args

Universal Background Checks, as recently proposed in the US Senate, would not mitigate crime

Let me explain the justifcations I think the voters should have to give me the win: First: my opponent commits a rampant amount of fallacies, from bare assertion fallacies, to moving the goalposts on me, etc... Second: my argument concerning the colombine shooters and their relationship to the private sellers at gun shows. Those two shooters were known for asking if one was private, was completely dropped my by opponent. Furthermore, my opponent conceeds to several of my arguments of the effectiveness of the bill, it's legality (and the constitution), and the impacts of rampant gun ownership (he never actually refuted my study in which showed guns escallated arguments and leads to cases of manslaughter, while also conceeding to the fact that they are not aon inconvieience to the seller) Third: I have met my BOP, showing that logically, and empirically through studies, other countries, etc... That background checks would have correlated to a reduction of crime in the US, it's a crying shame that the Bill was struck down. Now on to refute the last of my opponents arguments. Hypothetical: " I must dutifully inform my opponent that there is nothing "Hypothetical" about the universal background checks we are debating" - Round 4 Quote from my opponent " Before I begin I must remind my opponent (again) to refrain from crediting me with things I did not say. I NEVER said our debate was not hypothetical." - Round 5 Quote from my opponent See what he did there? The question called for the recent striking down of the Manchin-Tooney Bill, (already done) coupled with the fact that the title says "would have" causes this debate to be about the consequences of implimenting the Bill, in fact my opponent indirectly consents to this, when he argues that it would have been an inconvienence to gun sellers. But it's struck down, and so I must argue to meet my BOP that it would have (should it have been implimented) correlate with a decrease in crime. I have, and my opponent only wants to shift my BOP in this debate as a result. I must insist it stay the same. "Suffice it to say I am very unhappy with your decorum thus far." <---- I ask for conduct due to this ad hominem my opponent launched against me. This was uncalled for. Crime Effects: "Therefore to prove the Pro side conclusively I only need to show that this law, AS WRITTEN, cannot be effectively enforced. (Anywhere in the world if this makes con happy)" -- Right, and we agree on everything thus far, however, my problem was with the enforcement mechanism position. I was very clear: enforcement is fine, but the argument my opponent puts fourth is logically flawed. Criminals can still get guns, but they don;t register their guns because their criminals, likewise, we have theft laws, and we keep them even though criminals break that law all the time as well. My opponent is in general correct though that correlation is not causation, however, correlation is still a form of evidence into seeing the impacts of a policy when implimented, and can be used as an excellent objective empirical unit to measure the success or failure of a policy, rather than offering an alternative study, my opponent simply pushes it away and asks for more evidence. (Moving the goal posts) I shouldn't have had to ask for the evidence, my opponent should have simply given it to me. Furthermore, my opponent dropped my argument about the colombine shooters again, and never addressed it! Even if gangs do get their hands on weapons, does that mean we should strike down the law? No! (See theft argument) and even as one study showed, it would still decrease crime with the decrease in guns avalible. As for the hypothetical, anyone working in retail knows that the serial numbers for every product is noted in their databases for inventory. The company would have it and could recall provided a warrent is given to the store. The memory of the storeclerk is not in question, it's technology. Furthermore in court this evidence is both direct (serial number of the gun) and circumstancial (footage/ witness of the account of purchasing) enough for a conviction. "How is this not totally obvious?" I agree, how obviously simple it is. How is it not obvious opponent? Even if they do hide the serial number, other forms of evidence can be found/used. Manufactures can trace the realitive positions of the guns. As for the bill, it was able to guide private transactions and enable a check on the emotional stability and the mental soundness of the person buying the gun. Upon trying to buy the gun, the two colombine shooters would have been denied the guns due to them having previous criminal records. End story. His own source (here: http://www.politifact.com...) even showed how the bill would have worked, but due to it;s striking down it no longer has the enforcement mechanism law experts need to uphold the law. This has been my case since round 2! My opponent simply dropped my argument, picked it back up, and moved the goalposts again! The only thing uninforced would have been family members, which is it. And while the bill it's self may not have an enforcement mechanism, the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau) already enforces these laws anywho! This simply gave them the tools to track and watch for online sales and public sales via gun shows. Re: BOP 2 My oppoent dropped this argument in previous rounds. He now claims the prices would make it horrible, however this is a new argument, and is awefully painful to me that he would do so in the last round! I shall rebuttal quickly but this isn;t fair to me: while price was never an issue here, the bill was struck down, even then the agreement between two sellers is their own business, and has nothing to do with the bill about where it is bought or sold, but the mental soundedness of the buyer. That's it. It prevents guilt should a shooting occur, and it's the same as preventing someone from selling a high-powered vehicle to a kid with a record for driving recklessly as noted earlier. When saftey and convienence collide, the saftey of the public should be priority, not making a quick buck at the expense of someone elses life! My opponent never offered a price argument earlier! Those studies (in final passing) were reliable, and even admitted their own short-comings, along with methods employed, and justifications for said methods. Furthermore, all they noted was that their correlation was incredibly strong, but unlike most other cross-sectional data studies this one didn't fit within the parameters of causation at that point and time. That's it, and it's disingenuous to claim that somehow they lied when it was all written in there, heck my opponent even quoted it (their was correlation but not enough for causation) Conclusion: Unfortunately, my opponents conduct in the end was disappointing. None the less, I enjoyed the debate, and thank him for his participation. I have shown through studies, other countries, etc... That the bill could work if it was implimented for UBC's. My opponent dropped several of my arguments, commits several fallacies, and logically deduces his arguments incorrectly in my opinion. Criminals are expected to break the law by very definition. Legal experts get paid to investigate crimes, and they generally do well. Time for those background checks to come in. Thank you Please Vote Con For Reasons Above! opponent: goodluck on your future endeavors!