Ban guns now! It will stop massacre's right?

Oralloy wrote:

Nonsense. The fact that they encourage it shows that they desire it

I see. Just like your encouraging gun ownership means you desire massacres.

Just as the UN's encouraging of civilian gun bans means they desire civilian gun bans.

Oralloy wrote:

Just as the UN's encouraging of civilian gun bans means they desire civilian gun bans.

That's funny. Your quote specifically says prohibitin military weapons for civilians.

Licence applicants may be required to provide a good reason, justifying why they need to possess a firearm. Legislation may prescribe the circumstances under which possession of a firearm may be justified.

If ‘personal protection’ is permitted as a good reason, applicants should prove to the police that they are in genuine danger that could be avoided by being armed.

The carrying of firearms in public by civilians should be restricted and it is important that this is explicitly stated that a license does not itself authorise the public carriage of a small arm (an exception can be introduced for ‘on duty’ employees of private security companies, but in this case such employees should be required to possess a special carrying permit).

So. YES, just like your encouraging gun ownership means you desire massacres.

In any case, the UN considers pretty much any weapon that would be suitable for human verses human fighting (including any gun that might be possibly useful for self defense) to be a military weapon.

Not one of those quotes references banning civilian guns

So.. once again.. using your leaps of logic, your encouraging gun ownership means you desire massacres.

oralloy wrote:

In any case, the UN considers pretty much any weapon that would be suitable for human verses human fighting (including any gun that might be possibly useful for self defense) to be a military weapon.

Can you provide a written source for that?

other than the voices in your head?

You know very well that I can.

Preventing civilians from owning a gun unless the government feels that they "need" that particular gun, counts as a ban.

oralloy wrote:

You know very well that I can.

You haven't so far. Every quote from you requires a tortured reading that has nothing to do with what is actually in the quote.

But then you keep arguing about what is in a treaty that you admit you haven't read.

oralloy wrote:

Preventing civilians from owning a gun unless the government feels that they "need" that particular gun, counts as a ban.

No, it doesn't.

Unless you are willing to argue that the US currently bans guns which makes your entire argument moot.

Nothing tortured about it. Having to get a government official to agree that you "need" any given gun before you are allowed to buy it, is functionally a gun ban.

Any given gun? That is a tortured reading right there. Where did you post anything about "any given gun?"

Chapter 3: Regulating arms in the Hands of Civilians

Principle 2: Regulating the use of the firearm

A) Good reason for possession / genuine need

Licence applicants may be required to provide a good reason, justifying why they need to possess a firearm. Legislation may prescribe the circumstances under which possession of a firearm may be justified.

If ‘personal protection’ is permitted as a good reason, applicants should prove to the police that they are in genuine danger that could be avoided by being armed.

. . . .

It should not be sufficient to merely state a reason (for example professional hunting) for owning firearms, but for the interests of public safety, and whenever possible, a proof should be submitted along with the license request (so for example, proof of employment as a professional hunter).


------


Principle 3: Regulating the user of the firearm

E) Number of firearms allowed

Good reason should be required for every small arm possessed under a license (see principle 2 above). Someone may have a good reason to possess a single firearm, but the law should not assume that this same reason automatically justifies a second one, or a third. Each time good reasons should be proven, taking into account the firearms already possessed. In addition, there should be an upper limit for the number of firearms possessed. This limit should depend on the category of arms license. For example, professional hunting associations or private security companies will likely have higher limits than a private citizen.

http://www.poa-iss.org/mge/Documents/Topics/UNDP_SALW_Legislation.pdf

It's that slippery slope you like so much oralloy. Suggesting states consider prohibitions on some weapons and require a need is not a gun ban. But if it is then you support massacres.

I don't think I quoted that part before. There is so much UN crap to quote, I could never hope to get it all.

Chapter 3: Regulating arms in the Hands of Civilians14
This chapter addresses regulating the use, possession and holding of small arms by civilians, and
examines the key elements to include and consider in the process of changing legislation.15
This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapters 1, 2 and 7 but also has direct links with
legislative provisions in:

. Many of the elements
listed below may also be contained in secondary legislation, (i.e. regulations, directives, etc.),
depending of the legal system of the country.

What it is, is encouragement that they implement a gun ban.

Oralloy wrote:

I don't think I quoted that part before. There is so much UN crap to quote, I could never hope to get it all.

Let me know when you find it.

Until then we can both agree you are talking out of your a**.

Your "fuller quote" is out of context.

There are many qualifiers you leave out.

The first paragraph of the chapter states

Quote:

Chapter 3: Regulating arms in the Hands of Civilians14

This chapter addresses regulating the use, possession and holding of small arms by civilians, and examines the key elements to include and consider in the process of changing legislation.15

This chapter should be read in conjunction with Chapters 1, 2 and 7 but also has direct links with legislative provisions in:

You have left out Chapters 1, 2 and 7 and the direct links from your quotes making them entirely out of context.

Then there is this directly before what you did quote:

Quote:

Many of the elements listed below may also be contained in secondary legislation, (i.e. regulations, directives, etc.), depending of the legal system of the country.

oralloy wrote:

What it is, is encouragement that they implement a gun ban.

Only if you are arguing that any regulation is the same thing as a ban.

Wrong. The fact that some regulation is effectively a ban, does not mean that all regulation is effectively a ban.

Every proposed law must be judged on it's own merits.

The UN's proposal that everyone who wants to buy a gun, should be forced to get a government official to agree that they "need" that particular gun before they are allowed to buy it, is effectively a gun ban.