Regulations about who is allowed to own guns and under what conditions, much like how motorists, business owners, and government officials are bound by special rules. Anyone who believes that kids shall not own guns, that anyone who owns a firearm has to register the weapon, and in penalties for reckless trigger-happy individuals is in favor of gun control. It may very well be more popular with liberals, but in fact millions of conservatives agree with the need for some form of restraint, that guns should be harder to purchase than candy bars or clothing. People who claim to be against "gun control" may very well support the legislation but fight it just to protest the idea of government limiting personal freedom.
Advocating for gun control does not require one to call for a complete prohibition on firearm ownership, just for rules about guns that force owners to be wise and responsible.
by geographydude95 October 04, 2018
Something that doesn't always mean taking away guns.
Gun control can mean a lot of things. It can be as simple as requiring guns that use a high-caliber ammunition to be stored in a locked safe, and it can be as complex as banning all guns. Forms of gun control also can be achieved without violating the Second Amendment. I do respect the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S, but the 2nd Amendment was written in 1791, where the deadliest guns were muskets, where the reload speed was very long because you had to ram a bullet and gunpowder down the barrel to load it.
My, how the times have changed.
In 2015, 265 kids who where holding a firearm shot someone accidentally. 83 people died as a result. A form of gun control could help fix this. 1.7 million kids live in a house where guns are stored loaded or not locked away. Requiring gun owners to remove all ammo before storing a gun, requiring some guns to be stored in a safe, and holding the owner of a gun responsible if a child is in possession of the gun(This is pretty much common sense) could reduce the number of accidental shootings in America.
Gun control can mean a lot of things. It can be as simple as requiring guns that use a high-caliber ammunition to be stored in a locked safe, and it can be as complex as banning all guns. Forms of gun control also can be achieved without violating the Second Amendment. I do respect the right to keep and bear arms in the U.S, but the 2nd Amendment was written in 1791, where the deadliest guns were muskets, where the reload speed was very long because you had to ram a bullet and gunpowder down the barrel to load it.
My, how the times have changed.
In 2015, 265 kids who where holding a firearm shot someone accidentally. 83 people died as a result. A form of gun control could help fix this. 1.7 million kids live in a house where guns are stored loaded or not locked away. Requiring gun owners to remove all ammo before storing a gun, requiring some guns to be stored in a safe, and holding the owner of a gun responsible if a child is in possession of the gun(This is pretty much common sense) could reduce the number of accidental shootings in America.
Guns are also very accessible. You can buy them pretty much anywhere that isn't a convenience store, and for a cheap price. I don't see a lot of things wrong with that, but a lot of states require very little training before you're allowed to buy a gun. Some gun shows and online sellers don't even require background checks for you to purchase one. Requiring more training on handling and storing a gun and requiring background checks on every gun sale can help keep at least some guns out of the hands of potential murderers.
Gun control can be achieved without banning guns.
Gun control can be achieved without banning guns.
by TheJewelOfJool January 04, 2017
A political issue dividing the United States for which there are two main stances.
Pro Control Stance: A necessity in a country in which the Vice President manages to shoot someone in the face, "on accident."
Anti Control Stance: Owning a gun is great way to keep overbearing government and thiefs out of your home. Unfortunately, this is entirely useless in a country in which the government has weapons far beyond the scope of any law abiding citizen.
Philosophy behind the argument: Some people argue that this could be a "hands-off" issue for our politicians. That is, people who want guns can have them, people who don't can not own one. However, the armed will always have superior influence over the peaceful. Naturally, everyone must have the ability to defend themselves equally within the law. This is why we have law enforcement officials and courts. Armed citizenship undermines legal procedure. So, the decision boils down to vigilante justice or structured justice. One is quicker yet more dangerous, one is slower yet controllable.
Solution: Take the government's weapons and give them to the citizens. That way every private citizen has the ability to bomb the crap out of people they don't like. It's the American way.
Pro Control Stance: A necessity in a country in which the Vice President manages to shoot someone in the face, "on accident."
Anti Control Stance: Owning a gun is great way to keep overbearing government and thiefs out of your home. Unfortunately, this is entirely useless in a country in which the government has weapons far beyond the scope of any law abiding citizen.
Philosophy behind the argument: Some people argue that this could be a "hands-off" issue for our politicians. That is, people who want guns can have them, people who don't can not own one. However, the armed will always have superior influence over the peaceful. Naturally, everyone must have the ability to defend themselves equally within the law. This is why we have law enforcement officials and courts. Armed citizenship undermines legal procedure. So, the decision boils down to vigilante justice or structured justice. One is quicker yet more dangerous, one is slower yet controllable.
