IN response to Floating Voter (You Carry On Stan, Dear Star), I would like to point out that had he had taken the time to read my letter, he would notice that far from silencing Stan Roberts, I suggested the man get his own column (albeit preferably in a part of the paper I don't particularly read).

I also find it amazing that both correspondents quote the single reason for the low Swiss crime rate to be the fact that each house is issued with a gun. As a serving member of the armed forces who saw action and, in fact, came under live enemy fire on the Al-Faw Peninsular in Iraq last year. I feel in a position to comment on the effects of weaponry.

If I may be so bold to suggest, the widespread issue of guns to every family is not the way to reduce crime. Apart from the cost, (which I am sure our learned SR Fan Club could come up with a suggestion which didn't effect their pensions), there's the obvious issue; in a town where some families cannot even stop their children breaking windows, the issue of shotguns would not necessarily lead to a drop in the crime rate.

In conclusion I note that Floating Voter points out that there are no offensive weapons, only offensive people who should be dealt with by the law. Is this the law he suggests replacing with his gun-toting angry mob? Maybe replacing our judicial system in this way could fund the initial issue of shotguns in the first place?

Hopefully this will be an end to yet another ludicrous discussion dreamt up and supported by people who should try to address local issues through what is, the finest local publication I get to read, and believe me I have read a few!

YICKER (by e-mail)