* Nathan Branden wrote, On 5/8/2007 11:15 AM:
This hilarious exchange occured before my eyes:


Capt JG: " Exactly my point... Stoessel is a right-wing stooge."

Dave: "IOW, rather than dealing with the message you'd prefer to
attack the messenger. Why am I not surprised?"

Capt JG: "There's nothing "deal with" as far as the message goes,
because of the source. Why am I not surprised you don't get that."


It appears Dave gets it quite well. It was just too funny to let this
one slip by.


My Corps,Your Corps, Our Corps, Marine Corps!

Semper Fi! Semper Fi! Do or die! Gung Ho! Gung Ho! Gung Ho!

Nonsense. It might have been different if Stoessel had actually
provided some evidence for his claims, but he didn't. A few anecdotes
such as an old lady who showed a shotgun and scared off an alleged
intruder is meaningless. Using Washington, DC as an example of
anything is meaningless as it's a subway ride from VA which until
recently was the "easy buy" capital of the East Coast.

So what's wrong wrong with pointing out that a heavily biased
commentator is simply spewing more of his unsupported silliness?

Jeff wrote:
* Nathan Branden wrote, On 5/8/2007 11:15 AM:

This hilarious exchange occured before my eyes:


Capt JG: " Exactly my point... Stoessel is a right-wing stooge."

Dave: "IOW, rather than dealing with the message you'd prefer to
attack the messenger. Why am I not surprised?"

Capt JG: "There's nothing "deal with" as far as the message goes,
because of the source. Why am I not surprised you don't get that."


It appears Dave gets it quite well. It was just too funny to let this
one slip by.


My Corps,Your Corps, Our Corps, Marine Corps!

Semper Fi! Semper Fi! Do or die! Gung Ho! Gung Ho! Gung Ho!


Nonsense. It might have been different if Stoessel had actually
provided some evidence for his claims, but he didn't. A few anecdotes
such as an old lady who showed a shotgun and scared off an alleged
intruder is meaningless. Using Washington, DC as an example of anything
is meaningless as it's a subway ride from VA which until recently was
the "easy buy" capital of the East Coast.

So what's wrong wrong with pointing out that a heavily biased
commentator is simply spewing more of his unsupported silliness?

The supporting documentation is in his book...that was specidfied at the
beginning of the program....

"katy" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
* Nathan Branden wrote, On 5/8/2007 11:15 AM:

This hilarious exchange occured before my eyes:


Capt JG: " Exactly my point... Stoessel is a right-wing stooge."

Dave: "IOW, rather than dealing with the message you'd prefer to
attack the messenger. Why am I not surprised?"

Capt JG: "There's nothing "deal with" as far as the message goes,
because of the source. Why am I not surprised you don't get that."


It appears Dave gets it quite well. It was just too funny to let this
one slip by.


My Corps,Your Corps, Our Corps, Marine Corps!

Semper Fi! Semper Fi! Do or die! Gung Ho! Gung Ho! Gung Ho!


Nonsense. It might have been different if Stoessel had actually provided
some evidence for his claims, but he didn't. A few anecdotes such as an
old lady who showed a shotgun and scared off an alleged intruder is
meaningless. Using Washington, DC as an example of anything is
meaningless as it's a subway ride from VA which until recently was the
"easy buy" capital of the East Coast.

So what's wrong wrong with pointing out that a heavily biased commentator
is simply spewing more of his unsupported silliness?

The supporting documentation is in his book...that was specidfied at the
beginning of the program....


And, it's only $19.95 plus tax. g


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

* katy wrote, On 5/8/2007 1:54 PM:

Nonsense. It might have been different if Stoessel had actually
provided some evidence for his claims, but he didn't. A few anecdotes
such as an old lady who showed a shotgun and scared off an alleged
intruder is meaningless. Using Washington, DC as an example of
anything is meaningless as it's a subway ride from VA which until
recently was the "easy buy" capital of the East Coast.

So what's wrong wrong with pointing out that a heavily biased
commentator is simply spewing more of his unsupported silliness?

The supporting documentation is in his book...that was specidfied at the
beginning of the program....

I didn't watch the full program, though I did see some, and I watch
the videos on abc.com. There is no mention of gun control or gun
violence in either of Stossel's books. The recent book has a list of
supporting research in the back - nothing there relates to gun
control. It appears that gun control is an issue he's jumped on recently.

