No Futher Restrictions on Guns

Thank you for a good debate so far, now in to the final round; My opponent has proposed two restrictions to add to our current system 1)CAP Acts 2)Gun Show restrictions Before my statements for the round, I will go over these to main points and the pointless "safety" it may provide. Then, I will state my final argument for the debate and closing statement. Child Prevention Acts-My opponent briefly reviewed the topic in his last round. Like I said before, the CAP acts will never help out unless they are followed by each independent household. The government can regulate and restrict all they want, but if the owners of the guns never follow the rules inside their household, what's the point? You can say you have to keep all of your guns in a safe locked up, but if the owner of the guns never do it, what's the point? You don't need five sources of articles and books to figure it out, its simple.The laws will only be followed if the individual who owns the gun decides too. And if the owner believes in making guns very protected and locked up, he/she will be already practicing them right now, they wouldn't need some new law. Its pointless. Gun Show Restrictions- "In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the “gun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence." Remember, everything in life will have a loophole. You can't patch up every loophole. http://civilliberty.about.com...Now, are all gun shows strict enough in my opinion? No. But there is no point in restricting guns shows further, for that will only encourage underground trading of guns illegally. At least at a gun show, trading and selling can be monitored. Further restrictions at gun shows will lead others away and sell their guns "underground." That is not what we want to happen. "Background checks must be required at the event to ensure safety," -My opponentOnce again for my basic idea above, Guns will be sold illegally wherever you are in the nation. The only difference is that a gun show is a public event, and is monitored by officials of the state in most cases. Now, are background checks a good idea? Yes. I do not deny that, unless of course in this instance, where it may be pointless at a gun show. Like I said in the round before, where I wrote out major rules. It is not like some flea market, it is a civilized event in which people buy sell and trade guns. Its not some undercover scheme. Main Arguments for NO more restrictions:Gun control laws are already strict enough, why more? Numerous studies show all over the nation that, quite surprisingly, less gun control leads to less gun related crimes. Here is a Q and A response by author John Lott, in his book, "More Guns, Less Crime,"[1]Question: "It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?"Answer: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent. Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.Facts from: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.[2]As you can tell from statistics and logic that more restrictions may be contradictory to its own cause. These can also be related to my idea of "Disarming the Wrong People"If you were a criminal, would you feel safer committing a robbery with a bank you are positively sure is unarmed because of new concealed carry restrictions? Or a bank that may have a couple people with a self defense weapon on their belt. Remember, the only people that will follow these new restrictions is the law abiding citizens, not criminals. Another quote from John Lott- Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.[3]Economist. com-"Mr Wolfers is right: the "too early" construction is ridiculous. He's also right that it's too late. It is too late for gun control in America. It's never going to happen. There are too many guns out there, and an individual right to bear arms is now entrenched in constitutional law."Another problem with too much control, its too late! You can never remove all of the guns on the streets today, in the gangs, with the citizens. People will not give up their guns nor will the government even be able too! It just wont work, the idea of further restrictions is not going to work in today's society. [4]"Gun Control Targets the Wrong People" -Dr. Kyle Scott Criminals will end up with the guns, not the citizens. Like I have pointed out numerous times over, further control targets the wrong people. Summary on why the idea of no further restrictions are wrong-I will summarize all of the basic ideas on why further restrictions is wrong. My opponent did not accept this debate to argue gun shows and CAP acts, so I will leave that argument for the text above. Here are five, basic reasons in the most simplest of forms. 1) Gun restrictions disarm the wrong people2) Do not reduce gun related crimes3) Encourages black market trade4) Takes away the basic right to bear arms in our Constitution5) Take away self defense and self securityBasic reasons based off of logic and fact on why further gun control will not work. In the last round when talking about disarming the wrong people, my opponent denies the topic then switches the subject back to the idea that gun shows are flawed and unsafe. When in fact, further restrictions will disarm the wrong people and not the citizens. Gun control is too late, we are to far in to owning guns to remove and ban them. If a criminal has a gun right now, adding more restrictions will not make him loose it. He will still have it. Overall, the idea of further control is wrong, there is gun violence now and there always will be further restrictions or not. The only difference with then and now is that now people are armed for self defense. In the future, with more and more restrictions there will be no self protection. Further control is unproductive and wrong. Thanks to my opponent for a great debate, and thanks to my audience and voters for reading!Sources:[1]Dr. Kyle Scott's Quote in the article, "Gun Control targets the wrong people"[2] More Guns, Less Crime By John Lott[3]http://civilliberty.about.com... [4]http://beforeitsnews.com... [5]http://www.123helpme.com...[6]http://www.ammoland.com...