Delete / Löschen
Why gun owners should be legally accountable for any gun they own.
Too_Many_Tools
24.03.2010 - 20:12
24.03.2010 - 20:12
This is a great example of why any gun owner should be legally
acountable for any gun registered to them.
After a few irresponsible gun owners serve hard time for letting their
guns commit crimes, the real cost of owning a gun will be understood.
TMT
Gun in Ala. campus shooting bought 2 decades ago
By DESIREE HUNTER, Associated Press Writer Desiree Hunter, Associated
Press Writer
Tue Mar 23, 6:14 pm ET
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. 6 The gun used to kill three people during a faculty
meeting at an Alabama school was bought for the suspect's husband two
decades ago when he said he was having problems with a neighbor, an
investigator testified Tuesday.
The investigator told a judge that an acquaintance bought the gun in
New Hampshire for Amy Bishop's husband to skirt a waiting period where
the couple lived in Massachusetts.
Huntsville police investigator Charlie Gray also testified that Bishop
denied to officers that she had anything to do with the rampage at a
biology department faculty meeting Feb. 12, which also wounded three
others.
Bishop, making her first court appearance, was denied bond during a
brief hearing. The capital murder case against her was sent to a grand
jury, which is not expected to hear it for several months.
Looking gaunt and wearing a red jail jump suit, the handcuffed Bishop
made no comment.
The 45-year-old Harvard-educated biologist was arrested shortly after
the shooting. The gun was found in a bathroom trash can a floor below
the faculty conference room, with Bishop's bloodied red-and-black
plaid coat on top of it, according to testimony.
During the hearing, Gray testified that the gun used in the shooting
was purchased in 1989 for Bishop's husband, James Anderson, by a man
in New Hampshire identified as Donald Proulx. He said Proulx told
federal agents that he believed he purchased it in Troy, N.H.
Gray said Proulx told federal agents Anderson, who was living in
Massachusetts, asked him to buy the gun because Anderson was having
problems with a neighbor and New Hampshire didn't have a waiting
period for gun purchases.
Anderson was not in the courtroom for the hearing. He previously told
The Associated Press that he knew about the gun and joined Bishop in
target practice, but didn't know where his wife got the firearm.
Anderson declined to comment when reached at the family's home Tuesday
afternoon.
A message left on what was believed to be Proulx's Facebook account
wasn't immediately returned.
Proulx's father, Donald Proulx Sr., said his son lives in Florida but
he doesn't know where or how to reach him. He told the AP on Tuesday
that he met Bishop's husband "a couple of times, that's it. I have no
relationship with him."
Gray testified that Bishop, during a taped interview that lasted more
than two hours, was not agitated but "seemed calm, she seemed very
intelligent" as she denied anything to do with the shooting.
"She said it was no way she was there, no way it happened. 'I wasn't
there.' That kept being a recurring thing throughout the interview,"
Gray said.
Bishop's attorney has said that that she doesn't remember the
shootings, and she herself said the shootings "didn't happen" in her
only public comments since the killings.
"What about the people who died?" a reporter asked as she was led to a
police car hours after the killings.
"There's no way. They're still alive," she responded.
Bishop, wearing white socks and flip-flops with a thick chain around
both ankles, appeared to be paying attention to the proceedings
Tuesday but was mostly expressionless. She at times fidgeted with her
hands and tapped her leg. Sometimes she whispered answers to questions
from her attorney, Roy Miller.
Bishop is charged with capital murder, which can bring the death
penalty if she's convicted, although prosecutors have not made a
decision on whether they will seek a death penalty.
Miller has said he will argue that Bishop was insane. He has told
reporters she has shown signs of being unable to relate to reality.
District Judge Ruth Ann Hall issued a gag order last week for the
prosecution, defense and law enforcement personnel, barring them from
talking to the media. Hall says the order will ensure a fair trial.
At the time of the shooting, Bishop was in her last semester of
teaching at UAH, which had denied her the job protections of tenure.
Colleagues said she was angry over the tenure decision. The university
fired her after the rampage.
Gray testified that Anderson told police his wife "had been a little
depressed over tenure" but appeared normal on the day of the
shooting.
Gray's testimony echoed the accounts given by faculty members who
survived the sudden gunfire. They had said that the shooting stopped
and biochemistry professor Debra Moriarity scrambled toward Bishop,
who attempted to shoot her but without the gun going off. With Bishop
out of the room, survivors barricaded the door.
