IN response to Bill Elliott (Letters, March 27), I would point out that this country does not have the much-vaunted, and distorted 'Right to Bear Arms' claimed by gun owners in the USA. Here, the Firearm Certificates required to legally own rifles and pistols are granted at the discretion of the police and are not a public right.

Following detailed investigation of the applicant's background, reasons for wanting firearms, security and other factors, the police decide whether to grant the certificate.

Even then, the holder has to apply to the police for permission to replace an existing firearm or to acquire additional ones and the certificate also limits the amount of ammunition that the shooter can buy or possess at any one time.

Guns are not often stolen from licensed owners - because of the strict security conditions stipulated by the police. Firearms must be kept in a locked steel cabinet, with parts removed and stored in a separate safe; ammunition must not be stored with guns, etc. Even in this country, there are sufficient numbers of illegal guns in circulation to cater for the criminal element.

A certificate can be revoked by the police at any time and licensed firearms owners are aware of this. This is another good reason why, generally, they are the most responsible and law-abiding section of the community.

So, unlike in America, the legal ownership and possession of firearms in this country is already strictly controlled.

I do not consider it fair or reasonable for the many thousands of licensed firearms owners to take personal responsibility for the actions of a single, irrational madman.

Local gun collector (name and address received).

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