We Should Have Stricter Gun Control

My final round for this debate will be short and sweet, as I feel that the readers will have already have my previous arguments in mind; there is no need for me to be redundant. My main point in my final round is that my opponent has not met any of my challenges, and the argument that he produces for gun control is ineffective. Moreover, he is casting off *two* of my arguments, even though they are obviously pertinent to the subject of this debate. 1) Stricter gun control laws do not reduce crime. For my opponent's responses on what constitutes gun control laws as effective, he said "much more extensive background checks (there are obviously levels), a longer waiting period, a more extensive test, a limit on what kind of guns can be bought". Background checks do one thing; they check for a criminal record. There are no levels to this. What pertinence is, say, what job or education level a person has in correlation to how eligible they are for a gun? Our current gun control laws already do this. Moreover, what on earth would a longer waiting period achieve? How would that help with hindering the gun-attainment for criminals? There is no purpose to longer waiting periods. Also, do you mean test by ability? What tests are you talking about? I think that as long as a person learn the basic safety features of a gun and how to shoot it, beyond that, how can there be more extensive tests? The limit of types of guns should also be elaborated on, because I don't see how much relevance it has to why that would limit criminal activity. If we're talking about most of America, then we're talking about handguns; shotguns and so forth would only be relevant to recreation and hunting (in fact, shotguns are a bigger pain to carry and shoot than handguns are). I hope it's common sense that our current gun control laws do not permit machine guns and so on (aka militia guns). The purpose of my breaking down my opponent's laws is that it is obvious that stricter gun control laws DO NOT WORK. My opponent cannot even come up with the very laws that he argues to defend. My point about attaining guns illegally is pertinent because I am arguing that it doesn't matter if we have stricter gun control laws, because it will not reduce crime. No matter how strict the laws are, people will get guns, and that's where the gun-related crime rates come from. Isn't that the whole purpose of this argument? My opponent is wrong because there is no rational reason to have stricter laws; it does not reduce crime. My point is shown through his proposal of very ineffective laws; there simply is no rational stricter gun regulations that will reduce crime. 2) Guns save lives. This is probably the most pertinent argument of this debate, as not only have I shown how obviously fruitless stricter gun regulation is, but to make attaining guns harder would be to hinder many citizens the ability to defend themselves. The laws pertaining to stricter gun control such as a longer waiting period, what point is there to that law? Why should the government impose such unnecessary laws that would only make it harder for citizens to gain the ability to better defend themselves? 3) Guns are a form of liberty. Guns are not liberating in the sense that it is the weapon that makes Americans liberated, but the power that they represent. America is built on the mission that the government is for the People. The more power the government has over the people the less liberated we are, and weapons are a *very* big form of power. Examples I can say off my head that were in my previous arguments are that Hitler explicitly acknowledged that to take away weapons from citizens is the best way to control them. Even America has been guilty of this, as shown from their instances of taking away the possessions of anyone of Japanese descent during the second World War. Stricter gun control won't turn our government into Nazis, but it is far too naive to say that our government wouldn't gain a stronger hold on us if they tightened how they regulated something as big as arms. 4) Conclusion My opponent cannot even come up with laws that would effectively reduce crime rates. Everything about stricter gun regulations just screams unnecessary. I've never said that stricter gun control would deny liberty or safety, and my opponent concedes that "it does lower it to some extent". When there is absolutely no reason to impose stricter gun control, why should our government lower our liberty and safety? My last two arguments are absolutely relevant as they relate to us citizens as Americans and the foundation of our personal safety and our liberty. The main point that my opponent fails to argue for is that the amount of criminals with weapons will NOT decrease. Stricter gun control does absolutely nothing, my opponent has shown no reason why it will, and I've shown plenty of reason why it *doesn't* work and in fact hinders America's safety and liberty. I've had a very fun time with this debate, and I thank my opponent for a riveting debate. I'd like the voters to keep in mind we have a gun violence problem, but stricter gun control laws will do absolutely nothing to help reduce gun crime.