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

Your argument IS a logical fallacy. It begs the question.

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.

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.

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

No. Listen to the words of the UN:

oralloy wrote:

No. Listen to the words of the UN:

Nowhere does the UN state that guns should be banned.

Licensing guns does NOT ban them.

You can argue that it does but it only points out your logical fallacy.

You have provided mountains of conjecture about the meaning that isn't in the documents.

You argue that limiting the number of guns a person can own is the same thing as banning guns.

That is a ridiculous argument.

No, I have provided direct quotes from the documents themselves.

oralloy wrote:

No, I have provided direct quotes from the documents themselves.

You have provided direct quotes that show licensing and number of weapons. Neither of which points to banning of civilian weapons.

The licensing scheme involved is effectively a civilian gun ban.

The thing about disguising a ban as "licensing" or "registration" is an old trick. It might fool people in other countries, but it won't fool the NRA.

oralloy wrote:

The licensing scheme involved is effectively a civilian gun ban.

No, it's not and you can't show that it is.

oralloy wrote:

The thing about disguising a ban as "licensing" or "registration" is an old trick. It might fool people in other countries, but it won't fool the NRA.

No evidence. Just paranoia.

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.

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

You can't fool the people that believe what they want to. Damn the facts.

Cars must be banned because they are licensed.
Drivers must be banned because they are licensed.
Dogs must be banned because they are licensed

Your argument ends up failing big time oralloy.

Yes it is.

And sure I can. All I need to do is link to the UN's own words detailing their gun ban scheme. (Note: Done. Repeated my UN cite below.)

You keep posting from the UN where they allow people to have guns. Having guns is NOT a ban. Not in the real world.

D) Waiting periods
A waiting or ‘cooling off period’ is a useful measure to establish a distance of time between
application submission, review of the request and the granting of a license. ‘Cooling off’ periods
may also be established between the date of purchase and the date of delivery of a firearm. For
example, a 28-day minimum ‘cooling off’ period between the sale of a specific firearm and the
delivery of this arm to the license holder could prevent ‘impulse purchases’ by license holders.

C) License and competency certificate renewal
Frequently overlooked is the necessity to ensure periodic renewal of licenses and competency
certificates to keep track of any changes in individual circumstances such as location or ongoing
suitability to possess a small arm. In the case of death of a license holder, conditions should be
stipulated that the arm(s) be surrendered to the state within a designated time-period, and if so
desired, that the beneficiaries of the deceased estate apply for a new license to possess the firearm
and re-register it.

A) Licensing criteria
Legislation may establish the criteria against which to assess the suitability and competence
of applicants for licences to possess SALW.

Did Australia ban guns?

Let's look at what you left out of your quote

Quote:

D) Waiting periods
A waiting or ‘cooling off period’ is a useful measure to establish a distance of time between application submission, review of the request and the granting of a license. ‘Cooling off’ periods may also be established between the date of purchase and the date of delivery of a firearm. For example, a 28-day minimum ‘cooling off’ period between the sale of a specific firearm and the delivery of this arm to the license holder could prevent ‘impulse purchases’ by license holders.

Why would there need to be a waiting period if guns are banned?

Quote:

C) License and competency certificate renewal
Frequently overlooked is the necessity to ensure periodic renewal of licenses and competency certificates to keep track of any changes in individual circumstances such as location or ongoing suitability to possess a small arm. In the case of death of a license holder, conditions should be stipulated that the arm(s) be surrendered to the state within a designated time-period, and if so desired, that the beneficiaries of the deceased estate apply for a new license to possess the firearm and re-register it.

Why would license need to be renewed if guns were banned?

Quote:

A) Licensing criteria
Legislation may establish the criteria against which to assess the suitability and competence of applicants for licences to possess SALW.

Why would there be criteria at all if guns were banned?

Does the NRA want to ban guns? They have some of the same criteria as the UN document.

parados wrote:

Did Australia ban guns?

To a large extent, yes.

Yes. That is another blatantly unacceptable measure. It would be unconstitutional to force an American to needlessly wait for no reason when they wish to exercise their rights.

ROFLMAO.. So the current waiting period is unconstitutional?

Do you have a court ruling showing that?

Or is the the oralloy school constitutional BS?