Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

I love the magazine's readers, I really do. I often meet them when I'm out and about, and 99.99% of them are the nicest bunch of people you could hope to meet.

But the other .01%! They'll get the hump about something in the magazine, and launch in with all guns blazing.

Here's the latest one, from someone we will call 'George':

Once again I feel the need to draw your attention to a photograph boldly displayed in you magazine Sporting Shooter. On page 13 in the article OUR SHOOT, a photograph of a guest gun standing with his, I presume loaded gun, dangerously resting over his forearm. This is a dismal failure on your part allowing such a photograph to appear in a magazine that should endorse safe shooting. I cannot believe that I will be the only person who will see the fault and complain as I have.
Another glaring blooper is on page 22, Ask The Experts. Here you suggest, that on a variable power scope, taping the zoom ring to stop it being moved.....why ?. Unless you are using absolute poorly made or old equipment, I see no reason on earth to follow your recommendation, it is plain nonsense. Modern quality scopes can be adjusted with complete and utter confidence, and no change in zero can be detected, which I assume you are implying will happen if it is not taped. What absolute rubbish.
I doubt I will ever waste my money on another of your magazines again.

And here's my reply:

George,

What gives you the right to accuse a man of dangerous behaviour when you weren't there and cannot possibly know the circumstances? And what could possibly be wrong with wrapping a bit of tape round something to make quite sure it cannot be accidentally moved? Belt and braces perhaps, but hardly foolish.

And even if you were right, why the rude and aggressive tone? Do you talk like that to people in the street?

I suspect you are being put up to this by some troublemaker, or have some other agenda, but if this really how you feel then I can manage quite happily without you as a reader.

Too harsh? Not half as harsh as the reply I wrote and then deleted before sending!

And the story continues:

James,
There are no circumstances, ever, when a gun is held in this manner. In my pre shoot speech on H&S, it is made perfectly clear that anyone seen either standing or carrying their gun in such a Davey Crockett manner will be asked to immediately adopt a safe carrying style. How on earth you can defend this is beyond me, safety is paramount, and if rudeness is the only way of getting this message across to a negligent and dangerous gun, then I am sure I'm not alone in endorsing this approach.
It is perfectly clear that again you attempt to waffle you way out of what is an obvious dereliction of your duty as an editor. You are clearly not the man your father was, neither in knowledge nor the ability of putting it on paper. As for losing me as a reader, well your too late for that.

George,

Well, I think you are wrong. It is not inherently unsafe to hold a gun in that way, and to label it 'Davey Crockett' doesn't make it so. There are circumstances in which that hold would be unsafe; that would depend on what was in the line of the muzzles.

And you think I am wrong. So there we are.
The difference is that I am not maligning you and your family, accusing you of 'dismal failure', 'dereliction of duty' etc.
Are you incapable of having a discussion without becoming offensive?
James

And on...

James,
On the contrary, it is extremely unsafe to hold a gun in this fashion,
and you made the point so very clearly by saying in the line of the muzzles, and this is the point. The barrels are not in the line of your sight, unless of course your eyes are at the side of your head. No, I won't state what I suspect.
You should always be aware of where your muzzles are pointing, no circumstances, no waffling excuses. If you don't do it, ever, then you will not fall into this dangerous practice that could put some other innocent persons life at risk.
I have, and have always had the most respect for the writings of your father, therefor, I have not in any way maligned any of your family. My offensive approach, if that is how you perseve it, is directed purely at you as the editor of a shooting magazine. As I mentioned earlier, I very much doubt I will be the only person who will take you to task regarding publishing this serious infringement of good shooting practice and safe gun handling. Hopefully, and maybe only then, will you be man enough to accept it.

And on...

Meaning you think I am wrong. See previous emal.