 (scared the crap outa me AND knocked me on my ass)
a soda can cannon (which shot flaming tennis balls)