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

In this round, I will instruct my oppenent to reread my argument, as it is evident, from his rebuttals, that he has not comprehended them.Parte UnoBackground Checks Are, Indeed, Effective.Partito UnoThis argument is based on how the black market is rampant, but the logic of "criminals will buy guns anyway, so LET'S JUST LET THEM BUY GUNS ANYWAY LOL," is immediately apparent to be completely devoid of any sense. And anyway, this argument doesnt even hit at the core of the issue. More on that is in the next section.Partito Dos"historical precedence of failure." Uhhh . . . (1), (2). Not correct. Not. Correct. The opposed seems to think that gun control's success is measured on how well it stops people from getting guns. That is a strawman, because a) I am measuring effectiveness based on how well it prevents gun violence, and b) wanting gun control for the sake of fewer guns(rather than the effects of fewer guns, e.g. fewer shootings) is rabidly unconstitutional because of the second amendment. Please, rather than trying to show that gun control doesn't stop gun ownership, try show that it doesn't stop gun violence.Parte DosJustice System is fundamentally racistMy opponent brushes aside the bulk of my rebuttal via only focusing on my clarification. You have missed the point, sir. I'm not going to retype my entire argument, but the response to the opening section was essentially "Even though the justice system is certainly flawed, it shouldn't stop us from applying it." Reread it though. Seriously.the retype continuesAfter highlighting the fact that the flaws in the justice system might negatively affect gun control's application, you then made a massive leap and said that because the effects of gun control might be racially unfair, then the entire concept of gun control is racist. It was then topped off with a wild ad hominem, which stated that anyone who supports gun control is a racist.This is the context in which the sentence was written. I was about to take my opponent's logic that anything which disproportionately affects a certain race is fundamentally racist.So I type it out, and I see: "the housing system is racist." I think 'hmm, the most common interpretation of 'racist' makes that statement entirely true, and not hyperbolic at all.' Then I add that qualifier, saying that by 'racist,' i mean 'meant to opress black people, by design'. PLEASE REREAD THAT SECTION, AND TRY NOT TO HYPER-FOCUS ON THAT ONE SENTENCE, IT'S JUST TRYING TO PREVENT A MISUNDERSTANDING. Parte tresGuns create a safer community.Partito unoThe Harvard StudyYou somehow managed to cherry pick out of a single paragraph article, but at the bottom it says that 64% of scientists believe that guns make a community more dangerous, and only 5% believe they make a community safer.Partito dosHow about sunrise laaand? (it's japan)You respond to this by using argumentum ad populum. Sweet.Oh wait, at the end you pin it down to population differences. Please then, tell me why the US had 5600 times Japan's gun deaths in 2014(3), and the US only has 2.5x more people(323÷127)?Partito tresCriminal MindsetBecause Europe has an even bigger black market for guns than the US(your own article), how come "criminal mindset" isn't causing them to have a comparable gun death rate? Here's the comparison(4). Argument insofarI'm winning lol./s ^^^(1) https://jamanetwork.com...(2) http://www.taleoftwostates.com...;(3) http://www.bbc.com...(4) http://www.businessinsider.com...