Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all all gun sales...

Before I conclude my arguments, I'd like to point out to those judging this debate that the affirmative's conduct is substandard. His refutations resort to false paraphrasing of the negative's arguments and aimless sourcethrowing without proper explanation of the content that they hold. In contrast, I have attempted to thoroughly demonstrate the validity of my sources, the content they hold, and the terminal impact they impose. For these reasons alone, a negative ballot should be casted.In addition, I ask the opposing side to not argue in this round since he neglected to use the first round for acceptance.Regarding Japan and the U.S.AMy opponent is wildly misdirected regarding my refutation of Japan's low gun crimes. The population discrepancy between the United States and Japan is not based on quantity alone. A sizable portion of the U.S population is vehement in their right to own firearms. In 2015, Jeremy Diamond of CNN reported that roughly half of Americans oppose stricter gun control laws [1]. Japan's success in gun control is incomparable to the U.S, and the resolution, for two reasons.(1) The United States population would not stand for the extreme measures in Japan. Per the affirmative's own source, acquiring a gun in Japan requires an all-day class, shooting range lessons, and a written exam [2]. Furthermore, handguns are banned outright- this would be a blatant infraction of the Second Amendment (District of Columbia v. Heller found that individual has right to possess handgun) and cannot be enforced in the United States in any world. According to a study cited in The Guardian, 75% of American citizens believe the ability to acquire a gun is essential to their freedom [3]. Even if District of Columbia v. Heller was overturned, the American citizens would not stand for the repressive gun control measures in Japan.(2) It boils down to people control more than gun control. David Kopel, research director, wrote in 1988 (in the wake of strict gun control measures) that "Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control [4]. With or without guns, Kopel finds that crime rate is inherently lower in Japan due to social structure. In 2017, Tom McCarthy of the Guardian wrote that the failure of United States gun control essentially boils down to a powerful gun lobby, beliefs of the citizens, and political partisanship [3]. The political and cultural atmosphere of guns in the United States render it effectively unique; other countries, which harbor fundamentally different populations, do not set a template for successful gun control in the United States. Even if you believe gun control is effective in preventing gun violence, it has been shown that universal background checks play little to no role. Rather, ammunition tracking, written tests, training, and population control are the main sources attributed to Japan's success. These measures will not be imposed in the United States in any world for reasons presented above.Regarding the Racism of the Justice SystemAgain, my opponent misunderstands the roots of this argument. I'm not arguing that the Justice System shouldn't be applied, as my opponent confusingly insinuates, I'm arguing that it's current enforcement shows prejudice, racism, and discrimination towards minorities in the United States. I win this argument for two reasons.(1) The United States Justice System is empirically prejudiced. My opponent fails to respond to the two figures (13.6% of population is African American; they make up 28% of prison population). Consider this argument dropped by the affirmative. (2) Background checks rely on criminal records. As the prejudice of the United States Justice System has been satisfactorily shown and dropped by the affirmative, he also drops that background checks are discriminatory. If a higher amount of African-Americans have unjust criminal records, then a higher amount of African-Americans will be barred from owning a gun due to unjust measures. This is, at the very least, discriminatory.My opponent fails to adequately respond to either point shown above. I urge the judge to weigh this debate heavily according to the racism of the Justice System. As Albert Memmi, professor of sociology, tells us, combating racism “is a struggle to be undertaken without without surcease and without concessions” [5]. Unjustly preventing many minorities from owning a gun is a concession towards racism that cannot be afforded. In addition, the volatile nature of select inner cities is unique insofar as self-protection is practically necessary for survival.Black Market ArgumentThis debate ultimately boils down to whether or not the effectiveness of universal background checks offset the flaws, the prejudice, and the backlash that would stem from its implementation. The black market should be, and is, the deciding point in this debate. Two reasons.(1) The affirmative concedes that universal background checks have no solvency towards the majority of guns used in crimes. As stated in round three, roughly 80% of guns are obtained either illegally or though untraceable transfer. Universal background checks pose no solvency for these untraceable transactions, which is additionally conceded by the affirmative. Therefore, the affirmative concedes that universal background checks are largely ineffective due to the prevalence of firearms on the black market.(2) The affirmative concedes that the black market issue will worsen. There was no response to the negative's argument that determined criminals will not be deterred by background checks. The black market, where guns can be obtained at or near retail price, is and will become a viable alternative for criminals, worsening the already-drastic situation of the United States Black Market.The firearm situation is effectively unique in the United States due to population uniqueness presented in the Japan refutation earlier in the round. Comparing the black market to other countries, such as Great Britain, is ineffective insofar as the laws, social structure, and overall atmosphere towards guns is drastically different.Voting PointsThis debate should result in a negative ballot according to the following points, which were explained thoroughly in this round.(1) Racism argument. It has been shown that the U.S Justice system is prejudiced, resulting in a higher criminal record rate for minorities. Due to the inherent nature of universal background checks, this prevents minorities from obtaining a gun for racial reasons.(2) Black Market. The black market in the United States would be worsened by universal background checks due to (a) unique criminal mindset and (b) existing prevalence of firearms.(3) Background checks ineffective. Affirmative fails to respond to specific flaws in the background checks, which encompass faulty mental health records, apathy from states in sending specific criminal records, and errors due to sheer magnitude of system.Due to perpetuating racism through barring minority firearm possession, the unique worsening of the black market, backlash, and the inherent errors in the universal background check system, it has been shown that the negative effects of universal background checks ultimately outweigh any positive benefits. For these reasons, I strongly urge a negative ballot.Thank you.[1] http://www.cnn.com...[2] http://www.bbc.com...[3] https://www.theguardian.com...[4] http://www.davekopel.com...[5] Memmi, A. "Le Racisme," pp.163-5