there should be universal background checks on gun sales

Pro appears to be conceding that universal background checks are not possible politically, however wishes to ignore that. I would suggest that because we are debating a real-world issue where human lives are on the line, the arguments should stick to realistic solutions. In round 1, I defined parameters of the debate that Pro, the instigator, did not. This included the definition of "background check" as the U.S. National Instant Background Check system (NICS) mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law) of 1993. I think that makes it clear that we are grounding the debate in the reality of politics since this is a federally mandated and implemented system, especially given Pro did not provide any precise counter-definitions. However, voters will certainly decide that matter. If said voters do not side with Pro on this, I would suggest that a vote for Con is evident.But lets assume you accept Pro's initial resolution at face value, despite it's ambiguity. In that case, I will put forth further arguments in order to show that universal background checks are still undesirable even if politics are no obstacle.Pro seems to be taking two different positions in round 3:1) add background checks to gun shows for private individuals which Pro admits will have a small affect (1.7% of guns acquired by criminals). 2) checks should be done for all gun sales including private, family & friends, the street, etc.For position #1, Pro will essentially "take what she can get" in the way of additional background checks. However, since the debate at this point assumes the lack of political obstacles, this position is irrelevant because it only addresses a small percentage of the problem that Pro desires. If Pro wanted to take this position, she would have to concede political obstacles, otherwise why argue for just increasing background checks by 1.7%! But Pro has already conceded those arguments. Because of this, the only viable policy position is option #2. The remainder of my arguments will counter the feasibility of such a policy. First, as a reminder, I gave the following (uncontested) statistics in round 2 regarding where criminals acquire guns:Licensed gun dealer: 11 percentFriends or family: 39.5 percentThe street: 37.5 percentStolen: 9.9 percentGun show/Flea market: 1.7 percentSecond, for this portion of the debate, I am ignoring the political obstacles toward passing a universal background check policy. However, this does not mean that other governmental and bureaucratic obstacles do not remain, such as cost of implementation, difficulty in enforcement, negative impact on law-abiding citizens, etc. I would also like to add that the NICS background checks are meant to affect gun sales. While the percentage may be small, it is possible for a criminal to acquire a gun without a sale, such as:1) found on the street, which may seem remote, but in areas with high crime, it is reasonable to assume this will occur2) gifts & bartering, which may also seem remote, until you consider that, in high crime areas, there are often cash shortages, resulting in such bartering3) DIY home made guns, which are certainly part of crime culture. In fact, the term "zip gun" is well known even outside of crime areas4) Borrowing which is certainly common among hunters (we certainly can't assume that the set of individuals who are hunters is completely distinct from the set of individuals who are criminals)5) Building from parts. This comes into play more and more as 3D printers become feasible and cheaper. This would mean that background checks would also need to be run on any and all gun parts, along with those purchasing designs at online 3D print shops.In addition, we simply can't ignore the obvious impact that universal background checks will have. It isn't as if criminals are clueless as to how the NICS system works and with the implementation of a Universal system, they will certainly learn very quickly. The result of this will be that criminals will completely ignore standard avenues of gun acquisition. The economic law of supply and demand will drive gun acquisition underground. This increased demand will be met by the market as it always is. Bartering for guns via trade for drugs or as payment will occur. There are already DIY zip gun videos on youtube but these will increase and improve in quality and scope. Just as with the war on drugs, which even police chiefs admit has not slowed drug use, background checks will not slow the acquisition of guns. However, just as the war on drugs increases crime, banning a portion of the population from owning guns will increase crime related to gun acquisition. In order to make a solid case, Pro can't simply assume that additional background checks will reduce violence. Instead a case must be made that the small percentage of criminals who are actually denied position of a gun will reduce violence more than it increases it based on the enforcement of the policy itself.The only possible way this could be implemented is if the federal government outlaws all these means of gun acquisition and asks those who desire to buy and sell to do so completely through licensed dealers. Of course outlawing gun acquisition via "the street" is laughable. While I did concede political obstacles to implementing a policy for universal NICS background checks, I certainly did not concede political obstacles to such draconian measures as described here. So despite giving in to the passing of such a law, I still contend that it's implementation is not only not feasible, but would be ineffective and would very likely even increase gun violence.