Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime

Before I begin I must remind my opponent (again) to refrain from crediting me with things I did not say. I NEVER said our debate was not hypothetical. What I very specifically said is that there is nothing hypothetical about the BILL we are debating. It exists in fact and is distinct in meaning. Suffice it to say I am very unhappy with your decorum thus far. Pro BOP # 1 (From Title & Opening Statement) Pro has asserted that UBC's, as recently proposed in The US Senate, would not mitigate crime because there is no mechanism to enforce the stated intent of the bill. My opponent agrees 1) The intent of the bill is to keep criminals from illegally acquiring guns via private transfers & 2) A law must be enforceable to mitigate the crime for which it was written. Therefore to prove the Pro side conclusively I only need to show that this law, AS WRITTEN, cannot be effectively enforced. (Anywhere in the world if this makes con happy) In an attempt to prove enforceability my opponent has offered the following arguments: 1) Studies show gun control is successful in other countries, monitoring private sales in particular 2) Serial numbers would enable the tracking of unauthorized sales 3) UBC's would have prevented Columbine In covering your studies I will simply restate the reasons they fail to prove/bolster points associated with this debate... 1) As you openly admit, your studies aren't conclusive and are impossible to prove 2) The controls can be easily manipulated to the benefit of either side of this debate 3) I offered to produce any number of studies to illustrate this point & my offer was totally ignored Statistical ambiguity aside, lets assume every other country you mentioned has successful gun control programs & can effectively monitor all private sale transactions. I would still be remiss if I did not point out that every one of the countries used as examples ALSO have national registration laws. It is this mechanism alone that allows for these countries to know who is legally supposed to own a specific weapon, thus enabling the tracking of illegal sales. Again, registration is specifically illegal under the terms of the bill being discussed. Relying on any country with gun registration laws in place cannot possibly show how this bill could be enforced because the comparison is in direct contradiction with the limits placed by its own written word. I would have thought my example regarding serial numbers sufficient but my opponent still insists this scenario is plausible, especially with a camera! This reply is so frustratingly oversimplified that I must admit my own ire when reading it. As if to completely ignore how implausible it would be for a human being to remember one 10-digit number out of the hundreds he regularly deals with ,you rebut with your camera comment. Again unless there store clerk has total recall you could not possibly hope to know what you are looking for in a security camera. How is this not totally obvious? My subsequent illustrations were meant to further the idea that it is impossible to assume such shaky accounts would even lead to a trial, much less a regular conviction. Defense attorneys would make a mockery of this total lack of evidence. And this entire situation ignores how brainlessly easy it is to remove a serial number, rendering this whole point moot! This bill would NOT have prevented Columbine. If history shows these children specifically sought private sale transactions then I rest this case on the stated facts from above. This bill has no specific mechanism to enforce it, thus there is no reason to believe criminals (the columbine kids included) would not be able to find a private seller willing to ignore a UBC'S requirement, particularly if it means making a few extra dollars. Your failure to show where any such mechanisms exists means you can't possibly prove Columbine was preventable with the UBC'S bill, as written. Pro BOP # 2 (From Opening Statement) I also maintain that this bill would be more of an inconvenience to law abiding US Citizens due to the unreasonable amount of scrutiny placed on them. To prove this I will only reiterate my original scenarios regarding this topic while emphasizing my opponent's failure to demonstrate how these illustrations are not terribly inconvenient to the law abiding US citizens they represent. I have shown how this bill unfairly cloths a political appointee with the unlimited and arbitrary right of setting the price of UBC's. I have shown how the potential added costs in this bill (withstanding the looming potential for price increase) could negate any gain a private owner may yield, effectively rendering the sale pointless. And finally, I have demonstrated how a law abiding citizen could face federal firearms charges for lending his gun to a friend or a stranger at the range. Or by selling his brother a gun after listing it for sale online. My opponent failed to offer any argument regarding the power to set prices and presented the following replies to my other examples... 1) Inconvenience should be weighed against safety 2) Studies show guns are not safe at home and unlikely to be used defensively For reasons I have amply clarified above, and throughout this debate, I do not accept the findings of such easily manipulated studies that openly admit their own conclusions can't be proven. And while I admit some may decide to accept statistical studies and be compelled by arguments that guns are unsafe, one must also admit that there will always be a large portion of people that completely oppose this view. That being said, it is irrelevant whether or not one believes guns are unsafe and unfit for defense because those that disagree will continue to buy, own & sell them according to their own beliefs. Thus the cases of extreme inconvenience that I originally illustrated would most certainly still occur. Con has failed to present a rebuttal that even reduces the degree of inconvenience to which I spoke, much less the fact that it exists. Having thus verified the claims I set forth to affirm in this debate, I send it back to con to close this one out!