Gray said the gun recovered in the bathroom trash can had jammed with
seven live rounds in it. A black satchel that belonged to Bishop was
also found in the conference room, containing another 15-round
magazine, he said.
Bishop's arrest after the Alabama shooting led to revelations about
her role in other cases, including shooting her 18-year-old brother to
death in the family's suburban Boston home in 1986. That death was
ruled an accident at the time and she was not charged, but authorities
in Massachusetts have ordered an inquest into the case.
Bishop and her husband were also questioned in the 1993 mailing of a
pipe bomb to a medical researcher who had given her a negative job
review. They were never charged, but the U.S. attorney in Boston is
reviewing the matter.
___
Associated Press writer Lynne Tuohy in Concord, N.H., contributed to
this report.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Man who bought gun used in Ala. rampage won't talk
LAKELAND, Fla. 6 A man who police say bought a gun more than 20 years
ago that was used last month in a fatal Alabama university rampage is
declining to comment on his role.
Donald Proulx (proo) e-mailed The Associated Press on Wednesday to say
he had been told not to discuss the matter. He referred questions to
law enforcement.
A police investigator told an Alabama court Tuesday that the gun was
bought by Proulx in New Hampshire in 1989 for the husband of the woman
charged in the Alabama shooting. The investigator said the husband,
James Anderson, wanted the gun because of problems with a neighbor.
Former professor Amy Bishop is charged with capital murder in the
shooting at the University of Alabama Huntsville that left three
people dead and three wounded.
acountable for any gun registered to them.
After a few irresponsible gun owners serve hard time for letting their
guns commit crimes, the real cost of owning a gun will be understood.
TMT
Gun in Ala. campus shooting bought 2 decades ago
By DESIREE HUNTER, Associated Press Writer Desiree Hunter, Associated
Press Writer
Tue Mar 23, 6:14 pm ET
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. 6 The gun used to kill three people during a faculty
meeting at an Alabama school was bought for the suspect's husband two
decades ago when he said he was having problems with a neighbor, an
investigator testified Tuesday.
The investigator told a judge that an acquaintance bought the gun in
New Hampshire for Amy Bishop's husband to skirt a waiting period where
the couple lived in Massachusetts.
Huntsville police investigator Charlie Gray also testified that Bishop
denied to officers that she had anything to do with the rampage at a
biology department faculty meeting Feb. 12, which also wounded three
others.
Bishop, making her first court appearance, was denied bond during a
brief hearing. The capital murder case against her was sent to a grand
jury, which is not expected to hear it for several months.
Looking gaunt and wearing a red jail jump suit, the handcuffed Bishop
made no comment.
The 45-year-old Harvard-educated biologist was arrested shortly after
the shooting. The gun was found in a bathroom trash can a floor below
the faculty conference room, with Bishop's bloodied red-and-black
plaid coat on top of it, according to testimony.
During the hearing, Gray testified that the gun used in the shooting
was purchased in 1989 for Bishop's husband, James Anderson, by a man
in New Hampshire identified as Donald Proulx. He said Proulx told
federal agents that he believed he purchased it in Troy, N.H.
Gray said Proulx told federal agents Anderson, who was living in
Massachusetts, asked him to buy the gun because Anderson was having
problems with a neighbor and New Hampshire didn't have a waiting
period for gun purchases.
Anderson was not in the courtroom for the hearing. He previously told
The Associated Press that he knew about the gun and joined Bishop in
target practice, but didn't know where his wife got the firearm.
Anderson declined to comment when reached at the family's home Tuesday
afternoon.
A message left on what was believed to be Proulx's Facebook account
wasn't immediately returned.
Proulx's father, Donald Proulx Sr., said his son lives in Florida but
he doesn't know where or how to reach him. He told the AP on Tuesday
that he met Bishop's husband "a couple of times, that's it. I have no
relationship with him."
Gray testified that Bishop, during a taped interview that lasted more
than two hours, was not agitated but "seemed calm, she seemed very
intelligent" as she denied anything to do with the shooting.
"She said it was no way she was there, no way it happened. 'I wasn't
there.' That kept being a recurring thing throughout the interview,"
Gray said.
Bishop's attorney has said that that she doesn't remember the
shootings, and she herself said the shootings "didn't happen" in her
only public comments since the killings.
"What about the people who died?" a reporter asked as she was led to a
police car hours after the killings.
"There's no way. They're still alive," she responded.
