Recent and past shootings are not a gun control problem but a problem of society and the individuals

#1 Academic stress may cause high levels of suicide but that does not equate to exposure to violence or violent situations. Nor does it show a correlation to post traumatic stress disorder or anything similar to that. My opponent makes his claim of students ordering around weaker students, in addition that some form of ranking is established through physical fights. However, he specifically states that this cannot be proven by data. I, however, showed data in relation to school violence, bullying, and fighting in my arguments, my data as well accounted for student numbers in the millions. If my opponent cannot back up his statements that the school systems in Korea are equally as violent and causes of trauma through exposure to violence I see no validation in his argument as to why my point is invalid. My data from multiple sources states that violence in youth, exposure to violence in school, and traumatic experiences and the resulting PTSD, all are high contributing factors in adolescent and adult violent tendencies. This fact therefore proves my points that school systems, environmental factors, and lack of proper treatment and support for children and youth for these issues is a significant and much more prevalent factor in what leads to these violent outbreaks as the debate is supposed to be targeting. Also, in this point, my opponent claims "Human beings do not kill themselves for something un-traumatic." In fact, human beings do kill themselves for un-traumatic things all the time. Suicide is a huge problem in the world and while it is often attributed to traumatic things, it is not always. Many times it is due to mental disorders, (bipolar, clinical depression, BPD, schizophrenia, etc.) or due to substance dependency, whether legal or illegal, which can lead to suicidal behavior, or simply due to the aging process and not wanting to become old (14.3:100K for people 40-65, and 43:100K for white men over 85)(http://www.nlm.nih.gov...). So the argument there is flawed and without basis that people commit suicide only for traumatic purposes. Trauma, especially the type due to violence exposure and PTSD, as I already illustrated with sources once, is a significant cause of violent tendencies later on. This, in addition to high cost and limited access to mental health treatment leads to a significant rise in potential offenders later on. In the US, over 50 Million people are uninsured thus requiring medical treatment to be paid out of pocket, (http://aspe.hhs.gov...), many of this 16.3% live in areas that have the substandard educational systems and lack of proper environments and social services for children, thus leading to more risk of them turning violent later on. One traumatic experience may not lead to that, but as my data proved in my last argument it is a significant risk to that happening later on. The high levels of violent trauma in the US (which my opponent failed to counter as he simply stated that it happens there with no data to back that claim up) among student and adolescents lead to higher probability of violence later in life. Thus why the US also has the highest number of juvenile and adult inmates in the world, because the society of the US, the educational systems and the lack of proper upbringing of children and proper care leads them to violent tendencies. Whether it be shootings, rape, burglary, assault, or whatever, the crime rate is high and it is due to problems in the society and environment not due to access to guns. #2/4 First, I meant to state that my opponent claimed that small numbers do not mean it's not a big deal. That was a mistype and my apologies for the confusion. However, it does not change my argument that there will always be outliers and always be small percentages, if we make drastic changes based on these outliers then it will only cause problems. While I recognize the difference between a rope and a gun, it was a satirical analogy as to why we shouldn't change things drastically based on those small numbers. If 0.012% is enough to make sweeping changes, then my analogy was in respect to that, as those are other things that would need change. As for my use of 0.012%, and my statements that his argument was in my favor, I did explain it in my last argument. As my opponent did not see that, I will re-explain. There are 70 million legal gun owners in the US, 8775 ACTUAL homicides not "apparent" as my opponent decided to claim as I did show the numbers, which equates to 0.012% of those legal gun owners being responsible for those homicides assuming that each one was committed by a single legal gun owner. Now, if my opponent wants an explanation here it is. There are no published statistics on exact numbers of illegal guns in the US. But lets take for example there are 5 million illegal gun owners in the US. Now the total number of gun owners is 75 million, not 70, therefore the number actually is now 0.0117% rather than the 0.0125% that it was in the previous numbers. So, the way it works in my favor is that by adding in illegal gun owners, you're reducing the percentage of total gun owners committing crimes. Now, since this is a hot section for my opponent, lets pull some data from a previous argument that states 90-95% of gun crimes are criminal on criminal (i.e. gang violence), therefore most likely an illegal firearm, so if my opponent wants to question the numbers I used in his favor I'll reduce them, now, if you want the more detailed statistics only 0.0012% were actual legal gun owners, 877.5 homicides. #3 There are a lot of "fundamentally dangerous" devices out there. Guns have multiple purposes other than crime and war. Hunting, sport, self-defense, etc. As I stated previously, there are over 150K cases a year of self-defense involving a firearm when the victim felt in imminent danger. Yes, they may be dangerous but taking them from law-abiding citizens (99.98%) will not reduce the danger. It impedes on freedom by denying people the ability to defend their own lives and property. As previous data showed, the UK has a hot burglary rate 4.5 times higher than the US and studies showed that this was in part due to criminals fearing getting shot by an at home resident http://www.gunfacts.info...). #5 I see no logic in my opponents rebuttal of my use of the homicide rate. The point that was made through that argument is that violence is not reduced by high levels of gun control. Homicide does not reduce just because there is strict controls on guns. And as this debate is about, are guns the primary cause of these recent events or is there another source, using the total homicide rate shows that violence does not decrease indicating that there is a different problem rather than guns. Take for example this article (http://www.gunfacts.info...), the UK instituted it's handgun ban in 1997, and since then has had a near doubling of gun related incidents since then. How did that reduce gun crime? Or violence overall? It didn't. My opponent likes to argue that access to guns leads to more gun crime, sure, if criminals can get their hands on a weapons they'll use it, but the fact of the matter is, it's not the legal access to guns that is not causing these crimes. The guns are the weapon of choice but: 1. Violent crime and homicide is happening regardless of legal access to guns. 2. Legal guns are rarely the used weapon in these incidents. 3. Illegal weapons will be obtained regardless of how strict the laws are as illustrated in the UK article. 4. There is clearly an underlying cause of this violence that is rooted in something within the society. My opponent needs to address these points as he has clearly not shown how loose gun control is the major factor in the cause of these incidents. By the way, the CT shooting was illegal guns