Here's a very interesting read with real statistics:

Time to face facts on gun control
by Fareed Zakaria


Look at the map below. It shows the average number of firearms per 100 people. Most of the world is shaded light green – those are the countries where there are between zero and 10 guns per 100 citizens. In dark brown, you have the countries with more than 70 guns per 100 people. The U.S. is the only country in that category. In fact, the last global Small Arms Survey showed there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans. Yemen is second at 54. Serbia and Iraq are among the other countries in the top 10.

We have 5 percent of the world's population and 50 percent of the guns.

But the sheer number of guns isn’t an isolated statistic. The data shows we compare badly on fatalities, too. The U.S has three gun homicides per 100,000 people. That’s four times as many as Switzerland, ten times as many as India, 20 times as many as Australia and England.

Whatever you think of gun rights and gun control, the numbers don’t flatter America.

I saw an interesting graph in The Atlantic magazine recently. A spectrum shows the number of gun-related deaths by state. Now if you add one more piece of data – gun control restrictions – you see that the states with at least one firearm law (such as an assault weapons ban or trigger locks) tend to be the states with fewer gun-related deaths.

link:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

links: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/29/antonin-scalia-guns_n_1715969.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

my comments:
-------------

in this interview, even scalia talks about two things of worth:

1. 'frighting', when the second amendment was passed was a crime. This involved carrying weapons intended to scare people

2. he sights that future courts will have to intepret what was reasonable to be carried at the time of the second amendment. e.g. rocket launchers did not exist. btw - neither did large magazines and other powerful hand guns. According to scalia's own words, it is reasonable to assume that weapons not present at that time can have restrictions placed on them. wow - this whole debate is more largely about making money for the NRA and the gun manufacturers as well as satisfying paranoia.

So many lives could be saved if we had meaningful controls to allow people to buy and collect guns, while ensuring that people are not being turned into parnoid creatures and over-buying through fear.

Source: www.huffingtonpost.com

The study, which was conducted in May by GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, revealed the following data points as well:

•74 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
•68 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
•63 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
•75 percent of NRA members believe that concealed carry permits should be granted only to those applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors.
Taken in full, the numbers cut against the conventional wisdom, which holds that there is little political will for tackling gun control legislation in the wake of Friday's shooting in Aurora, Colo. But that theory, the study's authors insisted, was always based on a false reading of the public opinion data.

“Gun owners and NRA members overwhelmingly support common sense steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, even as the NRA leadership continues to oppose them,” said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which commissioned the study. “It’s time for those in Washington -– and those running for President –- to stand with gun owning citizens who are concerned about public safety, rather than influence peddling lobbyists who are obsessed with ideology."

link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/gun-owners-frank-luntz_n_1699140.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Source: CNN Website

Consider what happened in Australia after a crazed gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996.

The Australian federal government persuaded all states and territories to implement tough new gun control laws. Under the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), firearms legislation was tightened throughout the country. National registration of guns was imposed and it became illegal to hold certain long guns that might be used in mass shootings.

The gun ban was backed up by a mandatory buy-back program that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.

iReporter: 'AK-47 a weapon for war'

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979--96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/donohue-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

---

Here are some facts about the benefits of gun control in a short period of time.

there are two common elements in the massacres. Stupid insame people and guns/other weapons of mass destruction. At least let's find a way to keep them apart.

here's the second amendment wording from the Internet:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


several things:
1. this is an amendment, so further amendments could change this. Otherwise, why was the amendment allowed in the first place
2. this applies to a well regulated militia. are lunatics part of a militia?
3. it says nothing about controls or where the guns should be stored. Where should they be kept?
4. it says nothing about ammunition. Should this be readily available?
5. what exactly are arms? are they small weapons, muskets, artilery, machine guns? i would say they should be muskets or the weapons at the time the law was written.
6. what does infringed mean?

Don't ask the current corrupt supreme court. they will obviously interpet the wording in the favor of their corporate and repub masters.

What i hear from people about their rights, as conferred by this simple wording, makes no sense and is only argued in their paranoid favor.


And the first amendment gives me the right so speak my mind.

I can't make up my mind. I'm beginning to think they are both. They're also perpetually scared.

Being scared turns them into conservatives as they think they are protecting their property and keeping it out of the hands of others.

Being intellectually inferior (e.g. stupid), they can understand that they are wrong and backing policies that only hurt them (witness the idiots voting for Romney who will do nothing to enrich the lives of anyone below the top 10 percent of the top 10 percent).

Being wimps, they act like crybabies when the left has no choice but to fight back and fight hard (witness the poor crybabies on the news channels complaining about the President's mean commercials calling Romney out to release his tax returns like any other prospective candidate has in recent memory).

i think repugs are scared, stupid, and wimpy.

zimmerman was armed and knew he was armed, so the young black man posed no threat from a distance.

So zimmerman, like the piece of shit he is, forced a confrontation and the young black man was killed.

This makes me seriously look at every allegation that is brought out against zimmerman. The young ladies description has a lot of merit: 1. she was scared to speak out before - clearly fits the zimmerman pattern; 2. zimmerman was a rascist - certainly something that the shooting would lend credibility to.

Recall zimmerman's lying to the judge when posting the first bail. i don't think zimmerman has much credibility left.

However, these are observations and my opinions. No one on this site is sending zimmerman to jail. that's for the jury to decide. but we can still have our opinions based on what we have heard.

and put an end to the repug farce of prosecuting this poor man.

let's start a grassroots movement on this.