Bishop, wearing white socks and flip-flops with a thick chain around
both ankles, appeared to be paying attention to the proceedings
Tuesday but was mostly expressionless. She at times fidgeted with her
hands and tapped her leg. Sometimes she whispered answers to questions
from her attorney, Roy Miller.
Bishop is charged with capital murder, which can bring the death
penalty if she's convicted, although prosecutors have not made a
decision on whether they will seek a death penalty.
Miller has said he will argue that Bishop was insane. He has told
reporters she has shown signs of being unable to relate to reality.
District Judge Ruth Ann Hall issued a gag order last week for the
prosecution, defense and law enforcement personnel, barring them from
talking to the media. Hall says the order will ensure a fair trial.
At the time of the shooting, Bishop was in her last semester of
teaching at UAH, which had denied her the job protections of tenure.
Colleagues said she was angry over the tenure decision. The university
fired her after the rampage.
Gray testified that Anderson told police his wife "had been a little
depressed over tenure" but appeared normal on the day of the
shooting.
Gray's testimony echoed the accounts given by faculty members who
survived the sudden gunfire. They had said that the shooting stopped
and biochemistry professor Debra Moriarity scrambled toward Bishop,
who attempted to shoot her but without the gun going off. With Bishop
out of the room, survivors barricaded the door.
Gray said the gun recovered in the bathroom trash can had jammed with
seven live rounds in it. A black satchel that belonged to Bishop was
also found in the conference room, containing another 15-round
magazine, he said.
Bishop's arrest after the Alabama shooting led to revelations about
her role in other cases, including shooting her 18-year-old brother to
death in the family's suburban Boston home in 1986. That death was
ruled an accident at the time and she was not charged, but authorities
in Massachusetts have ordered an inquest into the case.
Bishop and her husband were also questioned in the 1993 mailing of a
pipe bomb to a medical researcher who had given her a negative job
review. They were never charged, but the U.S. attorney in Boston is
reviewing the matter.
___
Associated Press writer Lynne Tuohy in Concord, N.H., contributed to
this report.
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Man who bought gun used in Ala. rampage won't talk
LAKELAND, Fla. 6 A man who police say bought a gun more than 20 years
ago that was used last month in a fatal Alabama university rampage is
declining to comment on his role.
Donald Proulx (proo) e-mailed The Associated Press on Wednesday to say
he had been told not to discuss the matter. He referred questions to
law enforcement.
A police investigator told an Alabama court Tuesday that the gun was
bought by Proulx in New Hampshire in 1989 for the husband of the woman
charged in the Alabama shooting. The investigator said the husband,
James Anderson, wanted the gun because of problems with a neighbor.
Former professor Amy Bishop is charged with capital murder in the
shooting at the University of Alabama Huntsville that left three
people dead and three wounded.
ozarkheart
24.03.2010 - 21:46
24.03.2010 - 21:46
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:12:36 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
<email@anonym; wrote:
This is a great example of why any gun owner should be legally
acountable for any gun registered to them.
After a few irresponsible gun owners serve hard time for letting their
guns commit crimes, the real cost of owning a gun will be understood.
Please give one example where a gun committed a crime.
LOL - you don't have too many tools; you are short a few.......
<email@anonym; wrote:
This is a great example of why any gun owner should be legally
acountable for any gun registered to them.
After a few irresponsible gun owners serve hard time for letting their
guns commit crimes, the real cost of owning a gun will be understood.
Please give one example where a gun committed a crime.
LOL - you don't have too many tools; you are short a few.......
Peter Principle
24.03.2010 - 21:52
24.03.2010 - 21:52
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:46:21 -0500, email@anonym:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:12:36 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
<email@anonym; wrote:
This is a great example of why any gun owner should be legally
acountable for any gun registered to them.
After a few irresponsible gun owners serve hard time for letting their
guns commit crimes, the real cost of owning a gun will be understood.
Please give one example where a gun committed a crime.
LOL - you don't have too many tools; you are short a few.......
Gee, let's follow your itty-bitty toy train of, um, logic to its inevitable
flaming wreck...
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
DOH! One more perfectly good rightarded maroon logical fallacy shot all to
hell by REALITY.
Welcome to reality, doofus. Enjoy your visit, no matter how brief...
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:12:36 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
<email@anonym; wrote:
This is a great example of why any gun owner should be legally
acountable for any gun registered to them.
After a few irresponsible gun owners serve hard time for letting their
guns commit crimes, the real cost of owning a gun will be understood.
Please give one example where a gun committed a crime.
LOL - you don't have too many tools; you are short a few.......
