and again this study will reach the same result.violent video games does not influence nobody

I feel like that article states things like there was a sensible discussion going on. Admitting that video games are a subset of all the things that may make someone worship violence in these contemporary discussions is much like a doctor admitting that water has weight and thus increases the digit on the scale if you ingest it to a bunch of dieters. It'd just cause a lot of screaming and waving, and maybe a pile of dehydrated dieters making noises that were probably meant to curse carbohydrates somehow but were dulled to incomprehensibility by the withering of their husks.

Soooo... you want to ban carbohydrate reseach? YEAH!!!

I don't think Violent video games were the DIRECT cause for Sandy Hook and Aurora. I think they could possibly be linked, but not the Direct cause. Just my opinion.

The problem with trying to get rid of guns is that it would only be the law-abiding citizens who would turn them in, thus allowing criminals to act much more freely without having to worry about people defending themselves with guns. Not too long ago, there was a shooting at a movie theater. There were several movie theaters that played the same movies and were closer to where the shooter lived, but the one he picked was the only one in the area that had signs banning guns from the premises.

And even if it were possible to destroy all guns, that would simply mean that they would use other tools. Should we then ban all knives too? What about baseball bats? Criminals tend to look for easy targets. If they see a target that they think could defend themselves, then they just look for an easier target. If it were highly probable that any given target was carrying a concealed weapon and was trained how to use it, then that would make mugging much riskier and much less likely to happen. In the case of the school shooting, it most likely would have been stopped quicker if the teachers had had guns.

Heck, let's leave aside the arguments about self defense.

We have over 300 million guns in this country, way more than any country that's ever been "disarmed", they represent a value in the billions and billions of dollars. Many old rifles are worth over 5000 USD apiece (many much more). Firearms hold their value fairly permanently. The only changes you'll see if there is a change is a rise in value, not a decrease (after the initial decrease from "new" to "used", which isn't as much as most items you could buy).

There is no way to "get rid of all guns" in the US while compensating Americans, to say nothing of rights, self defense, or anything else.

The issue had occurred to me, partly because that, I think, used almost word for word the same phrasing as Terry Pratchett over a similar idea in...Night Watch, I believe. Obviously that's a major issue, and I'm not sure how that would be addressed, I admit. On the other hand, I was more trying to point out that the guns probably hold a good deal more blame than the computer games. If you put the ability into peoples' hands to do something illegal, then the temptation will be there. If you put it into the whole population's hands, then you're almost sure to have some people giving in to that temptation. I don't know how topical this is in the US, but we don't blame Starbucks not paying tax in Britain on them having played a game involving setting up their accounts in another country (though I'm sure there are some around), but on a combination of them being generally a fairly unpleasant company and the tax system not being very good! The problem, which everyone arguing for giving more guns to people to give them an edge over criminals, is that without identifying said criminals (in which case presumably you'd deal with them before they kill people anyway) or making general distinctions based on race, location, etc most likely to kill people (and be, rightly, accused of racism, etc, so let's not go there) there's no way to avoid the criminals gaining the same increase! And while you can change the proportion of power resting in different portions of the population (as in your suggestion of the teachers having guns), this won't increase overall power, and increases the risk when, in this case, a teacher themself decides to start shooting people.

As for your first question, I can answer with reasonable certainty that guns are more dangerous than knives (although admittedly it may depend a bit on the gun), partly because they can do their damage faster. I've never been threatened by either weapon, but it strikes me that you have a few moments more to react to someone with a knife, as they have to get much closer to you, and even then you may have a better chance of dodging. Obviously knives shouldn't be banned, as they have other uses. Guns really don't have any use other than killing people, so I don't see that America with no guns (other than the army, for which they do have another utility: defending the country) would be any worse off than one with guns. That isn't really possible, as you point out, but blaming games for an issue which seems to me to sit squarely on letting people use firearms seems...ludicrous to me.

The temptation to do something illegal is always going to be there regardless of whether they have access to guns. History is full of people doing illegal things long before guns and video games.

Criminals are generally going to have an edge regardless of whether you legally allow them to, so this is not about increasing both, but about allowing citizens to be on par with them.

The point of bring up knives was not that it was less dangerous, but that it was a common item that would be silly to ban. If you want something just as dangerous than a gun, you can go to a hardware store and pick up a can of nails and some chemicals that have an explosive reaction when mixed/ignited. Besides scale, what is the difference between the army using guns to defend their country from invasion and a citizen using guns to defend their home against a burglar? And what about people to use guns to hunt game animals?

Well, you never know. Massage the numbers, get p above 0.025, ignore the other tail, and bam, breaking news.

Yeah, all that is needed for media to scream 'Scientists proved link of video games to violence!' are scientists saying 'In some rare cases and under unlikely circumstances, violent videogames may lead to violence in real life.'

I think a study and publicizing the findings would likely be a good thing for games. From several I've seen referenced (I'm not an academic ) much of what I've seen indicates on the whole that acting out in virtual worlds seems to make less likely to act out in real life. Obviously there's no way to predict how it'll impact any one individual, but on the whole it seems it may be good that people can let of steam in games as opposed to alternatives. (I don't have links - just recalling links I've seen from science news article sources over the years).

It may be similar to an effect I've noticed musically. I'm a guitarist and I recall times when I'm stressed out and just turning up an amp playing loud seems to make things better! LOL

So let's just keep on selling weapons of war! And send the surplus to Mexico...

Yes, BECAUSE THOSE ARE CLEARLY THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS!

Or, seriously, we could be reasonable and come up with a less asinine solution that wouldn't put either side out too much.

Kinda spells out how pointless the CDC (and no doubt many other US government organisations) are when they get saddled with bullshit like this. I guess Obama saw them twiddling their thumbs and heard the cries of the ignorant Fox News watching masses and decided to kill two birds with one headshot.
He's asking them to look into all possible reasons for gun violence. Games, movies and TV are stipulated, but the CDC wouldn't be exceeding their remit to say "Uh, Mr President? You know psychosis and how we do bugger all to treat it...?"