I would like to see a study where random non-gamers are given a psych review and then given a month to play WoW or SC or CoD or such and then removed from game. All the while studing the effects, physical, mental, and emotional. I hypothesize that those with addictive personalities will become addicted. I also hypothesize that the games will effect all the subjects, in one way or another.

PS I also would like to see a study that looks at what happens when parents remove games from a gamer. (Not the morality, just the effects) I do think that this is a emotionally charged debate, and therefore it will take some time to get the whole picture...

In addition to smoking alcohol or drinking alcohol, I hear you can inject it...

Did you read the first link? Factcheck.org supposedly is a nonpartisan website. If I am wrong, please let me know. The numbers are very precise and as accurate as possible. The simplest way I can explain how I understand it is, "of the ~30,000 guns confiscated by Mexico over a two year period around 2006-2009, ~11,000 were given to the US ATF to trace. Of those that were traceable, 93% were traced to American sources." ~38% of total guns were traced. 36% of total guns were definitively traced to USA. Any other supposition is just that.

I seem to have googled for the 'vietnam mexico m16' link and didn't find an article within the first 10 results. Maybe you could send me the article? I will retract if you are correct.

Hey, to me, the second amendment means a US citizen can own any armament that a militia could field. Such as Javelin, M203, M1A3 (Abrams), F16, M60, Cruiser, maybe even a destroyer, Howitzer, etc.

Answer me this, if there were no controls on arm types sold to US citizens, would that make it easier or harder for Mexican drug runners to get RPGs and M19s? (also which a militia (well-regulated) could field.)

First you say "Gun control wankery" and then you use the difficulty to get guns as a defense for your position. Which way is it?

When does it become wankery? Honestly, If you answer no other question, I would like that one answered, I am curious on what your viewpoint is.

I agree that a gun in and of itself is not necessarily extremely dangerous to human life.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/ Between 36% and 93% of guns recovered by Mexican LE are traced to US sources.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081116211345AAiwdoQ How to make a AR15 into a M16. Seems to be pretty easy.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/charged-121070-connection-grenade.html Does this mean there were successful attempts? IDK, but it's been tried in USA...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story This article says that many of the grenade launchers and rocket launchers come from south of the (Mexican) border, but note the gem in par. 5: "Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said."

1)Where do Mexicans get their guns from? 2)What causes the (gun) violence?

1)The USA. 2)Illegal drug exports to USA.

I am neutral regarding gun control, but I do like truth. And I'm not too fond of murder.

The way I was thinking of it is there can be an infinite number of squares in a cube and they will never interact. If the physical realm is measured in four dimensions only, then is it possible that a 5 or 6 dimensioned object can be really close to us in the four that we understand, but far in the fifth or sixth, so much that we never perceive it?

Or am I misunderstanding completely?

Just some questions. Maybe dumb ones, but one I wanted to ask somewhere in this thread.

According to M-Theory there are 11 dimensions. Are we in four of them? (Space-Time?) What are in the other seven?

Is it possible for them to interact in "weird" ways?

Ha, you may have a point. *gets the .22 for the ingrown beard hair*

Thanks, Interesting reading 10 year old stuff and seeing what actually has happened...

I googled "Clinton accord" and got nothing like what you describe. Could you please direct me to the proper references?

Thanks in advance.

You are so close to understanding the past two years' "housing crisis"
s/two-bedroom apartments/mom and dad's house
/sarcasm... I think

A friend of mine said once, "Whatever the bill's/law's title is, it actually accomplishes the opposite."
I am no longer sure if he is a cynic.

That's why the statement, "No scientific study has demonstrated homeopathic preparations to have an effect greater than a placebo," cannot be factual if it's been studied 20 times.
But like I said before, I am disinclined to believe homeopathy's efficacy also. Just don't overstate the facts, that's all.
What could be said accurately is that all meta-analyses of double-blind randomized studies show no benefit of homeopathy over placebo.

I'm not trying to contradict you, but the phrase:

can mean two things.

Namely, this has been studied x times and every time the result was the same. where x => 0
So the catch here is that with your phrasing it sounds like there is definite scientific consensus, where there may or may not be.

There are scientific studies that show greater effect than placebo, but they questionable. Maybe what you meant is randomized double-blind studies. Search Google "homeopathy double blind randomized", from what I did find, none of them showed clear benefits, but read the abstracts of a few of them. Interesting. Some of them show some effects greater than placebo. The ones I looked at the benefit was not statistically significant, but hey, that would be a more accurate nuanced answer than

If you want my personal predisposition, I was given homeopathy when young, but as an adult looking at the principle of it, I am moderately predisposed to disbelief.

I have always understood sex (even consensual)to be mentally, emotionally, and physically dangerous. (Not that all sex is necessarily damaging) That is why I always understood pedophilia is viewed as wrong, to protect kids from danger they don't understand. Not that sex is mysteriously no longer dangerous at 18.

So to say 'you can't have sex with kids because it's dangerous for them' doesn't mean the rough converse, 'sex with adults is safe' is true. But it seems to be Conventional Wisdom...