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

Re: HypotheticalThe question does call for a hypothetical outcome, because my opponent makes the claim "it would not" or "it would" implying that if passed it has a certain consequence, and I must refute that consequence to meet that BOP. I have, and indeed my opponent claiming there is nothing hypothetical about this debate ought to count as a concession to my studies that he simply rejects on the basis of a bare assertion fallacy (see later rebuttals). Finally, while it does state "as written" what I was trying to show was that the bills provisions could be effective, but because it was struck down, I needed to show it pragmatically in another country .. I did, those were done in countries like Canada, Australia, Findland, Switzerland, etc... Oh and one last note, it has to be what the law ought to be, if passed the law would have made internet sales be reported. Which my opponent is arguing that it was struck down (we both agree that's an objective fact) but should it have been struck down? Your claiming yes it ought to have been shot down (hehe .. SHOT!) due to it being a pain, whereas I say it ought to have been empowered for the saftey of non-gun owners. My opponent commits a "moving the goal post" fallacy here, by trying to change up the fundamental question this debate rests upon to assist his own argument! Re: Effects in Canada, Australia, etc...While correlation is not causation (I agree) it is still important to note the correlations within a specific formulated policy. Firstly, my opponent never actually refuted my argument here, he completely drops it, I never stated it was causation (when it was correlation) but instead showed that when gun policies restricting their avalibility is imposed within a country (or any given land mass) that a pattern of less crime occurs with it. Which, is all the proof I need to meet my BOP. My opponent again moves the goal posts on me here, by rejecting my evidence and asking for more. In fact when I pointed out in round 2 that the Colombine Shooters were asking around at gun shows for "private sellers" and not public ones due to the legal loop-hole, my opponent completely dropped this argument. I showed my proof. Re: NRAWhile they do not have the authority to actually strike down the bills themselves, it is well known that they are a gun-rights lobby. In fact the very bill you use as a topic was taken down by politicians lobbied by the NRA, and no I do not have too, my opponent commits a non-sequitor here, my position is background checks do work, but can't because they indeed were struck down, and a "loop-hole" is present in the law (private/internet transactions) Re: Private SalesThe State department took down the 3D guns webpage, as noted earlier gun trafficers only get them due to the "loop-hole" of private transactions without a mandated UBC, and finally, assuming the gun owner actually puts his gun away like he is suppose to, it would have been locked away in a safe, unable to be moved. While thefts do occur, this is for more regulation not less, so that the state may sort out who was approved and not approved to have a gun. Re: TracingThank you for the concession; however, as we agree here, the case is easy to show that all an officer needs them is the survillance tapes to identify the perp and then catch him, done and done. My opponent just showed right here that UBC works. Re: Why Not With Guns?But this isn't a gun registry, it's a simple background check thats it thats all. Re: SenarioLets apply your logic to something else to show why I think it's silly (with all due respect), say a neighbour witnesses a murder. They have to go to court, they have to varify that the person indeed was the killer, they have to clean up the bodies, they have to test the blood, find the murder weapon, hope that the witness isn't scared enough to NOT testify (which is obstruction of justice by the way and is illegal as well), find and arrest the man who did the killing, and possibly get a warrant to find additional evidence in his house by a judge soely on the basis of an eye-witness acting hystarically! Does this mean we should somehow scrap murder as a law becase not everyone follows it? Nope, and the above seems like an absurd argument, but with guns it's no different. Police launch investigations all the time. It's their job after-all, otherwise why are we giving them all that taxpayer money?! Re: Daily ShowBecause the buy-back program took out 1/3rd of the privately owned guns in Australia, furthermore, it tightened background checks on people seeking to posess an arm. Before the law was imposed, 13 shootings had occured, after? None thus far. (As seen on the show!) Clearly UBC works, and Australia is an example of it. Re: FearIf criminals fear repercussions, then this is an argument FOR UBC not against it, if your right to arms is limited on the basis of a criminal record or not, then you have a further incentive to be good now don't you? And I should conceede here that indeed, I misread my opponents position, I apologize, he never stats their fearless, but have no fear without repercussions, (again for UBC not against due to incentive) Re: CorrelationUhh .. yeah .. which is what I said... correlation .. not causation.. Re: MexicoUhh .. what? Mexico is 7th in gun ownership figures in the world (http://www.gunpolicy.org...) and have over 15 million guns privately owned, not including government guns, and furthermore you completely ignored my source in which showed the state actually allowed for considerable gun freedoms. What are you talking about? Re: Self-DefenceAnd as I noted with other studies, the examples you use actually do not result in one running away, but the threat correlates with increased likelihood of violence within those areas .. again you completely ignore the list of sources I used. Furthermore, the case showed my opponents self-defence argument doesn't work due to the subjectivity of self-defence; meaning the force I may feel is necessary might not be what the judge agrees with as legitimate force. Which is why guns fail in self-defence. My opponent straw-mans my argument here, I'm talking about self-defence, that's it! Re: SomaliaExactly, and with no government to enforce laws (gun control!) the guns run rampant, anyone can have them including pirates for example .. I think we know what happens when pirates get ahold of an AK-47 ... a certain ship a few years ago got high-jacked because of it .. this is again an argument for background checks not against it. Conclusion:My opponent moves the goal-posts, strawmans my arguments, and even outright commits bare assertion fallacies, and concedes to several of my points while dropping my argument about colombine shooters. If UBC were put fourth simply speaking those shooters would not have had guns, they had priors, and it was them buying from private people that enabled them to shoot up their school .. sadly, gun-rights proponents don't recognize this, and simply say "more guns!" but it does not work that way as the studies (previous rounds) have shown time and time again. My opponent offers no evidence to the contrary. Thank you!