Gee, let's follow your itty-bitty toy train of, um, logic to its inevitable
flaming wreck...
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
DOH! One more perfectly good rightarded maroon logical fallacy shot all to
hell by REALITY.
Welcome to reality, doofus. Enjoy your visit, no matter how brief...
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Bill Smith
24.03.2010 - 23:07
24.03.2010 - 23:07
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Bill Smith
Peter Principle
24.03.2010 - 23:15
24.03.2010 - 23:15
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith <email@anonym; wrote:
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Hoo, boy...
Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to legal
liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch and someone
busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the fuck on.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore
Disclaimer: As usual, when addressing gun nuts, I always point out that I am
a gun owner. It is entirely possible to be a gun owner and NOT be an
ignorant irresponsible nut.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Hoo, boy...
Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to legal
liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch and someone
busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the fuck on.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore
Disclaimer: As usual, when addressing gun nuts, I always point out that I am
a gun owner. It is entirely possible to be a gun owner and NOT be an
ignorant irresponsible nut.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Ken
24.03.2010 - 23:32
24.03.2010 - 23:32
Peter Principle wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith<email@anonym; wrote:
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Hoo, boy...
Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to legal
liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch and someone
busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the fuck on.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
So I guess if someone were to steal your car and get into an accident,
you would be responsible for the accident?? You liberals are too much!!!
Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore
Disclaimer: As usual, when addressing gun nuts, I always point out that I am
a gun owner. It is entirely possible to be a gun owner and NOT be an
ignorant irresponsible nut.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith<email@anonym; wrote:
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Hoo, boy...
Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to legal
liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch and someone
busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the fuck on.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
So I guess if someone were to steal your car and get into an accident,
you would be responsible for the accident?? You liberals are too much!!!
Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore
Disclaimer: As usual, when addressing gun nuts, I always point out that I am
a gun owner. It is entirely possible to be a gun owner and NOT be an
ignorant irresponsible nut.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Bill Smith
24.03.2010 - 23:38
24.03.2010 - 23:38
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Bill Smith
Tater Gumfries
24.03.2010 - 23:40
24.03.2010 - 23:40
On Mar 24, 4:380pm, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in =
ANY
>way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.
Tater
>If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in =
ANY
>way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.
Tater
Peter Principle
24.03.2010 - 23:52
24.03.2010 - 23:52
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:32:34 -0500, Ken <Kemail@anonym; wrote:
Peter Principle wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith<email@anonym; wrote:
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Hoo, boy...
Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to legal
liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch and someone
busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the fuck on.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
So I guess if someone were to steal your car and get into an accident,
you would be responsible for the accident?? You liberals are too much!!!
Jaybus Freaking Crisco, how fucking STUPID are you rightarded maroons?
<boggle>
FYI, you unbelievable imbecile, should someone take possession of your car
due to your negligence, for example you left the keys in the ignition, OF
COURSE you are legally liable. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
Now, try to follow along, sparky. Use your finger, if it helps...
If someone takes possession of your gun due to your negligence, then YOU
should be held liable, just as is the case in every other arena of tort law
in this ector of the galaxy.
Man, if you idjuts had just hung around 'til 6th grade you'd have gotten
CIVICS classes. But no, you idiots CHOSE to be ignorant, which is a pretty
darn good definition of stupidity.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Peter Principle wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith<email@anonym; wrote:
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Hoo, boy...
Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to legal
liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch and someone
busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the fuck on.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
So I guess if someone were to steal your car and get into an accident,
you would be responsible for the accident?? You liberals are too much!!!
Jaybus Freaking Crisco, how fucking STUPID are you rightarded maroons?
<boggle>
FYI, you unbelievable imbecile, should someone take possession of your car
due to your negligence, for example you left the keys in the ignition, OF
COURSE you are legally liable. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
Now, try to follow along, sparky. Use your finger, if it helps...
If someone takes possession of your gun due to your negligence, then YOU
should be held liable, just as is the case in every other arena of tort law
in this ector of the galaxy.
Man, if you idjuts had just hung around 'til 6th grade you'd have gotten
CIVICS classes. But no, you idiots CHOSE to be ignorant, which is a pretty
darn good definition of stupidity.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Peter Principle
24.03.2010 - 23:53
24.03.2010 - 23:53
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:38:27 -0700, Bill Smith <email@anonym; wrote:
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Un-fucking-believable! Ignorance and idiocy, it seems, in endemic to
rightarded gun nuts. Jaybus Freaking Crisco, how fucking STUPID are you
rightarded maroons?
