To say that the process of the police holding licensed firearms for safe keeping, as is often dictated by law, is suspect, after Thursday's main story in The Gleaner, is putting it as best as possible.

A tale of dangerous bungling unravelled under the headline 'Whose guns?', a follow-up on an advertisement in Wednesday's Gleaner about 81 unclaimed firearms in the possession of the Clarendon police. While, in the advertisement, the police asked those named as the owners to retrieve the weapons, a day later, Superintendent Dayton Henry of the Clarendon police admitted that 57 of the 81 guns listed did not belong to the persons named.

That is a 70 per cent error rate, an A grade in mistakes, if you will.

But this is not a percentage of errors which will attract a strong note from a teacher and the sharp edge of a parent's tongue. This is potentially a matter of life and death, not a bad report card, as the police have publicised - and in many cases erroneously at that - the names of licensed firearm holders in a parish where gun crime has skyrocketed in recent times.

We are not saying that the homes and person of those listed will definitely be attacked. After all, the story did say that some of the firearms listed have been held by the Clarendon police for half a century.

Enthusiastic gunman

However, for those who are alive, it does expose them to the risk of attack by an all too enthusiastic gunman, eager to claim another trophy to display his skill at his deadly trade. For while the gunman may have access to weapons, to display a firearm he took off a licensed firearm holder would be a coveted feather in his cap.

And the fact that these firearms are being held by the police is immaterial, as it would naturally be assumed that where a person has had one gun they will now have another.

The reason given for the mistake is ridiculous, Supt Dayton telling The Gleaner that the name-tags on the weapons were damaged. Why then, we ask the obvious question, were supposed owners named in the first place?

Unfortunately, the errors and the publicising of licensed firearm holders' names have been indelibly committed to print. There are, however, 13 other parishes with the potential for the situation to be repeated. We suggest the obvious that, before another such advertisement is placed with potentially deadly results, the police do some personal visits not necessarily to every person whose firearms they are holding or think they are holding but sufficient to expose any glaring anomalies.

In addition, a simple cross-check with the Jamaica Rifle Association should go some way to eliminating the dangerous errors.

We do not expect legal firearm holders to leave their firearms with the police in perpetuity. But nor do we expect the police to make such a massive error on as basic a level as attributing the right gun to the right person.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.