Gun Control Forum on Facebook Gun Control Forum on Google Plus Gun Control Forum on Twitter

Greetings Gun Control Debater

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

Popular Gun Control Forum Categories

In this Discussion

What is your definition of gun control?

edited October 2015 in Gun Control Debates Posts: 39
I am curious as to what others think gun control means. Is it simply registration of fire arms? Required background checks for gun purchases? Is it a big brother type organization coming into our homes to see if we have guns and charging us with unlawful behavior? Is it hunters or competition gun owners not being able to operate their guns without additional controls like gun safety classes? What does gun control mean to you? What parts of gun control do you object to the most?
Tagged:

Comments

  • Posts: 234
    To me they say gun control,but what they really want is control of legal guns,and then total ban of legal guns.Then to change the constitution to read the way they want it to,and no this is no paranoia this is their agenda.If not they wouldn't be trying so hard to change our 2nd amendment.
    Thanked by 1CherylTorrie
  • Posts: 21
     I agree with rbower80. Gun control is as subversive as most other liberal agendas. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing, it's sole purpose being to disarm the public, and leave us defenseless. I guess my definition of "gun control" is a pseudonym for gun confiscation.
  • First of all let me just say that I am good with guns. I believe that it is the people who are holding the guns and not the guns themselves that are the issue, but I have to say it. The Second Amendment does not mean you have the right to have a gun. The Second Amendment says you have the right to bear arms, which can be any weapon. I really have an issue with everyone saying they are trying to take away our rights, when that is just not true. You don't have the right to have a gun. If you did, they wouldn't take the gun rights from felons. You have the right to have a weapon to protect yourself. That's it. It does not have to be a gun. As far as gun control, I feel like they are trying to find a way to protect us from gun violence. That's all. I don't think it will necessary work because there are too many people who don't get their guns legally and the rules will not apply to them because they don't care about the law anyway.
  • To be fair, I know some people who were felons.  They are not allowed to have any weapons.  No knives or guns or anything but their bare hands.  I think gun control is actually people trying to get guns out of the hands of citizens.  I also think many people who are for gun control want guns away from EVERYONE.  They don't want them in the hands of civilians or soldiers.  For me gun control is really just keeping them away from people who have the intent of harming others or don't have the mental capacity to refrain from hurting others (such as the severely mentally ill).  Also, I think gun safety education is very important. 
    Thanked by 1CherylTorrie
  • Posts: 234
    I don't think the anti's are concerned with safety near as much as getting rid of guns from the law abiding citizens.They want us to be defenseless in the end.They can try and sugar coat it any way they want,they blame us for criminals having guns.The right to bear arms does mean the right to have a gun to protect us,and they want to change that,and they have no right to do that.The constitution is all about individuals rights and any change to it is to remove our rights.I won't vote for no one that wants any change to our constitution and our freedoms.I am sorry if I drifted a bit,but this something I feel very strong about.I have no trust of the anti's.
  • I think gun control is just an excuse for the government to have more control over us. No matter what laws or regulations they put in place its not going to stop criminals from obtaining guns. I believe in protecting my family and myself. I think we should be allowed to buy firearms to protect ourselves because if they take our guns away what is going to happen when criminals harm us?
  • I understand that, rbower.  I know some anti-gun people.  The ones that I know (I'm not speaking for those that I don't) are just afraid of them.  From the sound of most of their arguments, I'm pretty sure that they think getting a gun is easier than it actually is.  For criminals, yeah, because they can get them anywhere.  Please don't misunderstand me, I do NOT agree with disarming everyone.  I just have always been able to see both sides of a fight.  It comes from living with a stubborn mother and older sister.  I don't think anti-gun people are evil, they just don't understand the reasons for gun ownership.  I don't think that action movies are helping the cause, either.  I love watching them, but they glorify needless killing.  Too many parents don't take the time out to explain that to their kids.

