there should be universal background checks on gun sales

First I would like to make clear that this debate is not about removing guns from the population in general. It concerns itself with attempting to disallow further entry of guns into the population of those who we believe may commit crimes. I'm assuming my opponent agrees that gun ownership is a legitimate exercise of 2nd amendment rights. I would also assume that my opponents ultimate goal is not background checks, per se, but to reduce gun violence. If these statements are not true, then my opponent may clarify them in round 3.My argument in this round will be based on three premises: One, gun control is not politically palatable in the United States. Two, feasible expansions of the scope of NICS will have negligible affect on getting guns out the hands of criminals.Three, because of premise one, any proposed legislation will contain compromises that are unfavorable to gun control advocates.These premises, taken together, have the result that any attempt to expand the scope of NICS will result in legislation that may undermine my opponents underlying goal, which is to reduce gun violence. The reason for this should be evident after thinking through how this would play out. Pro gun advocates will understand these premises, so they will take advantage of this by "giving in" to the NICS expansion in order relax gun control in other areas that ARE meaningful. The result of all this political juggling will simply be that politicians are provided with their election cycle "talking points" while little will change with gun violence. In fact, we may see an overall relaxing of gun control policy.If this seems like fantasy to you, it should not if you follow politics. In fact, I will provide a real world example. In 2013 Senator Joe Manchin III worked on a bill to expand NICS checks (1), which I will refer to later.Now I will address my three premises one at a time. First, gun control is not politically palatable. For example, President Obama's attempts at gun control failed completely in the Senate in 2013: "It was a stunning collapse for gun-control advocates just four months after the deaths of 20 children and six adults in Newtown led the president and many others to believe that the political climate on guns had been altered in their favor." (2)In addition, politicians are fully aware of the impact that gun control can have to the power their party holds in Washington:"After the 1994 AWB, the NRA successfully mobilized pro-gun Americans to help give Republicans control of the US Congress for the first time in 50 years. There is no doubt that members of Congress understand the electoral implications of their actions." (3)Second, expanding NICS will have negligible affects on getting guns out the hands of criminals.Keep in mind the Manchin-Toomey bill does not even address my opponents resolution, which advocates *Universal* background checks. Manchin-Toomey would only address sales from unlicensed sellers at gun shows and online gun sellers. And, to understand the impact that this would have on gun sales, we should consider how criminals obtain guns. In the book "Reducing Gun Violence in America", a survey of prisons shows the following (4)Licensed gun dealer: 11 percentFriends or family: 39.5 percentThe street: 37.5 percentStolen: 9.9 percentGun show/Flea market: 1.7 percentTherefore the Manchin-Toomey bill, which was defeated, would only add 1.7% of criminal gun purchases to the picture. I realize my opponent's resolution uses the word "universal", however this goal must be achieved within the context of reality. Even if a bill was proposed to address 100% of gun purchases, and somehow this politically impossible bill was passed, how would this be enforced when 77% of criminal gun sales occur between friends & family or on the street? The bill would need to include draconian enforcement proposals that surely would not even be attempted by politicians. Third, any proposed legislation will contain vast compromises that are unfavorable to gun control advocates.In fact, this is what happened with the Manchin-Toomey bill. The Cato institute, far from a left-wing think tank that would support gun control, actually did support this bill (5). However, the reason for this should be evident in the list of compromises: It would allow Americans to buy handguns from out-of-state sellers It would explicitly prohibit the creation of a national gun registry It would affirm that unloaded guns with a lock mechanism in place can be transported across state lines It would immunize private gun sellers from lawsuits if a gun they have sold is used unlawfully Members of Cato aren't ignorant. They know an opportunity when they see it.So taking all this information into consideration, although seemingly "common sense", Universal background checks are a pipe dream.(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com...(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com...(3) http://phys.org...(4) http://www.washingtonpost.com...(5) http://www.cato.org...