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

I must dutifully inform my opponent that there is nothing "Hypothetical" about the universal background checks we are debating. The title of this very debate specifically includes the words "As recently proposed in the US Senate". My opening statement further clarifies we are discussing the law "as written". Accepting this debate requires you to show this law could mitigate crime WITHOUT being amended and in the conditions under which it would be applied. The main issue being debated here is in no conceivable way "what should the law ought to be" (my opponents phrasing, not mine). Having made this clear, I will proceed with my rebuttals under the defined constrictions of this debate".. "I showed through the examples of Canada, Finland, Switzerland, and Australia that statistically speaking the results overwhelmingly favor background checks and heavy gun regulation to prevention of crime." I have demonstrated to my opponent (with a basic law of science no less) how statistical studies are in no way proof of ANYTHING and can easily be manipulated to give favor to either side. More importantly, however, each of these countries have restrictions on guns that go well beyond that of the United States'. Arguing that this policy is successful in those countries necessarily includes the aggregate effect of laws that could never even be passed in The US (a national registry being the prime example). Again, you have failed to show any proof of how UBC's (as written!) would be effective in The US. "Secondly, it is enforceable, the problem is the NRA striking down such bills in which enable the law enforcers to uphold the law. For instance..." The NRA does not have ANY authority to "strike down bills" They represent millions of people concerned about gun rights in The US who have a perfectly reasonable right to gather and vote as they see fit. And if UBC's problem is that it can't work without passing more laws then you must necessarily admit UBC'S, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime. "because that's [private sales] the only way criminals can get their guns." I challenge my opponent to show why a criminal is incapable of stealing their weapons, making them with a 3D printer, or benefiting from gun traffickers. "all guns manufactured in the US do have a serial number, and the data is easy to obtain via a database when looking up the serial number." Yes and it traces back to an FFL dealer only. Probably one that buys thousands of guns at a time. "Why can we not do this with purchasers of weapons as well?" Because that is a registry which is specifically illegal. 'The info often gives the manufacturer, and the seller, from there the seller may identify who the buyer is." Lets apply that scenario to real life".A federal authority suspects a gun used by a criminal was acquired illegally. They start by locating the business the gun was sold to, then they would have to confirm the store it was sold from, they would then have to hope that based on nothing more than a general description of the gun and a ten digit number that a sales clerk who likely sells hundreds of firearms a month will remember who they sold it to. Then they would have to get that clerk to agree to testify. Then they would have to get a DA to be willing to try the case solely on a near unbelievable eye witness account, and lastly, you would need 12 jurors to unanimously decide that said evidence is enough to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is supposed to effectively mitigate crime? "One example is the gun segment on the Jon Stewart Daily Show in which showed a leader from the NRA going against the Brady Bill as "unconstitutional" even though it has been shown to prevent suicides, and delay shootings." How does this further the idea that the recently proposed UBC's would mitigate crime in The US? A law being effective at the prevention of something hardly makes it constitutional. We could pass a law limiting free speech that would effectively prevent Westboro Baptist Church from being a public menace. I would not, however, consider this change to be inherently "good". "Furthermore, if my opponent is correct and those criminals simply have no fear"why fear a gun" I never said criminals were fearless. My opponent seems to attempt to credit a number of ideas and cessions a have made to him that never occurred. In the future. I will ask that you use direct quotations to indicate what I have said in this debate. To clarify, I believe criminals do not fear the law when there is no reason to fear consequence. Losing your life is a consequence almost any human will consider if it's occurrence is likely. "Which is why I noted that a strong correlation exists with increase gun control and less crime. However as a matter of fact, the Harvard Studies...." Direct quote from the "conclusion" portion of this source....."our study cannot determine causation". This could also read "hopelessly doomed to ambiguity" That is EXACTLY what I have been saying, right? "Apples, Oranges, Mexico, Brazil, more studies and back to Canada & Switzerland..." Are we really going to argue over an expression with an obviously accepted use?...... Having already shown why other countries do not constitute a rational comparison for this debate I will add only that Mexico's right to bear arms is nothing like The United States'. The constitutional right you speak of has been watered down such as to make it wholly ineffective. Local police districts in Mexico hold legal authority to severely limit gun private ownership such that only farmers in the middle of nowhere can get small caliber long guns. All this control and Mexico's murder rates make ours look like child's play. *Self Defense... "Here's another study..." Here's another quote from your study regarding its controls....."To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim" You do not have to shoot someone to use a gun defensively, that is an absurd qualification at best. You could fire the gun and miss, you could simply point the gun, you could deter crime by merit of having it in the plain view of a criminal looking for target. Your source allows for NONE of this. "And it's not that simple, State v. Faulkner..." Essentially someone killed someone else and tried to claim self defense unjustly. This is not an argument against guns, but rather against self defense in general. A person can kill another person with any object and attempt to claim self defense thereafter. Is my opponent somehow indicating that the banning of a right to self defense would help UBC's mitigate crime in the US? "Somalia" My opponent has openly avowed he feels the situation in Somalia is a result of having no established gun policy. I believe it is the result of having no established government for decades. Since this argument could not possibly show how UBC's would mitigate crime inside the lawful boundaries of The US, I am content to leave this for the reader to decide. Thanks, and back to you con..