I'm not opposed to the data you present, but you aim somewhere away from what we are looking at. Did data predict this incident? Or that of McVeigh, Koresh, and more? Thought experiments have value. Above you sneered at my abundance of psychology and paucity of facts. What kid these days or in your youth played war games by imitating knife fighting? Are you kidding? It was tommy-guns or western style revolver or rifle gunplay, all the time. No obscure psychology is required to note that a semi-auto rifle emboldens one to a greater degree than a knife or just might, maybe anyhow.

You ignored my speculation that the principle may have been able to hinder him sufficiently to be apprehended if all he had was a knife. Nothing wildly ignorant (to ignore) of facts in that opinion. And besides, it's a thought experiment, not a doctor's thesis.

Jeez . . .
No one I know of is suggesting that we can end violent behavior. Since no one is going to allow criminals to brandish 50 cal. Gatling guns on top of small pickups on the freeway and in the hood, we can conclude that we do, and will, enforce limits on personal firearm ownership and use. The question is, at least in part, should we perhaps revise those limits at this time?

First I heard of it. I read a bit about it. What I've seen so far isn't compelling.

I wouldn't say I ignored your speculative suggestion. In my opinion the stats don't warrant even more governmental incursion into a constitutionally protected right. I understand that we probably wont agree on that.

Perhaps this is a great time to celebrate federalism, in which the states have the right to impose rules and regs that may differ from each other but fall within teh broad parameters of constitutional review.

What percent of them commit crimes with their pistols?

Couldn't find what you requested. Perhaps if you are interested you can find the stats.

I did find this interesting tidbit:
n the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s
 The homicide rate doubled from the early 1960s to the late 1970s, increasing from 4.6 per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1962 to 9.7 per 100,000 by 1979 (figure 1). (See Methodology for information on rate calculations.)
 In 1980 the rate peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 and subsequently fell to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.
 The rate rose again in the late 1980s and early 1990s to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.
 The homicide rate declined sharply from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 in 1992 to 4.8 homicides per 100,000 in 2010.
The number of homicides reached an all-time high of 24,703 homicides in 1991 then fell rapidly to 15,522 homicides by 1999

Note: Data are based on annual estimates of homicide from previously published versions of Crime in the United States. Data for 1989 to 2008 reflect updated homicide estimates from Crime in the United States, 2008. Data for 2009 and 2010 reflect updated homicide estimates from Crime in the United States, 2010.
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 1950-2010. FIGURE 2
Number of homicide victims, 1950–2010

The number of homicides increased steadily from the early 1950s until the mid-1970s (figure 2).
Between 1999 and 2008, the number of homicides remained relatively constant, ranging from a low of 15,552 homicides in 1999 to a high of 17,030 homicides in 2006. These homicide numbers were still below those reported in the 1970s, when the number of reported homicides first rose above 20,000 (reaching 20,710 in 1974).

I don't think that there are ANY constitutional laws that could be passed that would stop this sort of thing. It was against the law to bring a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school and THAT really helped out.:rolleyes:

The politicians are so full of themselves that they think they can pass a law to fix anything.:rolleyes: I wonder if they ever stopped to think that their thousand foot law kept anyone from having a weopon to defend the kids with?:confused: They are too buisy moving us closer to European Socialism and decaying morality.

I can nearly guarantee that at least 75% of gun owners would become law breakers by refusing to register their guns.

I believe emotion will triumph over reason, and the government will take this "opportunity" to take away more liberty while promising more peace.

I am coming to grips with the reality that the country has changed. Freedom and liberty are no longer valued by the great mass of the populace. Security, safety, and having others provide for their needs ( wants/ demands) are the current desires.
Time for a new Constitutional Convention to officially bury the original Union and recognize the new reality.

It was a great country for 200 years or so. We couldn't keep it, so it is gone onto the dustbin of history.

Why would you hope to make such a large portion of the population into criminals?

Explosives? That makes me think of the Weather Underground's Bill Ayers and his circle of friends...

The 1000 foot rule might not keep someone from getting close to a school with a gun but if caught at least they can be arrested.

You're exactly correct! The gun grabbers don't even have the decency to wait until after the funerals to start on this.

Yes, and it means they can arrest someone who might have been armed and capable of stopping nuts like this. The nuts are totally willing to break that law. The people with the character to stop the bastid also have the character that causes them to obey the law and not be armed to protect their students.

I've got news for you: the exodus of th ederanged from mental institutions started in the late 50s, early 60s. Thank Ken Kesey and all the other advocates for the reform of mental institutions. Instead of reform of the truly bad system n place, the mentally ill were shuffled off to the streets...

I really fail to see how any rational person can assume that there is some value in this rule.
Oh, yes, you can arrest them of course, but to do that you'd have to have police officers stationed at every school checking everybody who comes within a thousand feet of it.

Never will be enough police so it's a nonsense rule to begin with. Not to mention the fact that as has been stated it simply prevents law abiding individuals who might have been able to stop whackjobs from doing so.

It is in fact a particularly stupid rule in my opinion.

- Peter.