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

As much as I would like to propose a rebuttal to my opponent, as stated in the initial round, Round 5 is for closing statements and finalizing your own argument, not to react to the opponents claims. That being said I will offer my final arguments. The debate that has ensued in the past few days has been thrown all over the map. While the cases presented by myself and my opponent have varied and the interpretation of the debate has been skewed on both sides, it has nonetheless brought out some significant points. My stance remains the same, as expected in a debate, gun control is not the major issue that contributes to "recent and past shootings." Let me make this clear, that throughout this debate my position was not focused on strictly the Oregon and Connecticut shootings, but all in the past decades. To this end, I believe that my argument was defended and proven. While it does remain true that shootings do correlate to the use of guns, the question, as proposed in the initial round, was that gun control is not the most important factor to be considered in the wake of these tragedies. While is has been said that I deviated from the purpose of the debate, I see no validity to this. The argument I put forth, including non-gun homicides, the statistics, the data, and all other information, was to show the readers that regardless of gun control laws, regardless of access to guns, illegal guns or not, the most important issue was something much different. Sure, without guns there would be no shootings, just like without knives or other pointy objects there would be no stabbings, but the question remains, what is the most important underlying factor. To this end, I have proven my point. Gun laws have, and I have proven this through my data, not been effective in both reducing crime and reducing gun crime even in some cases, (I just now realized that I copied the wrong link in the previous round, the final link of that round should have been http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) this includes crime with both homicide and non-homicide actions. Because they have not deterred gun crime or in some cases it has increased, I have proven my case that gun control is not the most important factor in these shootings. 1. The gun control laws have not reduced gun crime in many cases, and in some cases has increased other crime. 2. If it is not as effective as advocates for gun control say it is then it would be logical to assume that there are more important issues to discuss. The fact of the matter is that stricter gun laws do not work in deterring both gun crime and regular crime. This was not a debate about mass shootings but shootings overall, and as such I have proven my point that an extremely small percentage of those legally owning guns have committed any crime with them. If that is the case then it is only logical to assume that those that have illegally obtained weapons are the ones that commit the crimes, and as presented in the UK article that I posted above, gun control does not stop these crimes from happening, in fact it increases the chances. The reason for this was presented in my PDF file from gunfacts, which states that many criminals were deterred from committing a crime due to the fact that they were scared they may be shot. The only way a criminal with an illegally obtained weapon may be scared that he may be shot is if there is a chance that the law-abiding citizen that they are threatening may potentially have a legally obtained firearm. The ultimate reality is that there are people that want to kill, hurt, injure, steal, and otherwise cause problems in the world. While it is true that they may use guns, this has been going on long before we had guns, and will continue after. In a modern and civilized society, we can sit here and talk about cutting away individual tools for these problems, but in the long run it will not solve the problem. As the statistics show, crime does not decrease with gun control. If gun control doesn't deter crime then gun control is not the issue that we should waste our time trying to legislate. As the purpose of this debate was for, to determine the most important factor, let it be shown that I have proven through validated data and argument that gun control does not reduce gun crime, crime overall, nor does it increase the safety of the people. Because of this it can only be logically concluded that the most important factor is that there is something wrong with the society we live in and the mental health of the individuals. Strip away all the legally owned guns from everyone, if it doesn't reduce crime, or even reduce gun crime (as proven in the UK) then it was clearly a wasted effort. Lawmakers spend months and years debating whether this issue is important and whether we should enact stricter gun control laws that are consistently proven wrong. There is a reason that the anti-gun control lobby is the largest in the US, it is because people on both parties understand that banning guns is a bad idea and that while a few concessions may be made, and I am not arguing that gun control is not a topic that doesn't need to be discussed at all, it is not the most important issue surrounding these crimes. Shootings or not, they are crime, gun control or not the crimes could and most likely would still happen. As illustrated a few rounds ago, in Oklahoma City, hundreds were injured or killed without a single shot fired, in New York City, September 11, 2001 not a single shot was fired. February 28, 2012, 1 police officer and 15 pedestrians were killed and 14 injured in China with only axes and knives (http://english.cri.cn...). May 25, 2012, Houla, Syria, 108 people killed, 49 of them children (http://www.japantimes.co.jp...), with knives. The fact of the matter is there are people that want to kill, whether with guns, knives, bats, fists, cars, or spoons, it doesn't matter, there are people that want to kill and injure and cause problems. To quote a popular movie, "Some people just want to see the world burn." We can take any measures we want to ban these weapons, but the problem is people will still get them or other weapons. The issue that needs to be focused on is what is causing these shootings, what is triggering people to commit these atrocities, guns are not causing them, people are causing them, and it is the people that need to be the target of the national and global debate. How can we help these people and prevent them from injuring others? Strip them of legally obtaining one type of weapon (when they're using illegal means of obtaining them anyway) is not going to help. It will only endanger those who once had the option of legally obtaining them. I now have concluded my argument and wish to part with one final issue. Removing guns from the hands of legal owners does not help but endangers the public. I keep returning to that UK article that states gun crimes doubled, in addition to the gunfacts file that showed that criminals are deterred by potentially armed civilians. Let me point to another article, one compiled by someone, and while the site may not be seen as academic, sources in the article are shown, (http://dailyanarchist.com...). In this it is shown that of the mass shootings (or rampage/spree/school shootings) that have happened in the recent past, police intervention, due to response time and "assessing the situation" resulted in an average of 14.27 deaths per incident, whereas ones with civilians intervening resulted in 2.33 per incident. In addition, unarmed civilians resulted in 2.6 deaths per incident, and 1.8 per incident with armed civilians. Not as drastic a difference but if small numbers count then it is. Overall, legal guns save lives. Outlawing them doesn't work. The most important issue is helping the individuals.