Solution: Take the government's weapons and give them to the citizens. That way every private citizen has the ability to bomb the crap out of people they don't like. It's the American way.
by Smarter than you. June 18, 2006
Gun control is an idea constantly rejected by almost all republicans. They claim that they need to exercise their right to bear arms, because this apparently makes them and their country safer. This is simply bullshit.
Because the United States has about five times the suicides and five times the homicides related to firearms as other first world countries. No, that's not a a body count based on population, it's a percentage.
Basically, the fact that over a third of you have guns and practically no restrictions on them makes your country a hell of a scary place, for a developed nation. So, go ahead republicans, vote this down. But the truth stands!
Because the United States has about five times the suicides and five times the homicides related to firearms as other first world countries. No, that's not a a body count based on population, it's a percentage.
Basically, the fact that over a third of you have guns and practically no restrictions on them makes your country a hell of a scary place, for a developed nation. So, go ahead republicans, vote this down. But the truth stands!
Republican bullshit about gun laws causing violence is exactly that, bullshit. Go look up some information for yourself, you redneck idiots, and you will see that you are wrong.
Written by an unbiased Canadian who actually did some research on the subject of gun control in the US and world.
Written by an unbiased Canadian who actually did some research on the subject of gun control in the US and world.
by DuncanD June 02, 2011
Something which is enforced in Britain, and as a result, only 70 people a year are killed each year by guns, compared with America's 12'000.
And don't say 'that's because America's population is vastly bigger'. It's only 4 times bigger than Britain's, which means only 280 people should be killed by guns each year over there
And don't say 'that's because America's population is vastly bigger'. It's only 4 times bigger than Britain's, which means only 280 people should be killed by guns each year over there
Switzerland don't have gun control, but they have a low crime rate because they're not constitution-fucking American nutjobs!! In the words of the great Chris Rock; 'You need some bullet control!!'
by zutroy March 02, 2004
1. The idea that enforcing weapon laws and limiting the amount of guns that are sold - and to whom - will reduce crimes committed with said weapons.
2. A concept often called "unconstitutional" by the same redneck "Christians" who want the Ten Commandments displayed in federal buildings. Strikes fear into their shrivelled hearts despite the fact that the guns in question are usually machine guns and the like, as opposed to the rifles they like to use when they go 'coon shootin' in the dump out behind the trailer park.
2. A concept often called "unconstitutional" by the same redneck "Christians" who want the Ten Commandments displayed in federal buildings. Strikes fear into their shrivelled hearts despite the fact that the guns in question are usually machine guns and the like, as opposed to the rifles they like to use when they go 'coon shootin' in the dump out behind the trailer park.
It's hard to commit a crime with a gun if you can't get one. Gun control helps take weapons out the hands of those not responsible enough to deserve them. This is not a difficult concept.
by Abudoobie January 09, 2006
A great idea that, apparently, not one of you supports.
A gun is all you need, you say, and you'll be safe from all danger. But actually, a gun used in self defense at your house is "43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or a visiting friend than in intruder."-(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60). So much for the saftey of a gun.
I'm sure all of you crazy self-defensive people will be happy by the news that in Florida, self defense has been taken to such a level that you are now allowed to shoot people on the street in self defense. Now, you are allowed to walk on the street with a concealed gun and shoot people, and if put in jail, you may appeal in the case of self defense. Justice prevails in America.
A gun is all you need, you say, and you'll be safe from all danger. But actually, a gun used in self defense at your house is "43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or a visiting friend than in intruder."-(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60). So much for the saftey of a gun.
I'm sure all of you crazy self-defensive people will be happy by the news that in Florida, self defense has been taken to such a level that you are now allowed to shoot people on the street in self defense. Now, you are allowed to walk on the street with a concealed gun and shoot people, and if put in jail, you may appeal in the case of self defense. Justice prevails in America.
Some people say "What happens when the government becomes a dictatorship and we have no guns to protect ourselves."
How about "What happpens when the system of checks and balances fail, and we can no longer vote, and we can no longer impeach, and dragons roam the earth, and we have no guns to protect ourselves!" it is completely ridiculous to relate government corruption to gun control, and use it as a reason to own a gun.
How about "What happpens when the system of checks and balances fail, and we can no longer vote, and we can no longer impeach, and dragons roam the earth, and we have no guns to protect ourselves!" it is completely ridiculous to relate government corruption to gun control, and use it as a reason to own a gun.
by hYbRiD hEaD May 16, 2005