As Is Mise said, there are other reasons for crime. In fact, in America, the states with the most virtual zero restrictions have less crime than we have here. Though that would involve you knowing what you're talking about.

Pelican, you go ahead and talk about the Australian Party without any idea of what it entails!

There is no party line mate, apart from the issues listed. It doesn't matter what the hell katter thinks because members vote based entirely on their electorate (a system much closer to an actual working democracy than what we have with a party line), and with all the issues which are locked in, you know about prior to voting.

What do you think about my post? Is Mise's post? They essentially strike down your argument entirely, don't they? I'll add another;

When Clinton was in power, he, a left leaning anti-gun politician, commissioned a study in which the results found that guns were used 50 times more for self defence than for an illegal purpose. This is the part where you blow that off and say "oh but American's are cowboys and rednecks who shoot anything!" Then I tell you that there laws are the same as ours in regards to self defence - you need to genuinely believe that your life or the life of another is in danger. The only difference being that their government recognises it's best to have a prepared citizen, as opposed to a victim.

"Pelican, you go ahead and talk about the Australian Party without any idea of what it entails!"

Nobody yet knows what it entails. I am the same member of the democracy that you are and have a right to say that I like a couple of Katter's points but don't have enough info yet to be able to fully make an assessment.

In a democracy it is not only gun owners that have the right to voice opinions especially with little information. Unlike you I need more detail before making a voting decision.

I am all for improving democracy and would be happy to have a vote on gun ownership and live with whatever the majority wants even if I don't agree with it. What about you?

No your argument and Is Mises post do not knock down the anti-gun argument. If you have a country with more guns, more people will use them in self defence. The 50% statistic in this sense is meaningless when compared to other countries without guns. That is, less guns mean you don't need more guns to defend yourself.

Pelican,
If you're worried about losing Labor voters to The Australia Part, have no fear. For the simple reason that the Australia Party is only attractive to thinkers not followers. A real Labor doctrine supporter will easily be swayed to change but not ALP lemmings. You see, to care you need to have a sense of care & not just being heard to say so. Bob Katter actually does care, he doesn't just say so as do the present academic hangers on. His party will attract people who are concerned about the slide of their country towards utter mayhem under the leftist crowd.

Katter's party is doomed from the start. I predict that it will have some initial electoral success at the next election, based on Katter's personal appeal among an alienated minority in the electorate. However, it will then fall rapidly into electoral oblivion, given that the personality around whom the party is based is singularly unattractive to the great majority of Australians.

Remember 'Joh for PM' and Pauline Hanson? That's where Katter's sideshow is headed. Mind you, like them I'm sure the deranged Katter will provide some light entertainment in what are pretty grim times :)

Katter is the gift that keeps on giving to journalists and comedians alike.

Be interesting to see if either of the major parties adopt any of his policies al la Howard taking on the hapless Hanson's stance on immigration.

Australia is a Democracy in which all citizens are equal; the ordinary citizen is not allowed to possess anything for the purpose of self defence and neither is the Prime Minister or any of the other politicians.

The Prime Minister doesn't need to have any because he/she has armed guards who don't carry weapons for their own protection (that would be against the law) but they carry them for the protection of the Prime Minister or which ever politician is felt to need protection. These armed guards are paid by the taxpaying citizens who cann't afford to have their own armed guards.

When the President visits the 51st State he has armed guards as well. However his armed guards are not subject to the laws of the 51st State and may shoot to kill if they think that any of the 51st staters are an immediate danger to the life of the President.