Bugsy, I suppose this makes me that chump. Perhaps I should think twice next time.

Switzerland has a 'citizen's army.' Basically, these people are the soldiers of switzerland and have been trained as such.

The correlation here, would be to simply allow soldiers to take their assault rifles home, instead of relaxing gun laws for the general populace. Are you advocating that?

In regard to Washington, things aren't that simple. You're using the simplistic causation argument. Answer me this, does Virginia or Maryland have the country's capital? Do either of them have such a large population centre? What of the disparity in socio-economic status in Washington. There we have some of the most powerful people in the country, as well as some of the poorest.
Yes there is crime and conflict - and despite the restrictions on gun ownership, it's easy to get them from the neighbouring states.

Chrisper - you have Lott's study, I have Ehrlich. We can throw cherry picked studies at each other all day, though I note that Lott's conclusions were pretty damn ambiguous.

Simplistic? You betcha!

"more guns = more crime" so surely "less guns = less crime"

Therefore the States/cities/places/whatever that have the most guns should have the most crime and those with the least guns should have the least crime.

Switzerland has more of the one and less of the other, so one can only ask "Why is it so?".

If we have a look ot the world figures for violent crime I believe that Australia has more than the USA.
Must look it up.

Actually Is Mise, I've been arguing that more guns just makes the current crimes much worse, and increases the potential somebody will wind up shot. That is different to more guns = more crime.

OK you're saying more guns = more serious crime/more people shot/wounded/murdered.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't explain why those Cities where there are more guns than Washington DC have a lower murder rate and a lower overall crime rate.

A few nights ago an elderly shop keeper in Newcastle NSW was savagely beaten to death by a group of hoons, for a few dollars.
Now if he had had a pistol he may have:

(a) Frightened them off.
(b) Shot one or more of them.
or as someone will race to point out
(c) Been shot with his own gun (which possibly would have been less prolonged and painful).

Now why isn't a person in his position allowed to have the means of self protection? If it is not the job of the police to protect the people then whose job is it?

I remember back in the 1970s the town of Sofala (30 miles or so from Bathurst NSW, and the nearest police) was invaded by a bikie gang who decided to terrorise the town. The local publican along with his shotgun resolved the problem.

But Is Mise, that man had to die because ordinary people prefer it.

They deny he or a neighbour might succeed in deterring the attack, because they hate their imaginary 'gun nuts' so much that deaths of others cannot enter their smug reality.

ChrisPer,
What you're implying is that the Australian people don't care if the defenceless and old are murdered just so long as the murders don't upset their cosy little world.
Gee, I wonder how some of these people, who'd deny an old man some form of protection, would react if their own home or small shop was invaded.
Pretty cowardly denying protection to the old folks is it not?
But those that do can take comfort in that such actions are not Un-Australian.
In fact they're very Australian because even our Prime Minister subscribes to that line of thinking. He hates guns and doesn't believe that self defence is a sufficent reason to own a firearm.
Some people may believe that because of these beliefs that he wouldn't allow guns anywhere near him, but what do his bodyguards carry?
This would be sheer hypocracy if it were not for the fact that the Prime Minister is far more important than old shopkeepers (at least in his own mind).