I am writing in response to Jaime Sarrio's article, Guns main cause of terror in U.S. on September 25, 2001. I must say that I do agree with you, trigger locks are a good thing and that they save lives. But, that is as far as we think alike. For starters I don't see how taking guns away from the American people would have changed anything that happened on September 11.
             When you say at what cost is the right to bear arms costing other Americans, the answer is not that much. In fact in some cases it saves us. According to Dr. Henry Kleck, who works for the National Crime Survey, says, "gun-wielding civilians in self-defense or some other legally justified cause kill between 1,500 and 2,800 felons, which is 2.5-7 times as many criminals as are shot dead by the police." He also claims, "there were about 8,700-16,600 non-fatal, legally permissible wounds of criminals by gun armed civilians." You also say that according to Harvard Medical Research Center that the majority of all homicides and suicides involve guns. This is probably true, but according to the U.S. government research shows that someone wanting to commit suicide will find another way if a gun is not available. You then go on to attack the NRA by implying that the second amendment, which is where according to you the NRA gets its platform, is "dinosaur-like." So by saying that, do you mean that rights should not be protected for all times but rather just for short periods of time. The first amendment ensures the right to religion, but it is just as old, so should we get rid of that too? The second amendment was not passed to protect ourselves from the red-coats as you suggest. The second amendment was passed to ensure personal safety. Future President John Adams stated in 1763,"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but my property, is an indisputable ri
             ...