<boggle>
FYI, you unbelievable imbecile, should someone take possession of your car
due to your negligence, for example you left the keys in the ignition, OF
COURSE you are legally liable. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
Now, try to follow along, sparky. Use your finger, if it helps...
If someone takes possession of your gun due to your negligence, then YOU
should be held liable, just as is the case in every other arena of tort law
in this ector of the galaxy.
Man, if you idjuts had just hung around 'til 6th grade you'd have gotten
CIVICS classes. But no, you idiots CHOSE to be ignorant, which is a pretty
darn good definition of stupidity.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Un-fucking-believable! Ignorance and idiocy, it seems, in endemic to
rightarded gun nuts. Jaybus Freaking Crisco, how fucking STUPID are you
rightarded maroons?
<boggle>
FYI, you unbelievable imbecile, should someone take possession of your car
due to your negligence, for example you left the keys in the ignition, OF
COURSE you are legally liable. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
Now, try to follow along, sparky. Use your finger, if it helps...
If someone takes possession of your gun due to your negligence, then YOU
should be held liable, just as is the case in every other arena of tort law
in this ector of the galaxy.
Man, if you idjuts had just hung around 'til 6th grade you'd have gotten
CIVICS classes. But no, you idiots CHOSE to be ignorant, which is a pretty
darn good definition of stupidity.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Peter Principle
24.03.2010 - 23:55
24.03.2010 - 23:55
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<email@anonym; wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:38 pm, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
>way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.
Um, actually, the answer is yes according to tort law in every single civil
court in this country, if your car has been taken DUE TO YOUR NEGLIGENCE.
Now, is there still some part of this simple and irrefutable FACT you just
can't quite ken?
Jaybus...
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
<email@anonym; wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:38 pm, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
>way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.
Um, actually, the answer is yes according to tort law in every single civil
court in this country, if your car has been taken DUE TO YOUR NEGLIGENCE.
Now, is there still some part of this simple and irrefutable FACT you just
can't quite ken?
Jaybus...
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
Peter Principle
25.03.2010 - 00:03
25.03.2010 - 00:03
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:55:56 -0500, Peter Principle
<petesfeats@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<email@anonym; wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:38 pm, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
>way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.
Um, actually, the answer is yes according to tort law in every single civil
court in this country, if your car has been taken DUE TO YOUR NEGLIGENCE.
In point of fact, there are many, many, many areas of tort law where this
same type of deferred liability is the norm. Look up dram shop liability,
for example. In point of fact a large percentage of civil tort cases are
based on, wait for it, deferred liability.
"That aside, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
<petesfeats@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<email@anonym; wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:38 pm, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in ANY
>way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.
Um, actually, the answer is yes according to tort law in every single civil
court in this country, if your car has been taken DUE TO YOUR NEGLIGENCE.
In point of fact, there are many, many, many areas of tort law where this
same type of deferred liability is the norm. Look up dram shop liability,
for example. In point of fact a large percentage of civil tort cases are
based on, wait for it, deferred liability.
"That aside, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
"RD (The Sandman)"
25.03.2010 - 00:13
25.03.2010 - 00:13
Peter Principle <petesfeats@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote in
news:email@anonym:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:32:34 -0500, Ken <Kemail@anonym; wrote:
Peter Principle wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith<email@anonym;
wrote:
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate
gun nut stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause
you haven't secured it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober
ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Hoo, boy...
Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to
legal liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch
and someone busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the
fuck on.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used
in ANY way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held
liable.
So I guess if someone were to steal your car and get into an
accident,
you would be responsible for the accident?? You liberals are too
much!!!
Jaybus Freaking Crisco, how fucking STUPID are you rightarded maroons?
<boggle>
FYI, you unbelievable imbecile, should someone take possession of your
car due to your negligence, for example you left the keys in the
ignition, OF COURSE you are legally liable. Duh fucking duh, duh,
duh...
If it is on my private property, why would I be responsible? The asshole
who stole it was trespassing.
Now, try to follow along, sparky. Use your finger, if it helps...
So, get yours out of your nose now and let's read along.......
If someone takes possession of your gun due to your negligence, then
YOU should be held liable, just as is the case in every other arena of
tort law in this ector of the galaxy.
The problem is in the definition of "negligence". If I have my guns
laying on the bed in my bedroom in my locked house, whose fault is it if
it is stolen?
