No Futher Restrictions on Guns

First, like always, thanks to my opponent for the debate. Response to round 2 My opponent has aimed his argument at two main points, 1) Gun Shows offer criminals and other citizenswho are not allowed to get guns through regular gun laws. A gun show is aloophole for anybody two get a gun 2) Child prevention acts should be put in placein all fifty states, not just thirty seven of them. I will now argue both of these topics Gun Show "Loopholes" My opponent is very convinced of the idea that a Gun Show is a loophole for anybody to get a gun. My opponent states thatwe should add more restrictions at gun shows. In reality though, gun shows do have a great deal of restrictions added for safety. You could ban all assault rifles, but through underground sale, they could still be obtained by criminals. There is a loophole to every rule in life. Here is a website whichstates all of rules in a gun show; http://usgovinfo.about.com... As you can tell, you cannot walk in to a gun show, bid, and walk away with a gun. There are restrictions and regulations. My opponent talks about a gun show like it is some sort of underground dealing. When in fact there is a great deal of restrictions. Also,there is a difference between a gun show and a flea market. Gun shows, which my opponent refers too, are moderately strict. Flea markets are not restricted at all. Here are some basic rules of a gun show toensure safety. 1) You cannot sell guns to residents of another state. (Therefore you must check I.D. at a gun show.) 2) Police officers in uniform have free admission. (To encourage law enforcement being present) 3) Must comply with all ATF regulations. (There are regulations at a show; it is not some uncontrolled event.) 4) Non licensed dealers may only display or take orders. (Therefore no, not anybody can sell a gun.) Those are just some basic restrictions at a show, not to mention other safety measures being practiced at show. A gun show is a monitored event, there are rules and restrictions to ensure safety. Children Access Prevention This response will not be as extensive as the previous. The child prevention act already in place in my opinion is a good idea and for a good cause. But it is a state’s decision. If you want it that badly, move to a state with it in place. You do not approve of it? Move away. It’s that simple. It is an independent decision. Also, it all comes down to each independent household. The parents more specifically. There could be many bans in place, but if the parents don’t make guns hard to get for their kids, no matter what bans are in place, the kids could get a gun.It all comes down to the parents in the household. If they are really aware of the unsafety of their guns lying around, then the parents will take extra measures to make sure that their children do not get ahold of them. It comes down to the responsibility of the owners of the guns.My opponent dropped argumentsI would like to point out that my opponent has "dropped" a few of my points made clear in the previous round. First off, the concept of disarming the wrong people. I will re-state it in case my opponent skimmed over it or just completely ignored it in round two. The idea of more restrictions will only disarm the wrong people. The only people that will follow and obey these restrictions are law abiding citizens who do not use guns abusively. The people who will not follow more bans are criminals that don't follow any rules. Once again I will use the example of cocaine. It is illegal, but criminals still get their hands on it and use it. Citizens do not. Same with guns. You may restrict them, but the only people that will follow them are law abiding citizens, making the criminals more dangerous in the concept that citizens are unarmed in the case of self defense.My opponent also dropped my very first section on current restrictions. Completely ignoring all three rules I stated. And the questions that followed. Either my opponent has no response to the previous topics, my opponent ignored them, or they were over looked. Therefore I would just like to point those topics out to give my opponent a chance to respond to all of them. If of course my opponent chooses to.Overall response and conclusionFirst I would just like to conclude that you will have a loophole with everything in life. You simply cannot patch up everything. For example there will always be a black market selling guns illegally to anybody who wants one. Try patching up the black market.CAP is a good cause, but it is up to the leaders of the house hold to ensure the act. The act does no good if the house hold owners do not practice it. You could make a law that everybody must lock up their guns in a safe, but if the owners do not practice it, it does no good. If a parent truly wants to lock up or hide their guns, they will. If they truly don't, they wont.The overall view is that further restrictions on guns is a pointless idea. Criminals will always get ahold of guns, illegal or not. That's what makes them criminals, they break the law. People will find loopholes in every rule or ban, and the idea of restricting guns will only hurt peoples self defense and freedom. Gun laws are strict enough, and we need to stop restricting. Source-http://usgovinfo.about.com...