The Traitors........part one

I wasn't pointing out how often you return to the Second Amendment so much as I was pointing out how quickly you have to change the topic when your underlying "facts" are revealed to be inaccurate.

It's taking you some time to dig up proposed federal legislation. Could it be even those Democrats who are simply wrong on gun control are busy with other priorities? Like planning a responsible withdrawal from Iraq, where McCain wanted to keep us for fifty to a hundred years? Like turning the economy around?

I think that'll be a big part of it. But I also think the party leadership will continually, through the next four years, push the gun-control advocates to the back-burner. They know it would kill them in the next election. I can think of at least three seats here in Pennsylvania it would cost the Democrats in the U.S. House, and if they aren't already writing off Minnick's re-election chances - and they probably are - there's another seat it would cost them.

The greater danger to the Second Amendment is not the national Democrats, it's local governments - yes, usually dominated by Democrats - in urban, pro-gun control areas where there is no electoral penalty for backing bad policy.

By the way, you missed another historic example of gun control.

The American South before, during, and after the Civil War up through at least the 1960's. Whites prevented Black Americans from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Funny how you glossed over that one.

The use of data from Australia is misleading in the extreme. The figures quoted are from 1997, 1 year after gun law changes. Since those 1996 gun law changes the 3 crime types most associated with firearms; murder, attempted murder and armed robbery are all down.

The murder rate in Australia is now is 30% lower than it was in 1996.

The citing of "In Victoria alone, homicides are up by 300%" is particularly disingenuous; the figure went from 6 to 18, but then fell back to 6 in the following year (10 years ago).

The author has simply lifted these claims off the internet, given no time frame and ignored the fact they are a decade out of date.

Bazookaman, you're comment "Well Pottering, rather than debate what WAS" is rather strange because that was EXACTLY the point I was making about the article, ie that it merely recycled data from a decade ago and ignored what's happened since and is happening now, "what IS" as you term it.

My "updated" figures come courtesy of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (www.abs.gov.au). Clearly the article never ventured that far, despite opining on matters Australian. As I mentioned before, these same claims have been aired previously and have just as often been shown to be highly misleading and out of date.

Ah yes, shoot the messenger; but in this case you're firing blanks Bazookaman. Unless you are suggesting that the ABS doctors the crime numbers to make the government look better, what is your point? And if you are suggesting that, where is your evidence?

The ABS is an internationally respected statistical agency that operates at arm's length from the government. The government provides the funding, but it is the ABS who make the calls on what's collected and how it is collected. In a western democracy agencies like the ABS are relied upon to provide unbiased reports on the state of the nation. Trying to discredit them because their figures upset your sensibilities does you little credit.

And no, I don't own a gun.

You write "There is virtually NO crime at all in Switzerland and never HAS been. It's the only country in Europe Hitler never even CONSIDERED trying to take..........care to venture a guess as to why?". I'll give it a shot.

Hitler did have Switzerland in his plans, once the outward aims of the Reich were secured it was to be taken over on the way back, but other things intervened eg Russia. The reasons he never invaded are numerous and include the tough Swiss terrain, it's lack of natural resources, its use as an accessway between Germany and Italy, its relatively strong military (for its size) and its banking system which allowed depositing of money and more importantly laundering of money especially that courtesy of looting invading nations. Both the Allies and the Axis powers utilised Switzerland's neutrality for their own ends.

As for Switzerland having no crime at all, clearly you've never spoken to a Swiss person. On the site Nationmaster.com Switzerland ranks 20th out of 60 for total crimes per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita) which would seem to make your claim look downright silly.

Unfortunately most of what you write is more bluff and bluster than rational analysis. From what's been happening here we could go on endlessly with you making claims and me easily debunking them. I leave that up to you.

I understand why you wouldn't want to go into it Bazookaman, you've been shot down in flames before and all you have left is fear tactics. Still I admire how you simply ignore it when your claims are demolished and simply switch topics, that takes a whole lot of skill.

Come on, show some balls and defend your claims instead of ducking and weaving. If you get it wrong, ie Australian stats, Swiss crime then admit it. By running for cover you only expose yourself as a blowhard who can dish it out, but certainly can't take it.

Well Bazookaman, you confirmed my thoughts, you really are a blowhard, and a paranoid one at that.

It seems your only way of deflecting attention away from your fact-free rants is to ignore the truth, ie that Switzerland DOES have crime, and launch into tirades about how big and strong you are and the terrible fate I'm going to suffer.

You whine "that you can get anything you want out of a statistic", and you are exhibit A. Your Australian stats were a decade out of date and when I supplied up to date information all you could do was attempt to sling mud at the data provider. The fact is the Australian Bureau of Statistics is an internationally respected agency and is a way more credible source than you.

You say "I have my sources of information", it's a pity you were too shy to reveal them, unlike me.

You go on to grizzle about "that lying S.O.B. of yours who's taking the oath tomorrow. You, Intern and a host of other libs, are going to get what you asked for!". Problem is you are dead wrong, again. As I'm an Australian he's all yours, mate.

If you have anything substantive to offer then break the habit of a lifetime and let's see it.

ps if you're going to go to all the trouble of highlighting a word, ie "testacles", at least spell it right