ADD/ADHD does not mean that you become inattentive at everything. One of the things with ADD/ADHD is that if something DOES catch your attention, you can do it for hours on end, particularly if it stimulates the brain. It's the mundane routine stuff that tends to be discarded, like household chores etc.

In my personal experience, Strattera interferes with my ability to perform in some sports, while it helps with my daily life, such as doing household chores.

Once again, that's a standard situation that students are taught as a matter of basic instruction. The impulse control, memory etc are things that no matter of hard conviction can affect. Also, as I mentioned, there's the interview with family etc, including childhood behaviour etc.

Also, broad spectrum screening is standard in serious testing.

"Again, those tests give the same results for ADD and stress. If you weren't diagnosed with ADD/ADHD when you were 6, as an adult is an "undiagnosable" condition."

And you are wrong on both counts, once again. Some types of stress have some symptoms that overlap with ADD(far less for ADHD). However, with the battery of tests I mentioned, as well as blood tests etc, you get completely different aggregate profiles. Also, various neurological disorders can appear or disappear with major metabolism changes associated with age, and if you couple that with an unhealthy living style, of course the risks are increased.

Also, EEG has been used for decades, and CAT or similar scans have been used for the really difficult cases for at least a decade, so you are not as up-to-date as you like to believe.

Unless you belong to a group that is less than a percent of the population, catching someone pretending is pretty easy for a serious tester, since a serious test battery includes memory, reaction and impulse control tests for example, interviews with family, blood tests etc. Here in Sweden, EEG etc are slowly getting used for testing too.

Now, if you just go to an average US clinic, on the other hand, yeah, then it gets easier, since they earn more the more patients they prescribe to etc, but that's a completely different issue altogether than what you alluded to.

Actually, there are a whole lot of tests other than just the questionnaire, when performed by serious testers: Impulse control tests, memory tests, reaction tests etc etc.

Gamers who have actual ADD/ADHD would benefit from not taking meds when competing in games like these, since these games are heavily dependant on fast reflexes, and those with ADD/ADHD have their reaction/impulsiveness slowed down as one of the effects of these meds due to the different neurochemistry, while those who don't have ADD/ADHD benefit from taking these substances, because they react faster/become more impulsive(and more aggressive)

And? Russia, the US, and most of the other major nuclear power producers already have huge weapon stockpiles anyway. So where's the reprocessing?

Sorry, ignore the *, I decided to rephrase my footnote as the next sentence.

100 acres would be a radius of only ~392 yards, and from what I can find the range of an unimpeded 9mm pistol round can be a couple thousand yards*. Obviously the accuracy will be nonexistent at that range, but we're talking about how far a stray shot can travel before hitting the ground. So, unless you've got *really* dense trees, a bullet fired into the woods will potentially cross several neighbours properties as well as your own. I really hope you're using a proper backdrop.

Of course all those things would equally well apply to someone carelessly firing the gun by hand. I mean it would be especially stupid to fire a gun while dancing on top of an orchard ladder, but I really doubt it's actually illegal.

Sure it does. You just have to define "state" as "the socio-economic power structure furthering the interests of the people currently in power". Conveniently, that's usually the practical definition anyway.

Sure there would - it still needs to be determined with certainty whether the particular action actually occurred, who was involved, and in some cases what the motive was (say premeditated murder versus self defense). Not to mention whether the law is being applied justly - jury nullification has a long and proud history in this country.

Oh? So we should allow all citizens to tinker with high-yield nuclear weapons in downtown metropolitan areas, since there is only the *potential* of harm provided they don't do anything stupid? I think that's going to be a hard sell.

Or how about juggling sealed vials of weaponized Smallpox at the World Fair or something? So long as you don't drop them there's only the *potential* to kill hundreds of millions of people, so it should be perfectly legal, right?

I agree with you in general principle, but there's a *really* strong case to be made that if the potential damage is great enough, then even the potential warrants restriction. And once the door is open then we have to decide exactly where the line is. Firing a single handgun into the air on New Years eve is unlikely to do any real damage, but if thousands or millions of people are doing it all at once, then the odds that at least one of those bullets will come down on someone unprotected with enough speed to injure or kill them approaches 100%.

Sadly, history does show that such thinking tends toward a slippery slope but I am forced to argue that it is still justified in some cases, and that we must stand eternally vigilant in the grey areas rather than succumbing to the tempting simplicity of black and white thinking.

>There was clearly no criminal intent in this case since he posted the video on Youtube.

I really, really wish that were true. Have you really never heard of any the many cases of people posting Youtube videos of thefts, assaults, even rapes? I don't know whether it's motivated by overwhelming stupidity, a desire for infamy, or what, but it's very definitely a thing.

Also, from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

Basically it means it means exactly what it says. Etymology aside, "ignorance" refers to lack of knowledge and has nothing to do with "ignoring" beyond possibly ignoring the theoretical past opportunities to learn more. The principle is based on the assumption that everyone knows all the laws (or perhaps that it's your responsibility to know the law), never mind that such a claim is ridiculous given the size of modern bodies of law. It was established to protect against someone knowingly committing a crime and then avoiding liability by making the nigh-un-disprovable claim that they didn't know it was illegal.

Well sure. But it seems like "It was Tuesday" is generally a valid excuse for the police. Along with "It wasn't Tuesday".