universal background checks r a common sense solution to gun violence

i was called out to be debated, so i created this debate just for that purpose against con:people like to say criminals don't obey the gun laws so why have them. they don't obey drug law, theft laws, murder laws, or any laws... does that mean we shouldn't have those laws? the fact is, some people will not run and get a gun if they have dont have one because they are denied. if they dont have a gun when they might otherwise commit a crime, a crime has been prevented. if there's any doubt, why not err on the side of caution and pass the background checks?this isn't even controversial. ninety percent of people favor checks. and even seventy percent of NRA members. so anyone i'm arguing with on this is in a big minority. and, aren't we forced to conclude the only reason this doesn't pass, doesn't even get to the floor to vote in congress, mean that they are beholden to the gun lobby, and the likes of the NRA? that's the only way to make sense of it as far as i can see. forty percent of sales do not involve checks. there is plenty of room for improvement here. if we treated guns like cars, and required licenses, checks, permits, etc, people wouldn't even bat an eye or think diferent about it. only when someone moves your cheese and challenges a status quo do people even care.[not that we couldn't do more. the more likely a person is to have a gun, teh more likely tehy are to kill someone. this is common sense. but it's also empirically proven....the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more likely they are to commit crimes. countires with that take away guns have less crime. it's a fact. ] people who might challenge me... do you seriously contend that one hundred percent of people who are denied a gun and might commit a crime will run out and get one? those kinds of absolute statements are notoriously known for being false. so what gives?=======================================here is con's reply:"It says I can not debate you because I do not meet your criteria. First I'd like to state the reason for leaving government out of private gun ownership. The idea of having an armed populace is so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. Don't think it could happen to us in the US? Think I'm being absurd? We are still a young country (not even 250 years old), and it has happened so many times to "free" and "liberated" societies that there is an actual cycle that has been created. This is called the Tytler cycle. It follows this order and then repeats itself: bondage, spiritual faith, courage, liberty, abundance, selfishness, complacency, apathy, dependence, then back to bondage. I believe we are in between the apathy and dependence stage presently, but you see it is a very real possibility. Now WHEN the government starts violating our basic rights, then having an armed populace will be beneficial as we could resist enforcement of these unconstitutional laws. But what good would having an armed populace be if the government knows who owns guns and how many? When armies fight does one general tell the opposition's general where his troops are, and how many are at each station, and how well armed they are? No, because that would defeat the purpose, and you can only then choose between slaughter or surrender. This is why having a license and register for every gun would be counter productive to the American people. Now as for background check, who would you recommend conduct these checks? The government perhaps? Again if the main reason for having a 2nd Amendment is to protect us from the tyranny of the government (which there is an abundance of evidence for) this is counter intuitive. For example, veterans coming back from the Middle East are being denied gun ownership because they have PTSD (which there is evidence that it is way overly diagnosed). I am almost out of characters for this comment. Debate me, or you're scared."======================================= the main point i have is that background checks are against specific people, not everyone. so the doomsday scenario where the government takes away guns then takes over the country is irrelevant. and, background checks doesn't mean gun registry's.... it just means you pass a check before getting a gun. this paragraph seals my resolution and defeats con.but even on that point by con that the government would use info to take over, it would be better to have whatever means necessary to control guns even if that meant inventories. th government take over thing is far fetched. it's not far fetched to see that there are people dying by the second due to gun violence. we need to weight the evidences here. i could even get into perhaps takign guns away, but i will seal my victory with the first paragraph, and seal the extra points with the paragraph.