HOW can I justify continuing my collecting of firearms following the recent unspeakably evil act perpetrated at Dunblane? writes "Name and address supplied." (Letters, March 22).

Quite simply: You can't!

Having lived nearly two decades in a culture where thousands die as a result of legally-owned firearms every year, I feel qualified to say that there can be no justification for possessing guns for any reason.

The writer further asks: "Should I and thousands of other firearms owners be held responsible for the actions of a maniac some 200 miles away?"

Well, I am sorry, but you should be held partly responsible.

We have all heard the "guns don't kill people; people kill people" argument used by supporters of gun-owners' rights. But it is not that simple. Crimes are frequently committed by people who steal guns from legally-licensed owners. That is reason enough for banning the private ownership of guns.

I take great exception to the argument that "licensed firearms owners are generally the most inoffensive, responsible, law-abiding section of the community." Need I remind your correspondent that Thomas Hamilton, whom the writer calls an "irrational madman," was, indeed, a licensed firearms owner?

How many more "irrational madmen" are out there who are licensed firearms owners? Do we need to wait for another Dunblane to find out?

I agree with him on one point only, that politicians will bow to public pressure and place restrictions on the private ownership of firearms. It is their moral and public responsibility to do so.

BILL ELLIOTT, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.

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