  • Posts: 234
    I do see both sides of it,but when one fights against something they have no understanding or educating of makes a person or group dangerous to the ones that do understand and are educated of the subject.I belong to some other forms as well and I must say this one is the calmest one I belong too as far as being under attack from the anti's.Even though I appreciate that,I see more of their agenda as a whole,and trust is earned and they haven't.Then with that said,I agree with some of what they want but it doesn't stop there,it is just one thing after another they want.Many have turned it in to a fight between them and us and leaves no middle ground for anyone.
  • Yeah.  Middle ground is very important to solutions.  Compromise is essential.  The problem is that the pro-gun and the anti-gun people (as a whole, not talking about every individual) are so busy arguing that they don't realize they have a common enemy: criminals.  The anti-guns people end up grouping pro-gun people in with the criminals.  I have read many posts on here and facebook (to name a couple) where a lot of misguided people think that owning a gun makes you some kind of blood-crazed maniac.  Once you have a gun, you automatically want to kill people.  [-X  The pro-guns people are so scared of losing their guns, that they try to fight every change to the law tooth and nail.  Some will go as far as threating those who want to take away their guns with shooting them.  I think that's a little counterproductive.  I agree with fighting for the right to have your guns, but threatening them with the reason they want to take away the guns is probably not going to help them realize that not all gun owners are crazy. 
  • Posts: 234
    I agree,there is radicals on both sides,and both concern me,threats are no answer to anything.There are some with legal guns that maybe shouldn't have them,and there have been cases where a extreme anti that has done wrong with a gun to try and further their cause.I wish we could come together for the greater good.
    TommiGunn31
  • I think the language needs to be extremely clear so we can move forward on this serious issue. I think gun control means restricting the accessibility of guns and ammunition by those not responsible with a firearm in their possession. It does not mean taking guns away nor changing the language of the constitution. It would be wrong to take this right to bare arms from the American people. Background checks are necessary before sales. Minors should not be able to acquire guns (and we're talking guns by the dozens, if they want, without being questioned). It's restricting guns from getting into wrong hands, not taking guns away.
  • Posts: 234
    It is against the law for anyone under 18 to buy a gun already as I know it.Restricting law abiding citizens will do nothing for illegal guns,this is what we have been trying to say,and law abiding citizens don't want the guns in the wrong hands,we have been saying that also.Then for the 2nd. amendment it is under attack by most anti groups,and this we will not give a inch on.Background checks are already done federal and most states,but it is mandatory for federal.I think a law abiding citizen should be able to buy as many legal guns they want and can afford,there is nothing else with a limit like that,as long as what they are doing with them is legal should be the only concern.If not then they are not law abiding citizens anymore now are they and there are laws for that already.Your problem is not with lawful gun owners it is with the unlawful,and this too is what we have been trying to say.
  • I may be wrong, but I think where I live minors of a certain age (I want to say...16) can buy guns for hunting.  I agree that there shouldn't be a limit on the amount of guns or ammo for a law-abiding citizen.  If we trust them with one gun, we should be able to trust them with more.  What is the difference between one gun or 20, if they have our permission?
  • Posts: 234
    I know in IL. it is 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a hand gun,other states may be different.I think that is part of the whole trouble the anti's not trust no one with guns,guns somehow makes you a bad in their eyes.Now before I get jumped on here,I don't mean them all,but for the most part they can't agree among themselves who they are and what they really want.
  • I'm sorry if I made you feel jumped on in the past.  You are not the one that I point fingers at in terms of grouping.  Once I did think that, but then you made your position clear.  I realize that you are referring to a very specific group.  I have known some of the anti-gun extremists that you are referring to.  They are not all anti-gun people, but they do make themselves heard and insist on speaking for anti-gunners. When I refers to anti-gun people as a whole, I mostly mean the ones who themselves don't want to own guns, not that they are against guns for everyone.

