universal background checks r a common sense solution to gun violence

Again, Pro is being redundant. I have already explained why this is not a far fetched scenario as governments have disarmed their own people throughout history to oppress them. Instead of disproving this or offering a counter argument, Pro has just simply repeated herself in saying that history is "far fetched." I have also stated more than once that background checks would stop SOME criminals, but it would also restrict gun ownership to innocent civilians. Not once did I say or even suggest that 100% of PEOPLE (both criminals and lawful civilians) would turn to illegal means to obtain a firearm. In fact I said that law abiding citizens who weren't going to commit a crime would not turn to illegal means if a background check prevented them from owning a firearm BECAUSE THEY OBEY THE LAW. However, CRIMINALS who wouldn't pass a background check would most definitely turn to illegal means to obtain a firearm since they pay no regard to the law. Why would they care about obtaining a firearm illegally if they already accepted the of risk being sent to jail for committing a crime they would use a firearm in? They wouldn't. Pro is simply being redundant, and has not offered any new substance to her argument. Pro is again being racist by assuming that "criminals" automatically means black people living in the hood, or "black hoodies" as she calls them. Not once have I specified the race of these criminals or where they live. Pro is still failing to understand that not all criminals are black or poor nor are all poor black people criminals, therefore Pro should stop being prejudice against impoverished black people. Pro still insists that not having a gun means there will be no crime. I have already pointed out that violent crime existed before guns (I believe since the beginning of recorded history), and that not having a gun doesn't mean you have stopped a crime since areas with no guns still have violent crime such as China. If a criminal has been prevented from obtaining a firearm by all measures (legal and illegal), then it is still a possibility that they will commit the crime. Smaller and weaker criminals MIGHT be deterred after failing to obtain a firearm (both legally and illegally), but a bigger stronger criminal won't. They might use a knife, a fake gun (and no, no one would stop someone with a realistic looking fake gun because they wouldn't know if it was real or not unless they could read the micro-print that says "replica"), or they might commit the crime with no weapons at all. This is call a "strong arm robbery," and it is usually committed by bigger stronger criminals who can't obtain a gun. So no you haven't stopped a crime for sure, but yes you might deter some criminals who are small, poor, weak, and those who have tried all means to obtain a firearm. But is it worth preventing such a small number of crimes with the consequences of restricting access of firearms to some law abiding citizens? This would only weaken us as a nation, and jeopardize lives and freedom. If this is what you want then you are sacrificing freedom and liberty for an illusion of safety. Earlier Pro stated that I was speaking in absolutes, but now it would seem that Pro is speaking in absolutes. Pro states that the studies that she has provided prove that more guns means greater overall deaths. I have already provided the example of Kennesaw, Georgia. In Kennesaw (population 32,400) every head of household has been required by law to own a firearm since 1982. Since the law has been enacted not a single citizen from Kennesaw has even been involved (in Kennesaw or abroad) in a fatal shooting as a victim, attacker, or a defender. The statistic I have just provided then disproves what Pro is suggesting. Pro says that without a doubt more firearms in an area means more overall death, yet the example I've provided above disproves this. I will explain what this means a little later, but now I will focus on one of the studies you have provided (as I am limited on characters). The first study you have provided is from Harvard (usually left leaning, but never the less reputable). They start by saying in cities with more guns there is more homicide. My example above disproves that, but what they do not say is where these places are. Are they saying New York City suffers more firearm homicide casualties than Omaha? Are they taking into account that there are more people in New York City (where it is near impossible to own a gun by the way) than Omaha? New York City has a population of 8.5 million and Omaha has a population of 434,000. Of course there will be more guns in a city where there is over 17 times the amount of people as another place, and of course that large city will have more firearm homicide since you have 8.5 million diverse people living so close together. The second statement by them states that where you have more gun availability, there is more crime. Again this is disproved by the Kennesaw example, but notice in the statement how they leave out legal or illegal availability. It might not be a wrong statistic, but take Chicago and New York City for example. Firearms are illegal to own or possess (with very few exceptions) in these cities, and yet their firearm homicide rate (especially Chicago's) is atrocious. So now Chicago and NYC have disarmed all law abiding citizens so they can't defend themselves, but the criminals in these areas obviously didn't get the memo that firearms are illegal to own. Of course in actuality they know they are breaking the law, but they just don't care. So availability is a broad term, and they don't include legal or illegal in their study. The third statement says, "Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide." They only say that in states with MANY (not more) guns have elevated (do they mean higher, more, or simply a lot?) rates of homicide. Next. The fourth statement of theirs reads, "Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide." I stopped it there because again they use the word availability without specifying legal or illegal, and also they are relying on a survey where criminals who illegally own guns would not tell someone if they own a gun or not. 3 studies that directly contradict Pro's studies. Keep in mind that these studies are from the FBI, the CDC, and the DOJ. These are not private universities that made these studies. These are legal and government institutions. http://www.storyleak.com... https://www.fbi.gov... http://jpfo.org... So when you combine all of our studies, statistics, and examples you have many reputable sources directly contradicting each other. So who is right? I believe that none of these studies are right as I believe that a firearm is just a piece of metal. It takes a criminal to commit a crime using a gun, and therefore a gun is not in itself evil. I believe these studies all contradict each other simply because guns are not the factor, but rather people and their environments are. If you mandate background checks you will only be weakening individuals, this country, and liberty. I ASK THE JUDGES OF THIS DEBATE 2 THINGS. PLEASE READ ENTIRE DEBATE, AND REALIZE THAT THE TRUE GOAL OF DEBATING IS TO CHALLENGE YOUR OWN BELIEFS SO THAT THEY CAN BECOME STRONG OR BE REPLACED WITH STRONGER ONES.