Have been having a look at a few statistics and offer the following for comment. These figures are for 2004-2005 and are all per 100,000 of population.

Washington D.C: 35.4 murders; 30.2 rapes; 672.1 robberies; 721.3 assaults.

Virginia: 6.1 murders; 22.7 rapes; 99.2 robberies; 154.8 assaults.

Maine: 1.4 murders; 24.7 rapes; 24.4 robberies; 61.7 assaults.

Vermont: 1.3 murders; 23.3 rapes; 11.7 robberies; 83.5 assaults

Australia: 1.3 murders; 90 sexual assault; 82.5 robberies; 1541 assaults.

Washington D.C. has the toughest Gun Laws in the USA,there is virtually no way that the ordinary citizen can have a firearm for self protection (same as Australia). Washington D.C. ranks highest for murder in the USA.

Virginia and Maine allow carrying of a pistol for self defence and Vermont doesn't have any firearms laws at all, apparently, apart from restrictions on where they may be discharged.

Australia having Uniform National Gun Laws (or so we are told) it can fairly be compared with other areas of uniform law.

Virginia borders on D.C.and has a higher crime rate than the other two states cited, this may or may not be a spill over from its much more violent neighbour. Maine and Vermont are well insulated from Washington D.C.

The rape figures are misleading as it appears that different criteria are used in Australia, as are the assault figures as the American figures are for 'Agrivated Assault' which does not include common assault.

Links. USA:http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

Aust:http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/

You should have stuck to the emotional arguments Is Mise. Are you seriously comparing a U.S. District of 177 square kilometres of high density city with Australia or even other US states? And that the gun laws in neighbouring states (we are after all talking about the USA) are comparatively unrestricted, which of course makes the whole thing a joke. Especially when they enacted gun laws precisely because they were having problems with guns and crime rates. And you obviously have not visited "D.C." either or you would realise this.

But I couldn't help but notice that in the later posts, guns were described on a par to wedding photos, whereas in earlier posts, guns were descibed as tools, on a par with chainsaws etc...

Which is it, chainsaws or wedding photos?

I think we are getting closer to the truth of it really. About the emotional attachment many shooters have with their weapons, and how much of that is involved with this malarky.

But that is it. DC enacted their tough gun laws and they still have an extraordinary high crime rate.
Their murder rate is among the highest in the world.
Their laws give the lie to 'more guns equals more crime'. It would seem that in the USA more guns equals less crime, else why does Vermont with virtually no gun laws have such a low crime rate?
Any one in that state, citizen or not, can carry a pistol, either concealed or openly.

Emotional arguments?
Yes, I allow my emotions to enter my arguments. I tend to get a bit emotional, as in sorrowful, when someone is murdered in a home invasion and they were denied the means of self-defence. It also makes me a bit angry.
At least in NSW if one has to defend one's self at home or in the workplace the onus of proof is on the Prosecution to prove that one was not in fear of one's life at the time, a virtual impossibility.
This law was an initative of the Shooters' Party in the Upper House and of Richard Torbay (New England) in the Lower. The Act was later extended to the workplace.

I can't believe you're still going toe to toe on this one :-) There's certainly a lot of emotion surrounding this issue.
I was never much into shooting, although, as all kids from a farming community did, I spent many cold hours on the back of a "spotlight shooting vehicle" holding the beam and taking the odd shot often, I confess, deliberately mis-aimed to protect the poor furry bunny, but John Howard's vicious firmarm laws really enraged me at the time, but for a different reason perhaps.
In my very young days, dad would often take the .22 or old single barrel shotgun out and have a crack at a rabbit, then teach me how to use a firearm properly, how to hold it when stalking prey, etc. I'd then be allowed to have a shot at a can or log, so became reasonably proficient with handling a firearm and had great respect for them from a safety angle. When my old dad died in '78, about the only thing he left me of any great value was those treasured memories from our time together. Dad was quite old when I came into the world and becoming increasingly crippled by arthritis, so out time together was precious. Part of those memories was our little shooting outings and yes, the little semi-auto rifle and shotgun was left to me to look after.
Not all that long afterwards, John Cain introduced registration of firearms "just so as we know where all the guns are" he told angry shooters. Well, that can't hurt I thought and dutifully registered my father's firearms. What a tragic mistake!
I actually went home and cried after handing in my father's little semi-auto during the gun buy back. The damn thing didn't even work at that stage. I sat in the kitchen all alone and stared at the cheque like some sort of forced Judus and cried as I thought of that powerful link to my father being crushed and destroyed

Part 2
Eventually, in the way it was designed, minimal income and a yearly $250 bill to renew my shooting licence took it's toll. I handed in the H&R single barrel shotgun and my licence. Now, I'm one of those people that a poster wrote about. I live in a rural remote area where hoons in hotted up cars come to play in the dirt and I'm all alone. Sometimes, I'll even admit to being a little scared since I now have no means of defending myself at all.
Don't know what relevance this post puts on the issue, but even since John Howard introduced the firearms legislation, I've hated the man with a passion and will never again vote for the Liberals whilst this little idiot is in power and yet, I heard that following the Port Arthur massacre, the Labor Party wanted to introduce even more draconian laws in relation to firearm ownership. Not wonder my faith in Australian politicians has been shattered.

Actually, the lie is "more guns = less crime". The District of Columbia enacted those gun laws precisely because of spiralling crime rates BEFORE the gun restrictions.Enacting gun laws like those found in Washington DC do not work when right next door you have states like Virginia, with weak gun laws. But I think you will find that gun ownership in those areas of DC far exceeds the intent of the laws.

Anyway, since the actual causes of crime are quite different in different parts of the world. But here's a much broader study that doesn't use a small high density area with a major drug problem as it's reference point.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447364

Also, how do you explain the levels of crime severely dropping in New York City, when they have some of the tougher gun laws around. That blows holes in your argument doesn't it? The more guns= less crime equation doesn't stack up, but there are more homicides in areas of higher gun ownership (see above link). Thats a fact Jack.