Indira Dammu’s Feb. 13 “Guns blazin’” article is filled with many inaccuracies and misunderstandings. Starting with the beginning of the article, the Virginia Tech tragedy did not create “cosmetic changes” but instead led to states being required to report all mentally unstable individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This would have prevented mentally unstable individuals like Cho Seung-Hui from buying a firearm. She also goes on to claim that “assault weapons” are the weapon of choice for drug traffickers yet “assault weapons” are used in approximately 1 in 500 gun crimes. This means that even if the ban was completely effective, only .002 crimes would be prevented nationwide. However, just taking away one type of weapon would not prevent the crime; it would only cause the criminal to use a different weapon. Not much of a victory there. Now to the completely false statement concerning purchasing firearms at gun shows and over the Internet. Almost all sellers at gun shows are licensed firearm dealers and are therefore subject to federal law, which requires all licensed dealers to conduct a background check using the NICS. Also, while buying a firearm over the Internet, the firearm must be sent to a licensed dealer, who will then conduct the background search before the buyer goes to pick up the firearm. I do not have the space to refute the argument concerning the Second Amendment being a “collective right” but I suggest that Dammu do research into the writing of and the writers of the Second Amendment. One last statistic to end on: in 2004 there were 639 firearm-related deaths with a population of 6.2 million. This is a death rate of about one firearm death per 10,000 people. Pretty good for a score of 8 out of 100.