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

Even before starting my attack with opponent’s case, I would like to explain that my opponent already missed out on the fundamental essence of the debate. In this debate, “Recent and past shootings are not a gun control problem but a problem of society and the individuals”, Pro had to show that reason why these random shootings occur is due to social and individual problems, less of gun control. As I have correctly explained, problems with individual is common everywhere. The problem with individual is not something special only in the US; hence my opponent already failed his part. Of course gun control itself cannot make people to commit crime. That is not even what we are debating about. We are discussing the bigger contributing factor to frequent random shootings. 15 out of 25 worst shooting incidents occurred in US that have loose gun control. I asked opponent to address what makes US people a bigger problem than their gun control due to the fact that all countries have the same people problem but only US has such a dramatic gun control problem. In this round, I would like to offer some further attack to defense that my opponent gave in the previous round. The numberings will stay identical. Attack 1: Trauma My opponent kept on explaining that students in US receive so much traumatic experience and that causes them to pick up guns and randomly shoot at people. He gave medical explanation on what kind of things cause people to commit suicide or violent crimes and that US has highest inmate numbers. However, those claims do not tie back to the debate by two reasons. Firstly, I already have shown through statistics that it is not only US where students experience violence and bullying but in fact, the problem also exist in Korea and yet there has been no shooting incident with live ammunition in civilian area in South Korea. Secondly, the implied premise that United States citizen are more prone to crime than any other country is wrong. To support this, my opponent gave statistics that United States has the highest inmate number. Nevertheless, “violent crimes” that my opponent clearly specified that is a result of traumatic experience is at highest rate in the UK where only 18 people are murdered with guns. It is also noteworthy how he concluded saying “crime rate is high and it is due to problems in the society and environment not due to access to guns.” We can already notice that my opponent is far off the topic. We are discussing the bigger contributing factor to random shooting incidents, not crimes in general. Of course crime happens because of the people. As my opponent correctly said, they will commit crime anyways. But what enables them to aim at 28 innocent lives is loose gun control that gives them access to guns. Attack 2/4: 0.012% or 0.0117% My opponent kept focusing overly on percentage that includes illegal guns. However, he is still missing out two things. Firstly, it does not matter if it is 0.012% or 0.0117% or even lower. What we know is that there are about 10,000 gun homicides each year and that gun is used in 2/3 of murder in the US. Such percentage under decimal might seem very minute. However, as my opponent said, there are 80 million owners. “We shouldn’t change things drastically on those small numbers.”? Every single passenger in airplane has to have their baggage and body checked in security because of terrorists. I want everyone reading this debate to remember that 10,000 dead bodies each year in US have bullet holes in them out of 15,000 total deaths. Secondly, the fact that so much illegal gun exists is what we really need to get. There is noticeable black market of guns, big enough to even affect the percentage that “favors” my opponent. I do not see the necessity to discuss this further. Attack 3: Ability to defend their own lives and property In this part, my opponent is being very inconsistent with his own argument. He previously claimed that having stricter control on guns will open a possibility for everything to be restricted like ropes and access to high places. He now changed his argument and I claiming that it impedes people’s freedom to defend them. Let me deal with this brand new argument first and also explain an interesting concession my opponent made. We live in modern world. We do not need to defend ourselves but there are law enforcers that does. We do not live in the time of Wild West where it was necessary to defend ourselves with our own ways. Now laws are there and that is in fact that spirit of the modern world. Instead of guns, there are also other tools that can be used to defend ourselves. Even so speaking under assumption that we are in desperate need to protect ourselves, there are sprays, bats or even fists that can serve better for the purpose of self-defense. We are not banning the learning of boxing or karate but a powerful tool that facilitates crime so much. If my opponent’s case is true, then all countries that do not guarantee right to possess gun should have people fearing about their safety. Ironically, US have the highest inmate numbers. Now, let me mention the concession my opponent made. I claimed that primary purpose of gun is destruct. In destruction, it includes notion of hunting, targeting and self-defense since a bullet is traveling at speed of sound and penetrating through an object. Regardless of its purpose, guns shoot bullet that is made to destroy and for that it is fundamentally dangerous. That is why controlling strict on guns is not impeding anyone’s freedom. The UK example is does not work because it was specifically on hand guns. Now in UK, where automatic, semiautomatic assault rifles and hand guns are prohibited, there are about 18 total gun homicides (2009). Attack 5: Rates I am very confused by my opponent who gave overall homicide rate in debate about gun control and is now blaming me for giving a correct and appropriate statistics. Guns themselves of course cannot commit crimes. It is always the humans that cause crimes. But in this debate, I have proved that guns give means to those who are going to commit crime to shoot at 28 innocent lives. I do not understand how this debate required overall homicide rate. To prove that there are other factors to crimes than guns? That is a truism that I cannot rebut which is also considered as logical fallacy in a debate. It is very clear that my opponent is misled in the debate. He gave some truisms that there are other contributing factors in crime overall and later on explained why guns should not be strictly controlled. He explained that only 0.012% causes crime which is irrelevant. I do not disagree that problems with people are a cause of mass shooting incidents to a certain extent. But gun control is the main cause because it gives them means to shoot at 28 innocent children. With stricter gun control like South Korea, China and Australia, these troubled individuals that exist everywhere will have less chance to pick up a rifle and fire randomly in the first place. My opponent in the end admitted that if criminals can get their hands on a weapon, they will use it. By that, he essentially lost the debate. Guns are the weapons of choice and because of that fact, mass shootings occur. If guns are controlled, people will commit crimes but they would not be able to shoot at random citizen, causing tens of death.1. Violent crimes and homicides happen regardless of legal access to guns but that is not the essence of this debate. We are discussing mass shootings. 2. Out of about 60 mass shootings that occurred for past two decades, 10 were done with illegal weapons.3. UK only has about 18 gun homicides each year and I never argued illegal weapons will never be obtained.4. Of course there is a cause of violence and that is why crimes happen all the time. But what causes mass shooting primarily is high access to guns for they make them so easy to commit. Please come up with points and attacks regarding this specific motion.