Gun control -- one of those critical issues that when we choose not to take a stand, inevitably becomes a stand. Stricter gun control is not the answer.

First I would like to begin by mentioning some of the media's "tools-of-the-trade." You may already be aware of the large billboard erected in New York City displaying the number of handguns manufactured and imported into the United States as well as the statistics regarding gun-related deaths. The reasoning behind this display is to permit altering these numbers as they increase.

I am not attempting to deny the impact firearms play in our society, but do these numbers alone offer us convincing information? Let's hypothetically construct another billboard across from the handgun display. We will utilize the same methods and style, but replace their figures with comparative statistical results on automobiles. Again these numbers would be staggering, but what would they tell us?

Hillary Clinton is another media "abuser" regarding this issue. I watched her speak before a Senate Committee on gun control and insult the intelligence of the entire viewing population. She had taken that opportunity to adamantly support handgun removal from society. I'm curious, who does "society" include? I'm certain she hadn't intended for her heavily armed bodyguards to be affected. Does this mean a select few will be permitted to own a handgun under these projected changes? More importantly, if this is the future for gun control, I wonder who will make that determination? Maybe the respectable, law-abiding Senator Kennedy!

Think for a moment of those that will be able to continue this means of self-protection. The police officer -- does this mean they need protection from those who may be carrying a firearm or some other deadly weapon? Exactly! Our police face dangerous criminals each day, and often get attacked by the perpetrator. Unfortunately, police only become involved once a crime has already been committed. Are they the only individuals deserving protection?

Another aspect we must explore is the safety of the elderly and the women of our communities. Consider if you will a 5 foot 9 inch, elderly man approached by a 6 foot 1 inch, 195-pound male attacker. Should his right to self-protection be revoked?

Women face abusive and sexually violent acts each day within the United States, such as those who suffer from the brutality of rape. What protection do we have the right to deny them? What freedom our criminals would have under these projected gun taking laws!

With the Brady Bill now in effect, we must ask ourselves how this "step forward" will contribute to our safety. To do this I would like to give you an example of how this system works. First, the would-be gun owner (18 years and older) locates their local authorized gun dealer. After sifting through the models, styles, and prices, they are ready to pay for their selection. At this point there are a few short forms the purchaser must complete. Items including Social Security number and criminal history are listed. Then the waiting period goes into effect (already in use by many states) and the investigative process begins.

There is a problem, if there is no prior criminal record and no available documentation regarding mental disorder, then we have another gun owner. What if this person has never been caught in illegal activity; nor had sought psychological counseling?

We can't exclude discussing the "heat-of-passion" gun related incidents this waiting period may decrease by allowing the would-be assailants to cool-off. Are we to believe they wouldn't choose another form of destruction i.e., a knife? Maybe even drive to their nearest Wal-Mart to purchase a shotgun.

I believe we should make amendments to already existing laws such as safety devices to help protect the innocent children injured and killed by irresponsible owners. I also believe the National Rifle Association should devise a course that must be taken during the waiting period discussing issues such as saftey and children.

Most criminals arrested with handguns purchased them illegally, therefore making it impossible to ever locate and confiscate them all. Thus, only those attempting to protect themselves legally will become unarmed against dangerous individuals.

I don't agree the answer to a safer environment is to remove guns from the innocent, but rather imposing stricter penalties on the gun-related guilty.