Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting

My opponent refuses to argue the resolution but instead wants to argue something that was clarified in the comments, which does not matter. The only thing that are suppose to be taken into account when arguing is clarifications in the acceptance round, but my opponent argued that round. Therefore he has started arguing about the resolution. The resolution is the exact statement which we are suppose to argue about, if there aren't any clarifications in the acceptance round. My opponent clarified it after the debate has begun, which is not at all fair considering he changed topic after the debate has started, thus arguing something I didn't sign up for. Now to the false issue pro wants to debate. My opponent starts off by arguing that it's common sense that gun violence is bad, but not really. There are people who think that gun violence is a demonstration of how much of a man you are, like fighting. They feel like the higher up they are in gangs, that better of an individual they are. Regarding mass shootings, the people who have done mass shootings don't do it with the mentality gun violence is bad, but that they are fulfilling something religious, or some other reason. Maybe they are like that because they haven't gotten how bad gun violence is, instilled into their mind. My opponent then makes no sense in his point, because he essentially says he doesn't want to eliminate the bunch of people that die, but rather "eliminate" only the small portion of deaths. It's like someone say he rather eliminate poverty in Africa, rather than eliminate poverty in the world. And my opponent fails to provide evidence that this would be the solution to ending school shootings significantly. For example, (Mark Gius, "An Examination of the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws and Assault Weapons Bans on State-Level Murder Rates," Applied Economics Letters, www.tandfonline.com, Nov. 26, 2013) shows that banning assault rifles did not decrease the violence, but actually increased it. "The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level." The only thing that this would achieve is infringing on the rights of the 2nd amendment advocates. Also by taking away the weapons of choice for people who go hunting, small game control, personal defense, and target shooting. My opponent then makes the point because there is no poll that suggests for handguns to be banned, then that means it isn't plausible which is not true. This could just easily mean that the people are just so fixated on trying to ban assault rifles because emotion misguides their judgement when they see schools shootings, but they don't now the facts. And if my opponent wants to argue that when children are dying, school teachers, and etc. My opponent refuses to accept the fact that some of these people mentioned, die due to handgun violence, in fact over time they die more in number than who die in assault rifle violence.