Er. The writer disregards any research he does not agree with, yet presents zero research to back up his own claims?

That's kind of pitiful.

this article makes me want to kill the author with my bare hands.

mental illness is somthing that can't be determined by thee selling of aa video game

this article makes me want to kill the author with my bare hands.

mental illness is somthing that can't be determined by the selling of a video game. it's an unknown factor to those selling the game at retail.

How can you say that and not get banned???

The mods on this site are beginning to annoy me....

ok so you didn't see what i did. think about what this guy is saying.. i'm saying this guys stupidity, make me want to kill him like he's saying games and guns are doing in his article, and that's why i'm not getting banned.

it's giving reason why. it's like saying. stop saying stupid things. put regulation on guns. it's our cultur not the person. the article made me do it. you see what i'm getting at?

the article is the gun. and it's sarcasm. irony if you will.

I know exactly what you are saying and I agree with you!!! The author is stupid and ignorant. Look at the first page of this thread. My comment got me banned. I agreed with the OP and called the article stupid and ignorant. The mods thought I was talking about the OP, so he banned me. Basically I was trying to prove a point that the mods need to be more fair.

well mods know i'm talking about the author cause i mentioned the article. give me a min to look at your post. also mod are subjective cause you are new, and i've been sarcastic a few times before, so the mods know my posting pattern.

amp moded you, so one part of it is you didn't read the article and commented on it before knowing anything about it, but hmmmm. i doubt you've established a pattern being new but. this is a tough one mate. amp care to clarify? 

I sent him a message a while ago hoping to clarify and letting it be clear that I aimed that comment at the author/article and not the OP. He hasn't responded yet. Very quick ban so no harm in the end, but still.

Well, there is more evidence to support it then say... legal gun ownership.  In that at least it correlates inside countries.  People who comit violent crimes are more likely to play violent videogames then your average person.

Which is what you would use.  You don't use comparisons of other nations because cultures are far to different.

As an example if there are more lactose intolerant people in Wisconsin then Japan.  That doesn't prove that there is no correlation between being lactose intolerant and not eating cheese.  It's just the Japanese culture of eating cheese is less then that of Wisconsin.

There is evidence there if you want to look at it that way.  Of course i'd suggest it's HIGHLY more likely that violent people like to play violent games, because violent people like violence... and that playing violent videogames is the dependent variable, not the independent one... and instead these people would be touturing squirrels or something.

yea that may be what it was. i just read it again and i think could have been the reason for it. if it is then it may have been overturned.