Your Aug. 9 edition included a front-page item with the headline "Gun sculpture offends Indians; S.L. may remove it from library." The article went on to detail the Indians' complaints of the sculpture's disrespect for Indian culture, for the sculpture depicted guns atop a metallic Indian burial stand. The article failed to mention the single largest group of citizens the sculpture offended: gun owners, a group that also happens to include more than a few Indians.

The sculpture included many relatively benign firearms; double-barrel shotguns and standard hunting rifles were heaped on top along with the so-called "weapons of choice" of criminals. Yet, as your article stated, "The metal sculpture was meant to symbolize gun violence and the awful toll it exacts on modern youth."Did the "art work" imply, then, that guns - whether used for hunting, sport or never used at all - are to blame for criminal violence? Did it imply that gun owners are contributing to youth violence? Or was it more accurately simply a monument to a local mayor's costly and senseless gun buyback program?

Mike Sawyer

Orem