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

I will summarize the entire debate in this round. My opponent was gravely mistaken throughout the entire debate. But not only this, his argument was inconsistent as the debate went on. Pro started off debate arguing about how much of stress that people in the US receives and how this causes people to commit crimes like randomly shooting at others. He pulled some statistics to prove the level of stress that students receive and gave some professional statements about how does things induce violent tendencies. In this he attempted to show that social and individual problems are of a bigger contributing factor than gun problems. Nevertheless, the fact that people receive stress did not prove why it is a bigger contributing factor since it became clear by my argument that the problem of individuals pretty much exists everywhere. In Korea, one student commits suicide each day due traumatic stress coming from bullying and violence. Our society is made in a way that clash between individual is inevitable, hence making troubled individuals exist everywhere. The rest of the world that have troubled individuals just like US, but the fact that 15 worst mass shooting incident out of 25 occurred in the US only can be explained by the fact that US has such a loose gun control. I also gave a perfect example of South Korea where two opposite environment exists. In military, guns are very loosely controlled like how it is in the US but contrary to that, it is illegal to own a gun and very difficult to obtain an illegal firearm through illegal methods. The result indicated that it surely do mean that more guns loose do mean more likelihood of mass shooting. In order to prove the motion that “Recent and past shootings are not a gun control problem but a problem of society and the individuals”, my opponent had to show why problem of people is more problematic in the US. Every country has problems with people yet many countries forbid guns. This inevitably draws the conclusion that loose gun control eventually means more mass shooting and in order to pursue his case, Pro should have showed way people problem is so much more of problem than guns being around in causing mass shooting. Pro’s main stream of argument then changed. He started explaining how gun control does not contribute to overall homicide rate. Nevertheless, this is very irrelevant to begin with since we are debating about the bigger cause of mass shooting. In no part of the topic, does it include how gun control aids and abet people to cause crime. But even so, 2/3 of homicide happens due to guns. That is really an alarming rate that emphasizes the importance of strict gun control. After that I gave examples of many countries that forbid guns having considerably lower number of gun homicides, my opponent suggested another argument that strict controls on gun can possibly open a window for everything being restricted on the excuse that it can be dangerous and limiting freedom of people. However, there is no one that will use something dangerous being limited as an excuse to limit something like ropes and access to high places. Then the argument transformed into a “limiting freedom to self-defense and security”. But this is invalid since there are law enforcers that protect us and there are also other tools that better suits the purpose of self-defense. This is also contradictory since loose gun control in fact what poses greater threat that has to be defended with guns to begin with. Then Pro’s argument shifted to how having stricter gun control would not mean there is less crime rate. He argued that banning legal weapons will only endanger those who legally protect themselves from criminals who will commit crime with illegal weapons anyways. This is invalid because the fact that such a huge market for illegal firearm exists is because there is a loose gun control to begin with. The stricter gun control is, lesser illegal firearm there will be. But this is very irrelevant as well. We are discussing mass shooting incidents. There is not much left in this debate. My opponent kept on alternating his argument after his first relevant argument was challenged. I have shown that loose gun already gives mean for criminals that exist everywhere in every country to shoot randomly. That is why shooting incidents are so common in the US where gun is actually allowed. The fact that guns are easily seen and are around also provides the idea of picking up a gun and randomly taking 28 lives. All in all, loose gun control gives mean and the idea for mass shooting incident. Down the bench, I have successfully proved my case while my opponent was not able to settle his argument at a single focus. I advocate my stance in this debate for social safety, less gun crimes and no more victims of mass shooting incident. Please vote for Con. Merry Christmas to all.