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

Thank you for your reply, I will be happy to address each of them in order. 1) Main Argument "If a law is made to deter criminals, and it must be enforceable, then the state must create the law to deter criminal activities and enforce said law. However, the problem with my opponents conclusion is that criminals break the law, and because they break the law (as criminals do not register their guns) we should scrap it." I regret to inform my opponent that failing to register a weapon is not a crime in the vast majority of the United States (the only jurisdiction this amendment would have authority). I live in Virginia and own a number of firearms varying in size and type without having registered a single one of them and I am not considered guilty of anything by any legal authority. To help prove this concept further, please feel free to view the link I have enclosed. The only type of consistent registration requirements we have in the US are for weapons and devices designated as "Class 3". These include fully automatic machine guns, (not the AR-15 civilian "assault rifle") short barreled rifles (SBR's), short barreled shotguns (AOW's) and silencers. I would also like to point out that the amendment we are debating clearly points out that the creation of any such federal registry would be entirely illegal (as other US laws have also clarified) and even goes so far as to declare penalties for such a trespass. Since there is no registry, and there can't ever be one, there is no way to track sales and hold people responsible, which I assert, makes this law unenforceable. http://www.handgunlaw.us... Having based this main counter point solely on the grounds that not registering a weapon is illegal, I feel your reasoning to be unacceptable for this debate. 2) Scenarios "actually, when the gun is used, all the police would have to do is check the serial number of the weapon to see where it was registered to trace it back to the person who bought the gun, enabling the killer." Again, unfortunately your conclusions condemning my examples are based on the incorrect assumption that the 300 million firearms in the United States are registered. Facts have shown that this is not the case. 3) Inconvenience Vs Safety "While it may be a pain to sell the gun, let's not forget we're talking about a weapon here after-all. Would you sell a 300 HP car to a kid? I know I couldn't! Same idea here, the seller ought to be wary about who he sells his guns too, because if that person was crazy and in turn shoots someone, the seller would have an abundance of guilt hanging on their heads, quite the burden to live with if you ask me." A seller should indeed be weary of who they are transferring a lethal weapon to, no arguments there. But as history has demonstrated over and over again, multiple times a day, laws do not create morals in miscreants. For a law to be effective in preventing a demonstrated criminal from acquiring a gun (which is the ONLY purpose of the amendment) then it has to be enforceable. For the law to reasonably keep people from errantly transferring a firearm to a criminal those people need to have some fear of consequence. There is no mechanism that exists that can be logically assumed to create this fear. "Furthermore, let's look at the statistics shall we?" I think it's fair to say anyone even remotely familiar with the internet can pull up a number of "statistical studies" that give weight to one side of the gun debate over the other. If you would like me to do that in the next round, just indicate so and I will be happy to comply. To put it simply though, we can both show correlations in various studies indicating a wide variety of results, neither of us however, due to the impossibility of controlling (or even understanding) all the variables in play, can draw a reasonable conclusion from said results. As basic science taught all of us in high school, correlation does not prove causation. But on a more important note; we are not debating the legitimacy of gun control as an idea. If you would like to offer another line of debate on this topic I would relish the opportunity. We are specifically debating whether or not the recently proposed UBC amendment could effectively mitigate crime on its own merits. I have yet to see how this study offers anything more than a token view of the assumed success of gun control 4) What about other countries? Again, for the same reasons as above this is not relevant to our particular line of debate. Not to mention comparing one country's gun laws to another's is about as "apples to oranges" as it gets. If full gun control is so successful then why do countries like Brazil and Mexico have some of the highest murder by gun rates in the world? The questions is rhetorical, because again, until you show me how this argument directly relates to the universal background check bill as proposed in the US Senate, this is a moot point. 5) Self-Defense "Having a gun in the home does NOT deter crime" Yes it does, but this again is another debate I would be more than happy to have when properly offered. "Furthermore, the law isn't black and white. The second amendment is not inalienable; it can be taken away for legal purposes." I haven't made a single argument that opposes this view, nor do I believe it is relevant. "so if someone breaks into your home, although you do have a case for self-defense, you may run into being charged with man-slaughter should you shoot him" A simple review and understanding of the local laws you adhere to is an easy way to understand your rights in these situations. In most cases a defensive shooter need only prove they felt their life was in danger, and that the person endangering it had the willingness and opportunity to do so. In my district in Virginia, for example, the DA is more than happy to clarify before hand that in his legal understanding, a thief breaking into your home while you are sleeping meets each of these qualifications. Again though, and not to sound like a broken record, but it appears you have digressed from our agreed upon debate to the wider debate of general gun control which is not what we are discussing. 5) The Home Run " One country I can think of in which has some of the freest gun regulations. Enjoy living in Somalia, where gun control simply doesn't exist (to the best of my knowledge) and where gun violence is rampant." Somalia has also been plagued by civil war and lawlessness for more than two decades. Are we to believe their lack of gun control was the cause of this turmoil or is it fair to admit there are other variables that may not be have been given the appropriate consideration in your example? Back to you Con!