Man, if you idjuts had just hung around 'til 6th grade you'd have
gotten CIVICS classes. But no, you idiots CHOSE to be ignorant, which
is a pretty darn good definition of stupidity.
In this case with you, it appears we need to start with the basics. Now
answer the question I asked just above. Then we will try to proceed from
there.
--
Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976
news:email@anonym:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:32:34 -0500, Ken <Kemail@anonym; wrote:
Peter Principle wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith<email@anonym;
wrote:
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate
gun nut stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause
you haven't secured it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober
ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Hoo, boy...
Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to
legal liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch
and someone busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the
fuck on.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used
in ANY way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held
liable.
So I guess if someone were to steal your car and get into an
accident,
you would be responsible for the accident?? You liberals are too
much!!!
Jaybus Freaking Crisco, how fucking STUPID are you rightarded maroons?
<boggle>
FYI, you unbelievable imbecile, should someone take possession of your
car due to your negligence, for example you left the keys in the
ignition, OF COURSE you are legally liable. Duh fucking duh, duh,
duh...
If it is on my private property, why would I be responsible? The asshole
who stole it was trespassing.
Now, try to follow along, sparky. Use your finger, if it helps...
So, get yours out of your nose now and let's read along.......
If someone takes possession of your gun due to your negligence, then
YOU should be held liable, just as is the case in every other arena of
tort law in this ector of the galaxy.
The problem is in the definition of "negligence". If I have my guns
laying on the bed in my bedroom in my locked house, whose fault is it if
it is stolen?
Man, if you idjuts had just hung around 'til 6th grade you'd have
gotten CIVICS classes. But no, you idiots CHOSE to be ignorant, which
is a pretty darn good definition of stupidity.
In this case with you, it appears we need to start with the basics. Now
answer the question I asked just above. Then we will try to proceed from
there.
--
Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976
"RD (The Sandman)"
25.03.2010 - 00:15
25.03.2010 - 00:15
Peter Principle <petesfeats@SNIPITgmail.com> wrote in
news:email@anonym:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<email@anonym; wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:38 pm, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently
>used in ANY way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one
>held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.
Um, actually, the answer is yes according to tort law in every single
civil court in this country, if your car has been taken DUE TO YOUR
NEGLIGENCE.
Now, is there still some part of this simple and irrefutable FACT you
just can't quite ken?
Just what is your definition of what constitutes negligence? Take all
the screens you need to make sure that you are understood.
--
Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976
news:email@anonym:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:40:34 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<email@anonym; wrote:
On Mar 24, 4:38 pm, Bill Smith <quand...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently
>used in ANY way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one
>held liable.
If someone steals your car and kills someone with it should you be
held liable?
Yes, accordin to TMT's logic.
Um, actually, the answer is yes according to tort law in every single
civil court in this country, if your car has been taken DUE TO YOUR
NEGLIGENCE.
Now, is there still some part of this simple and irrefutable FACT you
just can't quite ken?
Just what is your definition of what constitutes negligence? Take all
the screens you need to make sure that you are understood.
--
Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher - February 5, 1976
"Sid9"
25.03.2010 - 00:22
25.03.2010 - 00:22
"Ken" <Kemail@anonym; wrote in message
news:hoe3tr$o0p$email@anonym...
Peter Principle wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:07:05 -0700, Bill Smith<email@anonym;
wrote:
Speaking of a few short, ignoramus, say one of your subliterate gun nut
stupid asshole buddies trips on your front porch 'cause you haven't
secured
it properly and breaks his fat stupid goober ass.
Did the porch commit a crime?
Did anyone, in this case?
Hoo, boy...
Um, NO. Duh fucking duh, duh, duh...
The POINT, slow boi, is criminal behavior is entirely IRRELEVANT to legal
liability. If you don't take responsible care of your porch and someone
busts their ass, YOU are liable, period, EOS, move the fuck on.
If you don't responsibly secure your gun and it is subsequently used in
ANY
way that involves ANY liability, YOU should be the one held liable.
So I guess if someone were to steal your car and get into an accident, you
would be responsible for the accident?? You liberals are too much!!!
Logic: It's not just for breakfast anymore
Disclaimer: As usual, when addressing gun nuts, I always point out that I
am
a gun owner. It is entirely possible to be a gun owner and NOT be an
ignorant irresponsible nut.
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.
.
.
A gun is not a car.
A car is not a gun.
False parallel!
Ähnliche Themen
