What's the difference between "Gun Control" and "Banning Guns"?

What's the difference between "Gun Control" and "Banning Guns"?

There's literally no fucking difference, it's the same tyrant bullshit.

Gun control would be things like banning high cap magazines, specific types of rifles and accessories like bump stocks, mandatory background checks on all sales, and mandatory gun registration and liability insurance for every weapon owned. For example.

Banning guns is exactly what it sounds like, make firearms illegal to own and confiscate them.

same difference as there is between socialism and communism

fpbp

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

gun control is just the first step towards banning guns.

~gun control means usin' BOTH HANDS in MY land

The rate at which they progress to the end goal.

There isn't. Gun control groups have openly admitted since the 90s that their ultimate goal is confiscation. They just realise they have to do it in small increments because if they try it all at once there'll be a civil war. The media hides their agenda by telling you that you're paranoid for thinking that the gun grabbers want to do what they've openly said they want to do.

No compromises. You can't have my guns.

Nothing.

You’re an idiot and shouldn’t think about politics anymore. Saged faggot

Nothing. All gun control is pushed and supported by people who want to ban guns. They don't propose legislation to ban guns because it will never pass, so they chip away at the pie.

off my board, boomer trash

depends who you ask i guess

>There's literally no fucking difference, it's the same tyrant bullshit
^this

>bombing civilians with chemical weapons is a-ok when we do it

Holy shit these genocidal bastards must be stopped, pls tell me this is a Sup Forumsack trolling leddit

The only difference is that the second statement (banning guns) is more honest.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding. The more you deal with anti-gunners, the less hope you have for humanity. Ask me how I know.

how do you know
anti-gunners are human garbage but I still have hope for humanity because by definition anti-gunners are not good at defending themselves

STOP BEING RATIONAL

Because I've lived in and around Montreal and Toronto my whole life. Arguing with anti-gunners every time there is a highly publicized shooting anywhere in the world. Their grasp on ethics, rights, physics, and logic is so tenuous that they fly off the handle and create a horrendously toxic environment.

Technically speaking, gun control is a broader category. Requiring that people pass a marksmanship test is would be a form of gun control, for example.

agreed but what kind of firepower are they going to back up their insanity with if they are against guns
(pun intended)

No difference goyim

imagine a militia store house in your community, Any gun you want locked up at the store house and run by the community, open shooting ranges and classes. Any weapon. but, you must pass and stay in good standing with gun safety and security to remove the gun from the premises. if you have the clearance, you can conceal, carry, anything, anywhere. HOWEVER, if you ever lose control of your weapon you are fully responsible for any crime that weapon is used in and you loose your license, but you are guaranteed the right to and including the use off lethal force to keep your weapon secured from theft, robbery, etc.

It's the same difference between your destination and the road that took you there.

I highly doubt OP is approaching this from the technical angle.