More guns =/= more safety. This has been proven time and again.

Agreed, in Australia we are exposed to all of those things on the list. But we have strict gun control laws and as a result, very little gun crime.

It'd be awesome if all people could respect that. Instead, lots of them place their right to carry firearms above the well being and safety of other men, women, and children. I'm not too worried, personally. Sadly, I think it's just a matter of how many more families need to lose young children to gun violence before enough people get it.

So unlike London fewer people dead isn't a good thing? Knives kill fewer people than guns, no qualifiers necessary it's just the way it is.

Show me a knife that can kill as quickly and efficiently in the hands of the average American adult as a firearm, and I'll stop laughing at your argument.

So they're right about music videos and this country being one hurricane away from Lord of the Flies if more citizens aren't packing? HAHAHAHAHAHA okay Better hope gangsta rap doesn't experience a resurgence during next year's hurricane season or buddy, we are good and screwed.

In what way is it biased? It's just a bunch of quotes from an old, rich white man who knows his organization has been backed into a corner and is flailing wildly at the world's worst attempt at damage control and misdirection. When, for example, were music or music videos last blamed for harmful behavior? 'Cuz I'm pretty sure it was with Tipper Gore back in the late 80s/early 90s. That's twenty fucking years ago, and guess what? She was, in a way and like it or not, successful in music regulation, because now if an album drops the F-bomb, the RIAA mandates that the label release it with an Explicit Content warning on it and stores aren't allowed, technically, to sell them to minors. Same as guns. That means that Pretty Lights' amazing album Passing Behind Your Eyes can't be bought by a 16-year old because it contains a sample of a rapper singing, “Fuck 'em, I didn't want to go to heaven anyway”, and the same amount of regulation is applied to a device that can blow out the back of someone's head in a fraction of a second. Is it not maybe time to consider some stricter regulations on that second thing?

Citation needed. Also, what “children's safety measures” specifically would have protected them from an unexpected attack from a young man with a powerful semi-automatic rifle? Kevlar? Two-inch thick ceramic helmets? No one's mentioned it because its relevancy to the discussion is questionable.

Oh, are you talking about this?   430 members of the House of Representatives and 100 senators + 1 President = 531 individuals responsible for not raising this issue. At least. Also, they didn't cut funding. It wasn't renewed. There's a difference. With that many people culpable, you might as well count yourself responsible as well, since I'm guessing you didn't write your congressional representative to alert them to this fact. Go away.

Right on.

Explosives are already illegal which is why bombings are much less common than shootings.

Constructing and placing a bomb requires forethought, planning, and working knowledge of explosives, to say nothing of the materials (already mentioned above). While one can make the argument that at least the knowledge is freely available on the internet, the ability to plan is not. You have it or you don't. The problem with plans is that, as the adage says, they oft go awry. The more complicated the plan, the more things can go wrong. Adam's plan, if one could call it that, was incredibly simple: get guns, to to school, start shooting. If, on the other hand, Adam had a knife or some other close-range weapon, escape would have been much easier: simply put distance between the intended victim and the attacker. This is one of the main reasons why guns are so dangerous. To kill someone with a knife you either need to be very skilled or very lucky. The firearm is the great equalizer; you don't need to be either to kill someone with a gun.

This actually sounds like a fairly sensible solution. I'm afraid I don't know much about it, though it seems like the tech involved would make guns prohibitively expensive for many would-be buyers, which the NRA and firearm manufacturers would fight tooth and nail.

Of course, it doesn't account for how easy it is for an adult to simply buy their own weapon and then go to town. Adam Lanza was an adult from a well-off family. Guessing he wouldn't have had much trouble running down to a sporting goods store and buying a Bushmaster for himself.

You have to be 21 to buy a gun. He was only 20 so he would've had some trouble.

No, he wouldn't: “An individual 18 years of age or older may purchase a rifle or shotgun from a federally licensed dealer in any state. However, the applicant may not purchase a pistol gripped long gun that does not have a shoulder stock until he or she is 21 years of age.” Source:   The AR-15 has a shoulder stock. Adam could have bought one on his own.

No, the problem is easy access to firearms. Identification and diagnosis of a mental disorder, like any illness, must be performed by a professional. Treatment, where necessary, must be strictly followed. Worst of all, though, is that many psychopathologies, even after diagnosis has been performed and treatment is underway, are unpredictable. Removing guns is the surest solution.

You're right. Gaming was just a small piece of the puzzle. Your mom doesnt have a stash of high powered automatic weapons and you don't have a history of isolation and depression.
Add life-like audio/visual killing into the mix and you've got a desensitized troubled individual armed and ready to shoot

If taking the guns away doesn't work the video games will be next on the list. They will take away everything piece by piece until their is nothing left. While the guns made it easier for this kid to kill, he would've found another way had he not had them. His issues wouldn't have gone away just because he didn't have a gun and if they weren't dealt with he would've killed people with a bomb or something.

Prove it.