IHAVE to take exception with the author of 'No right to bear arms,' (Letters, April 12), who tries to distort differences in British and American gun ownership laws in order to justify his personal ownership of guns.

The "much vaunted right to bear arms" that he claims is a mainstay of American society, is not quite as simple as he makes out.

This purported 'right' is indeed used by the pro-gun lobby in the US as a means of justifying wide-scale gun ownership. But it does not mean that guns are handed out in the US with the ease that the author implies.

While laws governing gun ownership differ from state to state in the USA, there are relatively strict laws about who can own and who can't buy guns these days. Background checks are made, and personal information has to be ratified.

The author appears to be trying to paint England as a bastion of civilisation, while simultaneously presenting the US as an infested cesspool of gun-toting criminals. But, in reality, his comparison does not hold water. Handgun and shotgun deaths are currently rife in England - one only needs to read the newspapers - so where are the criminals getting their guns from? From sinister eastern European gun merchants? I don't think so.

While it is true that there are police stipulations in England that "firearms must be kept in a locked steel cabinet, with parts removed and stored in a separate safe," I think it is exceptionally naive to believe that such measures can be effectively enforced.

So, the author's claim that "a (gun) certificate can be revoked by the police at any time" isn't much comfort to the children of Dunblane.

BILL ELLIOTT, Indiana, USA.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.