Like many others, he suggests that perhaps the VT killings could have
been prevented if students and teachers were permitted to carry guns.
This is ignoring the fact that campuses are extremely safe, with a
homicide rate that is a small fraction of the national average. (Last
year there were perhaps 20 murders on campus, which collectively are
the size of a major city.) Its hard to believe that arming a
significant number of kids would make it safer.

If nothing else, adding a million or so guns to the campuses couldn't
possibly lower the suicide rate - there are over 1000 a year. Oddly,
the suicide rate on campus is about half that in non-students of the
same age group.

"Jeff" wrote in message

Like many others, he suggests that perhaps the VT killings could have been
prevented if students and teachers were permitted to carry guns. This is
ignoring the fact that campuses are extremely safe, with a homicide rate
that is a small fraction of the national average. (Last year there were
perhaps 20 murders on campus, which collectively are the size of a major
city.) Its hard to believe that arming a significant number of kids would
make it safer.

Much as it troubles me to agree with you g I have to do so in this case.
Killings, with or without guns, are simply going to happen, on campus or
off. All the well-meaning legislation to prevent such events will be as
useful as attempting to milk a bull. But arming college kids, whose daily
mentality and activities are strongly influenced by testosterone, alcohol,
and drugs, would seem to be akin to pouring gasoline on the fire.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jeff" wrote in message

Like many others, he suggests that perhaps the VT killings could have
been prevented if students and teachers were permitted to carry guns.
This is ignoring the fact that campuses are extremely safe, with a
homicide rate that is a small fraction of the national average. (Last
year there were perhaps 20 murders on campus, which collectively are the
size of a major city.) Its hard to believe that arming a significant
number of kids would make it safer.

Much as it troubles me to agree with you g I have to do so in this case.
Killings, with or without guns, are simply going to happen, on campus or
off. All the well-meaning legislation to prevent such events will be as
useful as attempting to milk a bull. But arming college kids, whose daily
mentality and activities are strongly influenced by testosterone, alcohol,
and drugs, would seem to be akin to pouring gasoline on the fire.

Max

You obviously have not attended college in Laramie!

"Bob Crantz" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jeff" wrote in message

Like many others, he suggests that perhaps the VT killings could have
been prevented if students and teachers were permitted to carry guns.
This is ignoring the fact that campuses are extremely safe, with a
homicide rate that is a small fraction of the national average. (Last
year there were perhaps 20 murders on campus, which collectively are the
size of a major city.) Its hard to believe that arming a significant
number of kids would make it safer.

Much as it troubles me to agree with you g I have to do so in this
case. Killings, with or without guns, are simply going to happen, on
campus or off. All the well-meaning legislation to prevent such events
will be as useful as attempting to milk a bull. But arming college kids,
whose daily mentality and activities are strongly influenced by
testosterone, alcohol, and drugs, would seem to be akin to pouring
gasoline on the fire.

Max

You obviously have not attended college in Laramie!

Oh, but I did, for one semester. I pledged ATO and lived in Wyo Hall for
the duration. Then transferred to Indiana University. Changed majors to
something Wyoming didn't have.

Max

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* katy wrote, On 5/8/2007 1:54 PM:

Nonsense. It might have been different if Stoessel had actually
provided some evidence for his claims, but he didn't. A few anecdotes
such as an old lady who showed a shotgun and scared off an alleged
intruder is meaningless. Using Washington, DC as an example of anything
is meaningless as it's a subway ride from VA which until recently was
the "easy buy" capital of the East Coast.

So what's wrong wrong with pointing out that a heavily biased
commentator is simply spewing more of his unsupported silliness?

The supporting documentation is in his book...that was specidfied at the
beginning of the program....

I didn't watch the full program, though I did see some, and I watch the
videos on abc.com. There is no mention of gun control or gun violence in
either of Stossel's books. The recent book has a list of supporting
research in the back - nothing there relates to gun control. It appears
that gun control is an issue he's jumped on recently.

Like many others, he suggests that perhaps the VT killings could have been
prevented if students and teachers were permitted to carry guns. This is
ignoring the fact that campuses are extremely safe, with a homicide rate
that is a small fraction of the national average. (Last year there were
perhaps 20 murders on campus, which collectively are the size of a major
city.) Its hard to believe that arming a significant number of kids would
make it safer.

If nothing else, adding a million or so guns to the campuses couldn't
possibly lower the suicide rate - there are over 1000 a year. Oddly, the
suicide rate on campus is about half that in non-students of the same age
group.


Which I suppose is too bad, since that's where liberals are known to be....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com