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

I remind both my opponent and those who are judging this debate that all rebuttals and points are directed at the opposing stance, not at the opposition themselves. In this round, I will attack the overarching arguments presented by my opponent before reinforcing the ground that my own reside upon.Background Checks are Not EffectiveIn the first round, my opponent incorrectly suggested that the implementation of universal background checks would considerably reduce the acquiration of guns by criminals, primarily by closing the gun show loophole. This is both theoretically and empirically false, two warrants:(1) Guns are, and will continue to be, readily available outside of retail. C.D Michel, professor at Chapman University, finds in 2013 that “nearly 80 percent of crime guns are outside retail distribution channels” [1]. In theory, universal background checks are ineffective if they fail to address the majority of the issue. The prosperity of the black market offers a viable option for a private firearm transaction, one that remains clandestine, secretive, and ultimately untraceable. Moreover, the transfer of guns cannot reasonably be tracked by the United States government. Closing the gun show loophole is ultimately inconsequential: in the same study, Michel finds less than one percent of crimes were committed by firearms from firearm shows [1]. (2) Background checks and gun control measures have historical and current precedence of failure. In the United States, background checks have flaws that work to undermine the foundation it stands upon. Kevin Cirilli of Politico found in 2013 that "few states are submitting necessary [mental health] records to the government" [2]. In addition, Michael Luo, Pulitzer Prize finalist and gun expert, finds in 2013 that "ggaps in the F.B.I.‘s database of criminal and mental health records, which are consulted during background checks, have allowed thousands of people to buy firearms who should have been barred" [3]. Even if you believe that universal background checks will work satisfactorily, James B. Jacobs finds that background checks are easily bypassed. He reports that "even in countries with strong prohibitory regimes, criminals are able to obtain handguns relatively easily on the black market" [4]. Background checks are ineffective in theory and reality. Numerous flaws and holes work to undermine the foundation of safety they're based upon. Criminal mindset and rampant black markets have shown that criminals will simply acquire their guns from private, untraceable sellers. Ultimately, background checks have little to no solvency regarding protecting the American people.Justice System is Fundamentally RacistMy opponent brushes aside the bulk of the racism argument via bringing up semantics of racism. This is both not viable and borderline worrisome approach for two reasons.(1) Changing the definition of "racism" doesn't mitigate the terminal impact. My opponent attempts to supply his own definition of racism which is the "express purpose of discrimination." While this is a viable definition, it does nothing to mitigate the impacts shown in the second round. There is clear and abundant prejudice in the United States Justice System, as evidenced by the fact that roughly 28.3% of all arrests were African-American while 13.6% of the American population is African-American [5][6]. Whether or not this is, by literal definition, "racist" is ultimately inconsequential to the resolution. The impacts remain regardless of the definition agreed upon. (2) Listing other things that are racist doesn't mitigate the terminal impact. Whether or not the housing system is racist is not pertinent to the resolution. Whether or not guns are racist (sarcasm notwithstanding) is unrelated to the point that the United States Justice System has blatant discrimination, prejudice, and racism. Until my opponent makes a refutation pertinent to the "racism" argument (as opposed to simply bringing up semantics), I urge those judging to consider this point dropped by the affirmative and extended by the negative side.Guns Create a Safer CommunityMy opponent fails to show that guns make a society substantially more dangerous. In addition, he does not satisfactorily present evidence that suggest that the danger background checks offset triumph over the issues (racism, black market) it imposes. Two responses:(1) Harvard Study. My opponent unsuccessfully attempts to refute that guns create a safer community through presenting a source without proper analysis. His source from Harvard University is evidently geared towards a specific subset of the population. The statistics presented by the article specifically state that it concerns only "a woman living in that home-" which is substantially less of an impact than my opponent stated. Moreover, this source is not directly related with the notion that guns create a more dangerous community; it's foundationless sourcethrowing that should be condemned by those viewing this debate.(2) Japan and Holland. The affirmative side refutes the Japan and Holland black markets by displaying statistics suggesting gun violence has gone down. Whether or not this is empirically true is inconsequential insofar as the decline in homicide rates are a result of extreme gun control measures; they're not limited to background checks alone. Moreover, a considerable portion of the United States population will not stand for the measures in Japan currently. Passing shooting tests, reporting ammunition storage, and overwhelming policing that is present in Japan will not be enforced in America. For these reasons, it's foolish to attribute Japan's decline in gun control measures to background checks. It's foolish to believe that just because the terminal impacts of the black market in Japan aren't drastic, that they won't be in America. In addition, my opponent misunderstands the black market argument, confusingly paraphrasing the argument as "hey, since criminals will buy guns anyway, let's let them buy them cheaply and easily." This is a false representation of the argument. To correctly paraphrase: since criminals will resort to the black market insofar as their criminal mindset will not be altered by the deterrence of background checks, the baseline protection theoretically offered by background checks are largely uprooted."Overall, the opposition fails to show that guns make a community more dangerous. Their rebuttal of Japan and Holland is fundamentally flawed due to basic differences between the population of Japan and America. The black market is and remains a viable and strong argument towards the negation of the resolution.Where the Debate Currently StandsThe U.S Justice System - Racism argument was responded to, extremely weakly, and response was refuted.Gun Control has Racist Origins - Racism argument garnered no specific response. Consider it dropped.Prevalence of Black Market Firearms argument was responded to indirectly with Japan and Holland. This response was refuted insofar as differences between Japan and USA citizens render this argument ineffective.Transfer is Untraceable: Completely dropped by affirmative.As the debate currently stands, the negative's arguments are completely intact. The affirmative's contentions have been thoroughly refuted. Thus, I strongly urge a negative ballot.Sources[1] http://thehill.com...[2] http://www.politico.com...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...[4] https://tinyurl.com...[5] https://ucr.fbi.gov...[6] http://www.jstor.org...