I know that you can't take away guns from criminals. Our law on guns ownership is more restrictive than in US but that doesn't prevent criminals from having one. But it's definitely more difficult to obtain one and they're are more chances they get caught by a routine police check if they carry an illegal gun with them than if guns ownership were legal.

But it's not the criminals I'm talking about. I'm talking about normal citizens. If the same situation described in the original message occurred here, I'm pretty sure that no one would have been killed because no one would have had an easy access to a gun. Forget the fact that the aggressor had criminal records, it's not the point. The point is that he acted in a moment of fury and in that moment where he lost control of his temper, he committed the crime. Give him time to regain control of himself and he probably would have acted differently. He may even regret his action today.

My position on guns is probably too extreme, I'm conscious of this. For me, all kind of guns should be restricted to the army, policeman, some security patrol and wildlife agents. I don't even like hunting. I can't see the fun in killing animals.

>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?