In order to solve school/campus shootings, we should allow more people to carry guns

To begin, my opponent starts off his last argument about the one owning the gun being a vigilante. He defines vigilante as: "A member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate". Do I agree with this definition, yes; but does not apply to teachers or someone trained with a gun in the school. The definition clearly defines a vigilante taking "Law Enforcement" into their own hands, but this isn't the dealings about law enforcement; more so self defense. This makes my opponents definition of vigilante vague because it does not apply to what I am saying, and the definition itself can be very contradictory. Then my opponent, comedically, brings up his only source of evidence being a comic strip. First off, that isn't evidence to any argument just the use of an analogy. And my opponents comment even leans toward the Pro side, in which he stated: "Dont' all spiritual warriors have a little batman inside of them? After all, guns represent power. And Batman is POWERFul. Probem is, its a comic strip". My opponent admits that guns make people feel powerful, and if this is the case; why not help many innocent bistanduals feel powerful, instead of letting them get shot? If we follow this quote, we can make anyone powerful with a gun and will even out the playing field between the victim and criminal. Also, my opponent even admits that this evidence is not "strong", because he said "Its a comic strip". It is a comic strip, and the evidence is vague. Then my opponent states the following: "I offer to my opponent that there are many statistics about gun deaths, shootings, etc - none of which are more credicble than the next. So I will purposefully, not reply to his cited statiistics. We can go back and forth all day about who's stats are right. Isn't that what the people are doing now? It's getting us no where in terms of progressive solutions to move us forward". Voters, the reason I bring up this statement is because my opponent failed to post his evidence. He says that "There are so much evidence to his argument", yet he doesn't bring any up? How does this make sense? In a debate, the goal is to state your argument and see who with holds their argument based on evidence and ideas used. My opponent broke this rule of not using any evidence, and this statement should be dropped because its hard to assume if there is or isn't evidence in his argument. If there was, why not post it; otherwise it is a fail and leans towards the Pro side for this debate. Where I did provide evidence, and he has failed to Rebuttal against any of them. And my opponent states: "It's getting us no where in terms of progressive solutions to move us forward". In reality, we are trying to move forward by allowing teachers, or someone trained within the school, to get a gun. The standstill is people against teachers being armed, which is why were debating this. I asked my opponent earlier about any alternative solutions to handling a school shooting, and has failed to reply. Because of this, the only solution up to the table is arming teachers; which will progress society forward. To conclude the argument, this debate was lackluster within my opponent. He failed to bring any evidence, and provided no alternatives to how to handle school shootings. My opponents thought process seems is to let a shooter kill young children or adults, with allowing no fighting chance. How is this fair, when it can be prevented by arming someone within the school?