4
   

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

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 11:48 am
@parados,
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.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 10:01 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
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. Drunk


No. There is no exception for the UN. I am judging the UN's proposals on their own merits.



parados wrote:
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.


Wrong. The laws that the UN is encouraging the world to pass, would do exactly as I said.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2012 10:04 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
You are now trying to claim a HOW TO guide is an actual document of what the UN proposes.


I claim that they are urging that the measures within their document be passed into law.



parados wrote:
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.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 02:35 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
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.


These are the ACTUAL words..
Quote:
factors that should be considered and to outline the measures that states may consider


Telling them what they may consider is not the same thing as telling them what to produce.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2012 04:18 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
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.


Nothing is made up. The UN are urging people to pass gun bans.

If the UN didn't want it to happen, they would not be urging people to do it.



parados wrote:
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".
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 09:59 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
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.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 12:13 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Nonsense. "Urging people to consider doing it" is the same thing as "urging people to do it".


Consider doing what?


Consider banning civilian access to guns.



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


No, we are talking in circles because you have no way around the solid proof I've provided that the UN wants to ban civilian guns.



parados wrote:
Licensing is the same thing as banning


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.



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


I've said nothing whatsoever about the UN forcing them to do it.



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


I've not made up the meaning of any word.



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


Sure I have. I've provided links to many years worth of statements and documentation from them showing them urging the nations of the world to do just that.



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


No, their how-to guide is all about banning civilian gun ownership.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 01:50 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 02:15 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
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


Yes.



parados wrote:
Why? Because they want to license them.


Wrong. The license is the means to the end. It is not the motive.



parados wrote:
Is licensing a ban? Depends on the license


Correct.



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


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



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


That's why it's always a bad idea to rely on your mischaracterizations of what I said.

Far better to rely on what I actually do say.



parados wrote:
I think we are done here.


You were doomed from the beginning. There was never any way for you to argue against actual links to official UN documents on official UN websites.



parados wrote:
You clearly have no argument other than your logical fallacy.


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

And you cannot show a single logical fallacy on my part.

(Note that "pretending that I said something that I didn't actually say" does not count as me committing a logical fallacy.)
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 02:37 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

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.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 02:38 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:28 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
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.




Quote:
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
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 03:33 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Wrong. I have links to official UN documents urging the nations of the world to impose civilian gun bans.


Wrong.


No, that is exactly what the UN is urging the nations of the world to do.



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


Suggestions, yes.

In particular, they suggest that they set up bans on civilian guns.



parados wrote:
They don't set up bans.


They suggest that such bans be set up however.



parados wrote:
That is merely YOUR interpretation of them.


It is pretty easy to interpret a suggestion that a nation ban civilian guns. It usually means that they are calling for that nation to ban civilian guns.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 15 Aug, 2012 07:27 pm
@oralloy,
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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 08:11 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Not a single thing in there about banning guns.


Yes there is.



parados wrote:
We only have your paranoia.


No, you have the fact that the UN desires civilian gun bans.



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


You must be imagining things again.

But since you brought up that imaginary statement, I'll add that the UN's desire for such a limit is indeed totally unacceptable.

The ban itself is the more egregious outrage, however.



parados wrote:
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.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 08:26 am
@oralloy,
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.


Quote:

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.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 11:38 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
You keep saying that but then you can only point to licensing.


Licensing that amounts to a gun ban.



parados wrote:
You are talking in circles.


No, I'm merely responding to your posts by pointing out the truth.



parados wrote:
The UN wants to ban guns.


Yes.



parados wrote:
Why? Because the UN wants to license them.


You posted that nonsense before. I already set you straight on it just a few posts above.



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


I already set you straight on that nonsense as well, also just a few posts above.



parados wrote:
You are doing nothing but begging the question.


You may have imagined me posting things that amount to that. But so far as the things that I've actually posted in reality, I'm doing nothing of the sort.



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


My bias is for truth and reality.

I do indeed interpret the UN's gun ban ideas with truth and reality foremost in my mind.



parados wrote:
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.


Yes there is.



parados wrote:
They only recommend licensing.


Licensing that amounts to a gun ban for civilians.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 12:27 pm
@oralloy,
Blah, blah, blah.

You continue with your logical fallacy.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Aug, 2012 01:17 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Blah, blah, blah.
You continue with your logical fallacy.


Wrong. Telling the truth about the UN and their desire for a civilian gun ban, is not a logical fallacy.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2012 07:24 pm
@oralloy,
Sure, the UN wants to ban guns simply because they want to. We don't need no stinking evidence. oralloy says it's so. Ignore all the words of the UN. We have to listen to oralloy's argument and ignore anything else.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 08:48:07