>> Agressor and father with guns
>
>I was sure that you would say that. I can't figure out why it's safer, but trying to open your eyes seem impossible.
>
>>If you take away guns, criminals will use other means to kill the innocent. Are youy too blindfolded (brainwashed?) by the gun control freaks to get this?
>
>Sure, a determined criminal will do whatever it take to kill someone if it's what he intended in the first place. But I'm sure that the aggressor didn't wake up in the morning saying "Today I will kill someone". He had a quick access to a gun in a moment of fury and committed the crime. Without the gun, he may have gotten into a fight and I hope that bystanders would have time to intervene before it goes too far.
>
>What do you about wild shots? The aggressor or the father miss it target and kill an innocent bystanders instead?

I understand your position. What I am not clear on is how you would take the guns away from the criminals? Passing a law making gun ownership illegal won't do it. It is already illegal for criminals to have weapons. Criminals don't obey laws anyway. Chances are they obtained the gun illegally anyway. It would be like the drug traffic crime then. Hmmmm, I can see prohibition on weapons... Would guns be allowed for hunting? That would still leave a market then.

Wouldn't take well in Alaska either. Or would gun ownership be allowed there? Are you referring to the lower 48 only or only specific weapons?