the USA should have universal background checks

"i never said anything racial in regards to my use of the phrase 'black hoodie'. if voters want to dock con for using racist remarks, and injecting race where it wasn't before, feel free. " Ok, let's be fair here. I meant nothing negative when I questioned the phrase my opponent used. I also don't think I would've been the only one who assumed that. If I offended any voters, I apologize. However, I was simply asking my opponent if it was intended to be racial. So, I don't think it's necessary to dock conduct points from me. "it's common sense that not all people will stop at nothing to get a gun, does con posit that one hundred perscent of people who are denied a gun will go get one? " No, I don't think that one hundred percent of people that are denied guns will get one, but when you think about it, it's much closer to one hundred than zero. Even if a law abiding citizen was denied a gun, he or she would be outraged. Now make that proportional to a criminal. The criminal will clearly go to the black market. I don't know why my opponent is denying this. It's common sense. "and, so, we see that if a person is more liekly to get into gun trouble with a gun, they are more likely to not without a gun. " This is true, but it isn't directly related to what my opponent was talking about in that particular paragraph. Also, if someone without a gun gets into trouble, they will most likely lose to the person with a gun. "most guns might be used for hunting or self defense, but we're only trying to stop people ith a record" My opponent clearly has good intentions, but he's missing the point that you can't use the law to stop criminals. Rather, it doesn't work. Criminals that intend people will do it unless they are stopped by citizens or law enforcement. This is why we should have armed police officers in every school. After the Aurora movie theatre shooting, a law passed in a Colorado to have armed police officers in every movie theatre in the state. Also, regarding my opponent's argument above, background checks would be a major inconvenience to law abiding citizens. . http://www.cnn.com... "there was two recent shootings on the same day at schools. one involved a gun one involved a knive, both invloved over twenty kids injured or killed. " I doubt it's very recent. School has been out for about two months in most states. Secondly, please provide a source for this because I never saw this on the news. "the reason why con is ranting about the same things as he is in the past debate is beause he has nothing relevant to say in response. the case is closed. " The case is hardly closed. I have one or two arguments that I have made continuously throughout the debate. The reason for this is that my opponent doesn't seem to understand my logic. Pro has used the same arguments excessively as well. "con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave. " See what I mean? Pro used this in rounds two and three. I have already argued against this exact argument in round two. "and con added as a last jab that i gave no studies and gave unbacked arguments. i gave ironclad common sense and the studies i gave were rightthere in the first post. .. . harvard, oxford, covering individuals states and nationas. .. it doesn't get much more comprehensie and acadamic study that that. " I apologize to my opponent. For he did give certain studies. What I meant to say is that these studies are very generalized.