Sir, - I find the gun amnesty declared by the British Prime Minister, Mr John Major, in the aftermath of the Dunblane massacre, a somewhat empty gesture.
I realise the last firearms amnesty in 1988, following the Hungerford massacre, yielded 48,000 weapons; and I am aware that discussions had been going on with the police about the possibility of a gun amnesty for some time prior to the killings.
However, I wonder how the parents of the victims and surviving injured children feel, about this latest gun amnesty? I imagine they view it as sick, and are asking why more stringent measures aren't being proposed to prevent a recurrence of the killings.
Why aren't the authorities insisting on a stricter and more demanding assessment of a person's psychological and, mental health before he is permitted to carry a firearm? And likewise when the licence has expired, the person should be obliged to undergo a rigorous test to assess whet.her his mental health and stability has declined in the interim. Only when the authorities are folly satisfied that the person is still mentally stable, should the gun licence be renewed.
Why aren't people (other than the police and army) forbidden to carry pistols, revolvers and similar small arms?
The most damning indictment of the British government is that if stringent measures (including improving security in schools, the need for which should have been obvious) had bean implemented after the Hungerford massacres in 1987, then the killings at Dunblane would almost certainly have never taken place. Yours, etc.,
Killiney.
Co Dublin.