> Do they mean "disarm the entire population", "disarm all criminals", "disarm the mentally unstable", "institute severe penalties for doing X, Y or Z with guns

> Do they mean "disarm the entire population", "disarm all criminals", "disarm the mentally unstable", "institute severe penalties for doing X, Y or Z with guns", or something else? "Gun control", in a policy sense that you want, where people define their terms, does not mean that. I gave you two sources with similar definitions. It means simply the laws related to the the production, sale, ownership, use, etc. of a gun and its ancillary components. If your example regulations were in place, they would be considered part of gun control. Even if they are not in place, there can still be gun control. The question I think you want to ask is "what gun controls do you want"? Not "what is gun control." For purposes of this discussion, define "gun control" as having policies which are essentially identical to those of (your preference) Australia, or Sweden, or Japan. I think that's as simple and unambiguous as you are going to get, and will satisfy most people interested in stricter laws. > In the next sentence they are talking about cops not having to worry about people shooting them That comment is a continuation of the thread, which started with statistics of the number of civilians killed by police officers. > That, to me, implies that, to this person, "gun control" might mean something approaching total disarmament of the population, criminals included. Again, "gun control" here is a synecdoche to mean "stricter gun control." Countries with strict gun controls, like Australia and Sweden, have a lot of private gun ownership, for hunting and target shooting. So no, it doesn't necessarily mean 'total disarmament of the population'. Here's a hypothetical that might help understand the difference. Suppose hunting rifles are allowed, but hand guns are not. It's pretty hard to conceal a rifle as you go around town, especially since the law requires that it be locked up in a case when in transit, or stored in the house. This means it's less likely that a petty thief will be carrying a gun to commit a crime. This means it's less likely that a drug dealer will be carrying a gun as protection against potential thieves. In general, many police reports which involve the forceful police attack on what turns out to be the wrong person are justified because of the likelihood that the actual criminal is likely to have a gun, and may respond with a gunfight. For example, SWAT teams are often called out for low-level drug dealers. The assumption is that a dealer is likely to be armed. The team is figuratively armed for bear; expecting the worst possible case. Sometimes they end up killing or seriously injuring innocent people, including by forceful entry of the wrong house. If years of SWAT team calls were go out, where no one ever has a gun, then it will be increasingly hard to justify the expense of a SWAT team and the deaths that sometimes occur when in a hair-trigger mode. That was the statistics that the OP was referring to. That was the gun control style that the earlier poster was referring to. Very few seriously propose a 'total disarmament of the population', and if you had researched the topic you would have quickly learned that.