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

This How to Guide is designed for national law makers tasked with supporting or leading the review
of SALW legislation, in addition to others, such as UN staff in-country or civil society organizations,
who may engage in, or support a review process. It is intended to provide practical information on
the process to review SALW legislation, on key issues and factors that should be considered and
to outline the measures that states may consider when reviewing their legislation. The specific
objectives of the guide are therefore to help practitioners to:
• Understand the basic requirements and recommendations of international and regional
SALW instruments;
• Assess the relevance and comprehensiveness of their respective national legal
frameworks governing SALW;
• Assess whether all legal issues governing the possession, use, production, sale and
transfer (import, export and transit) of SALW are covered, or at least, considered in the
framing of legislation; and
• Address deficiencies within existing legal frameworks.

oralloy wrote:

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.

Unless you are the UN, it seems.

oralloy wrote:

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.

There is no such proposal. Geez.. Read what you try to quote from.

You are now trying to claim a HOW TO guide is an actual document of what the UN proposes.

This is what the document you are quoting from says about its purpose.

Quote:

This How to Guide is designed for national law makers tasked with supporting or leading the review of SALW legislation, in addition to others, such as UN staff in-country or civil society organizations, who may engage in, or support a review process. It is intended to provide practical information on the process to review SALW legislation, on key issues and factors that should be considered and to outline the measures that states may consider when reviewing their legislation. The specific objectives of the guide are therefore to help practitioners to:
• Understand the basic requirements and recommendations of international and regional SALW instruments;
• Assess the relevance and comprehensiveness of their respective national legal frameworks governing SALW;
• Assess whether all legal issues governing the possession, use, production, sale and transfer (import, export and transit) of SALW are covered, or at least, considered in the framing of legislation; and
• Address deficiencies within existing legal frameworks.

In other words, they'd like the nations of the world to produce legislation in line with what their document says.

factors that should be considered and to outline the measures that states may consider

oralloy wrote:

In other words, they'd like the nations of the world to produce legislation in line with what their document says.

There you go again. Making up what isn't in the actual words.

Telling them what they may consider is not the same thing as telling them what to produce.

Nonsense. "Urging people to consider doing it" is the same thing as "urging people to do it".

Oralloy wrote:

Nonsense. "Urging people to consider doing it" is the same thing as "urging people to do it".

Consider doing what?

We are now talking in circles because that is the only way you can go it seems.

Licensing is the same thing as banning

considering is the same thing as forcing them to do it.

You continue to make up meanings of words and then declare you are correct because your made up meanings are true meanings.

You have provided NO evidence of the UN trying to ban any guns.

You have only provided evidence of the UN providing a how to for making legislation that no where states guns should be banned.

Depends on the details of the licensing. In the case of the UN's gun ban scheme, yes, their licensing idea is actually a gun ban.

Oralloy wrote:

Depends on the details of the licensing. In the case of the UN's gun ban scheme, yes, their licensing idea is actually a gun ban.

The UN wants to ban guns

Why? Because they want to license them.

Is licensing a ban? Depends on the license

How do you know the UN license is a ban? Because the UN wants to ban guns.

Looks like a classic case of begging the question there oralloy.

I think we are done here.

You clearly have no argument other than your logical fallacy.

Wrong. You know it by looking at the details of the UN's licensing plan, and seeing if it is effectively a ban.

Wrong. I have links to official UN documents urging the nations of the world to impose civilian gun bans.

oralloy wrote:

Wrong. You know it by looking at the details of the UN's licensing plan, and seeing if it is effectively a ban.

What UN licensing plan? Please provide the details.

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

oralloy wrote:

Wrong. I have links to official UN documents urging the nations of the world to impose civilian gun bans.

Wrong.

You have provided links to UN documents that are nothing more than suggestions to nations on how to set up internal laws and regulations.

They don't set up bans.

That is merely YOUR interpretation of them.

Not a single thing in there about banning guns.

We only have your paranoia.

I really like your argument that setting a limit on number of firearms is banning them.

Oh, you can have them but oralloy thinks having them means you don't have them.

Nope. Under the UN's gun ban ideas, civilians would be prevented from having guns.

You keep saying that but then you can only point to licensing.

You are talking in circles.

The UN wants to ban guns.

Why? Because the UN wants to license them.

How do you know licensing is the same as banning? Because the UN wants to ban guns.

You are doing nothing but begging the question.

When pressed on actual language you rely on your bias to interpret it.

oralloy wrote:

Nope. Under the UN's gun ban ideas, civilians would be prevented from having guns.

No such thing in any of the language.

They only recommend licensing.

Blah, blah, blah.
You continue with your logical fallacy.