  • Posts: 21
    For me gun control means having more background checks and being a responsible gun owner.  The way things are now it seems like anyone can get their hands on a gun, any kind of gun and this is where the problem is coming in at.  We need to know who this individual is before a gun is handed over.  Those who are unstable and obtaining guns for violent purposes are the ones giving guns a bad name in general.  We just need to regulate more, it's no biggie, we regulate certain drugs don't we, so why not guns as well.
  • Posts: 234
    No Tommigun I don't feel you jump on me, I think we have come to understand each other pretty well on the forum.I just wanted to make sure with any new ones that read these forums that I try not to point at all when I am writing on here.I know sometimes I can come across pretty strong and don't mean too, it is just the way I express my self.I know I have said it before but we don't need more regulations we need to enforce the ones we already have. Background checks do no good if it doesn't include needed information. Unfortunately we will never stop guns getting in the wrong hands, there are way to many illegal ways to get guns and there is no law for that, that is going to help. I just think so many think if we just pass another law or regulation it will make this all go away, that is just not the way it works. Things are always happening in life to make some people snap, and criminals well they don't really need a reason.
    TommiGunn31
  • My definition of Gun Control.. is the control of the guns that are being used everyday. But I think that laws on bullets should be implemented because if you actually think about it bullets have all the power. Without bullets guns would not be able to kill unless someone decided to beat an individual with just the gun. Therefor a ban of hollow tips or corrosive bullets should be banned to the general public. There should be laws implemented that make people register to be a hunter or to carry a concealed weapon. I know there are laws like this but maybe if these were taken more seriously and enforced then we would have less violent crime involving a firearms being committed. 
  • Posts: 49
    Gun Control: ensuring accuracy and an efficient rate of fire. 
  • Posts: 234
    I have said it before where has a law,restriction,or even a ban ever put a stop to anything that is against the law, and why because the lawless don't care about the laws in the first place.
  • pafjlh, we, do have drug restrictions; that is true.  However, tell that to the crack dealers and meth labs.  Also, we can make all the laws we want to about what guns people can use and how, but the only ones who will be obey those laws are the ones who are already obeying existing laws.  Laws may make us feel safe, but the reality is that laws are only effective when they are obeyed and enforced.  As for just anyone being able to legally buy guns, that's just not true.  There are age limits, there are background checks, there are many laws in place to control gun ownership.  Most of the people who use guns to hurt others did not obtain them legally.  They stole them or bought them illegally, the black market, for instance.  A very small fraction of legal gun owners kill without it being in self-defense.  Those are usually people with undiagnosed illnesses. 

  • Posts: 234
    Gun control should mean taking the criminals of the street and keeping them off, less criminals means less illegal guns and shooters on the street.This is where control needs to happen. how many of you know a law abiding citizen selling guns to the illegal I don't know any.
    TommiGunn31
  • I don't either, and by definition, they are no longer law-abiding if they sell guns illegally.  Whether or not they are caught, they have broken the law.  I completely agree that the problem lies with the criminals and not the inanimate object itself.
  • The thing is, they're trying. It's not like they are sitting there and actually trying to leave criminals on the streets. In fact, it's the opposite. But when they take them off, people also get angry about claiming innocence, trials, etc. I don't blame the guns, but what you're suggesting is also almost useless.
  • Posts: 161
    Oddly enough, gun control originally was meant to prevent freed slaves the right to defend themselves, and it included, knives, dogs in some places, Google it and see.

    The main hypothesis behind gun control is;

    1. Guns are deadly and fire deadly ammo, so if a person carries a deadly Gun with deadly ammo, it is deadly.

    2. Someone got shot with deadly gun and deadly ammo, and now is pronounced deadly dead.

    3. Deadly Guns kill deader than dead.
    A knife is not as deadly.

    4. Register many types of deadly dead guns, then ban them and make everyone get rid of them, except the Police and the Military.

    5. Make it much harder to legally aquire or access firearms, and fewer people will want the added hassle.

    6. Require storage of legal firearms at a range, so people can't access them for self defense.

    Far fetched ? no, the UK currently has this type of system in place.
Sign In or Register to comment.