the USA should have universal background checks

"if checks work, why not have more? " I see the common sense in that statement, but you're missing the point that background checks aren't effective. You've made the claim that ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks. This is a very vague claim, and it appears that it isn't true. A more recent poll of over 1,200 Americans contrasts your statement. Fifty three percent of those asked on the more recent poll said that they didn't support universal background checks. The vast majority of voters on this poll also said that conducting background checks against an incomplete database was ineffective. . http://gunssaveus.com... "con posits that criminals would just go get guns illegally. problem is, not all people are black hoodies who will stop at othing to get a gun. does con posit that one hundred percent of people denied a gun will go get one? no that would be ridiculous. and thus the stats that say the more a person state o nation has of guns increases murders, means there would be less murders. the people who most should not have them, to a large degee won't have them. " I have several problems with this particular paragraph. First of all, if "black hoodies" is intended to be racial, than vote con on conduct points. Secondly, if a criminal who intends to kill innocent people goes to buy a gun and is denied one, he will go to the black market. That is just common sense. Even if a person with good intentions and a small record is denied a gun, they might even turn to the black market as well. Apparently, "the stats" that my opponent has failed to provide say that the more guns a person, state, or nation has the higher murder rate they will have. For most people, guns either keep people safe and alive, or put food on the table. Also, it appears my opponent thinks that a person would be more likely to commit a murder if they had five guns rather than one. They could just as easily kill someone with a kitchen knife. "con says most guns are used for good purposes. that is true, but it doesn't mean we can't try to regulate when people who have a bad past have access to guns. " Why regulate it if it would be ineffective and wasting the time of good people? "gun murders increase with more guns a person state or nation has. and overall murders do too. that's what i said, and co is just misinformed. at best con's example of russian is an outlier. my studies were comprehensive" I have recently addressed this, but I don't see how your studies were comprehensive. "con argues that it isn't more likely for there to be a murder if a person has a gun" What factors into a murderer is what kind of situation the murderer is in. Not if the person owns a firearm or not. " like the anaology that says the more likely tehre are to be pools in backgyards, the more likelty there are to be drownings. .. .. . and by analogy the more likely there are to be guns, the more likely there is to be gun problems. " Relating to the pool, a killer could just as easily drown someone in a bathtub or a kitchen sink. It's the same with guns. A killer could just as easily stab someone than shoot someone. "con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave. " You didn't provide studies. You provided un-backed arguments. I didn't duck and run from common sense points, but if you think I did, I hope these new arguments will be sufficient. I look forward to your arguments.