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

Rebuttal 1: “Traumatic Stress” We cannot exclude academic stress from traumatic stress as because level of pressure that South Korean students receive is truly tremendous. There are countless cases of Korean students committing suicide, not being able to withstand the academic pressure. All Korean students wishing to attend college have to learn AP level Calculus and Statistics. Korean students are only given one single chance to prove their academic skills on all fields. That test determines students’ course of life. Korean high-schools openly post ranking of individual students, from first to last and classroom sitting charts are based on grade. Maybe your specific URL that obviously is not the only truth does not include this type of stress as their definition of “traumatic stress”, but I am sure most of reasonable persons will agree that such academic circumstance that causes suicides is very traumatic and has a potential to make one reach their breaking point and commit radical action like murder, arson or even mass murder. Human beings do not kill themselves for something un-traumatic. But even viewing from aspects of exposure to violence, Korean student still undergoes traumatic experiences in school. In the year of 2010, 353 students committed suicide due to reasons regarding violence and bullying in school [1]. That means about one student killed him/herself each day because violent circumstance they are under. Physically strong students in majority of Korean schools order weaker students to run their errands. Most of Korean public schools have ranking among students determined by physical fights. This obviously cannot be proven by data but it is the reality. Korean student suffer from traumas coming from academics and school life but random shooting incidents in Korea is very rare. I have already proven that just because one is subject under traumatic experience, it does not mean one picks up a gun and starts shooting at 28 innocent lives. It is the fact that gun control is so loose that is problematic. Rebuttal 2: The Outliers, Radicals, Small Percentage I messed up my division. However, my essence of the argument remains the same. 0.012% of 70 million to 80 million still means 8,775 to 9,600. That is approximate number of homicides committed with gun in the US each year. There are about 15,000 homicides being committed each year according to gunpolicy. org. This represents that about two third of homicides in the US are committed by guns. Even though it is only 0.012% of gun owners committing offences, when that 0.012% forms two third of the entire homicides happening each year, it surely is not “just a 0.012%”. I never said small numbers are not a big deal. Please recheck. Rebuttal 3: Opening the door for restrictions on everything My opponent argued that having stricter gun control to prevent further incidents of random mass murder opens a door for everything being restricted. However, that is a very naïve claim. Hundreds of other countries have so much stricter gun laws than United States. In majority of cases, (including SK, Russia, France, UK and China) few types of guns are allowed to those in “genuine need”. Majority of countries impose extremely strict laws on gun but these countries do not have the problem people’s freedom being violated. We all know gun is a fundamentally dangerous device. Many countries have strict control on cyanide but no one use this as a reason to “counteract the entire concept of freedom”. The function of gun itself is destruction and this tool of destruction being compared with rope and high places fallacious. Overall deaths (homicide, suicide, accident) by guns exceed 3000 each year just for your reference. Rebuttal 4: Legal vs. Illegal Gun The reason I stated the fact that there are huge amount of illegal guns as well, excluded from the statistics was to show how purposeless it is to use that specific percentage to marginalize gun killing since my opponent based his argument upon 0.012%. My opponent also argued that percentage including illegal owners cannot be given and yet he argued that the number is in favor to him. Please explain how it is possible for a number to be not proven and yet, support a side. Furthermore, what we really need to focus more on is the fact that there exists noticeable illegal gun market. Don’t let debates on validity of numbers distract you from the essence. Out of nearly 60 random shooting incidents happened over two decades in US, about 10 of those incidents were committed with illegally acquired firearms [2], which imply there is a significant black market of guns. Such illegal market is obviously the cause of loose gun control. Rebuttal 5: Pro’s Rebuttal to my Sub-Point 1 Pro used overall homicide rate to prove that gun homicide rate is not correlated with gun control. That is a grave mistake. We should take a look at gun homicide rate, not overall homicide rate. If we take a look at the URL that Pro used, it is very easy to notice that countries with stricter gun control in fact do have dramatically lower rate of gun homicide compared to countries with loose gun control. Gun homicide rate of UK rates from between 0.08 to 0.03 per 100,000. South Korean is close to none, Netherland has average of 0.3 and France rates approximately 0.2. All the countries I have mentioned have strict gun control. This contrasts with US that has gun homicide rate of about 3. Estonia, with slightly loose gun control never had gun homicide rate under a whole number until 2004. Even cold-hearted statistics prove that looser gun control do in fact cause more gun incidents. This URL from Harvard also explains that more guns mean more homicide with guns [3]. Regarding Switzerland, my opponent is mistaken from many different aspects. First of all, not all men in Switzerland are required to own a gun in their household but the law differs from cantons to cantons. Most cantons usually store those weapons at public depots now since it is logically correct that guns being around inevitably do cause more homicide by guns. Other than that, all men and women of Switzerland receive military training to protect the country in emergency situations. But even so, Switzerland has an evidently high gun homicide rate. So my opponent is incorrect by far. Pro also claimed that less access (meaning obviously stricter control) means fewer shooting incident is not a valid argument. However, that is very un-true. I already gave example of South Korea where two opposite environments (of guns being around and not being around) resulted in drastic juxtaposition of results. When guns were around, random shooting incidents happened few times over the course of two decades. Almost none of random shooting incident occurred in the civilian world. Closing Statement: Down the bench in this round, it has become clearer that every country has individuals suffering from traumatic experience that can do just about anything. That problem is widespread in anywhere around the globe. Hence, that is not the problem with random shooting incident viewing from that majority of countries do not have such shocking incidents very often. 15 out of 25 worst shooting incidents were caused in the US [4], which is the country that is very loose in gun control. This cannot be a coincidence. As I said, every country has troubled individuals. But what gives these people ability to shoot at random lives is the loose gun control itself. When radical individual is a shared problem of all countries, only explanation with problem with guns in the US is the gun control in the US. If Pro wants to argue his stance that “people” are the bigger problem further, he must show why my argument that radical individuals are everywhere around the globe is not true and it is only problem of US.