Nov Champ Brief

Champion Briefs
November 2017
Public Forum Brief
Resolved: The United States

should require universal
background checks for all gun
sales and transfer of ownership.
Copyright 2017 by Champion Briefs, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.
Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress
Interpretation, Original Oratory, and Extemp
Sessions for
any schedule!
Commuter
and Residential
options available June 25 - July 8 July 9 - July 21 July 30 - August 12
What is CBI?
CBI is a two-week speech and
debate workshop for high school
Join us in
2018
students. Throughout the session,
our amazing instructors guide
students through unique seminars,
practice rounds, and personalized
coaching to improve persuasion, for an experience
public speaking, argumentation, you’ll never forget!
and performance skills.
What is a Champion?
At CBI, becoming a Champion is about
more than winning trophies. We teach
students the leadership and advocacy
skills that will be useful for the rest of
their lives. While our approach doesn’t
focus on trophies, CBI scholars have
won National Championships and
achieve incredible success at local,
regional, and national tournaments.
www.ChampionBriefsInstitute.com
Letter from the Editor Nov/Dec 2017

The Evidence Standard

Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved.
We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources that
uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees,
managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:
1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.
2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate,
even if the source of the information is legitimate.
3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the
community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit deception.
4. We will never support or distribute studies, news articles, or other materials that use
inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.
5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of
information distributed by ourselves or by any third-party.
6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence
from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.
7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve the
goals and vision of this activity.
These seven statements, while simple, represent the complex notion of what it means to advance
students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.
Champion Briefs 4
Letter from the Editor Nov/Dec 2017

Letter from the Editor
This month’s topic is “Resolved: The United States should require universal background
checks for all gun sales and transfers of ownership.” This topic involves an extremely sensitive
discussion of one of this nation’s most pressing issues: gun control. In the aftermath of one of the
nation’s most gruesome mass killings, students will confront the question of universal
background checks for gun sales and transfers of ownership. Much like last month’s topic, there
will be new sources and information coming out frequently during the topic, so it’s crucial for all
students to have a good depth of information, and that’s what we aim to provide in this brief.
Given the recent events in Las Vegas and nearly daily mass shootings (4+ people
injured/killed), this will be a difficult topic for many members of our community to address. Gun
control is often considered one of the most polarizing issues in modern American politics. With
strong lobbying groups on both sides and the media driving perspectives, the gun control debate
is always a hotly contested subject. As such, keep in mind that many of the judges and debaters
that you encounter will have biases and predeveloped assumptions about background checks,
gun control in general, and gun ownership overall. Be sure to avoid making strong statements
that may offend the biases of judges on all parts of the political spectrum.
This topic is a rich opportunity for learning because it is both pragmatic and
philosophical. While arguments about constitutionality and freedoms are more theoretical and
philosophical, there are also more concrete impacts to discuss relating to violence and safety. It
is crucial for all debaters to know the second amendment inside and out, and to be familiar with
relevant Supreme Court precedent on gun regulation. Also, debaters should learn about the
fascinating history of gun control, both in and out of the United States.
Given that this is a very deep topic with a wide variety of arguments, our staff took extra
care this month to provide interesting and helpful evidence for you to peruse. Given the political
implications of a topic like this one, you may encounter deeply biased information while doing
research. Be sure to check the validity of all of your sources, and be sure to challenge your own
biases while conducting this research – you never know what you may discover.
Happy prepping!
Michael Norton
Editor-in-Chief
Champion Briefs 5
Table of Contents Nov/Dec 2017

Table of Contents

The Evidence Standard ............................................................................. 4

Letter from the Editor ............................................................................... 5

Table of Contents ........................................................................................ 6

Topic Analyses ............................................................................................. 8
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda ............................................................................................... 9
Topic Analysis by Liya Khan .............................................................................................. 17
Topic Analysis by Harrison Hurt ...................................................................................... 25

General Information ............................................................................... 33

Pro Arguments with Con Responses ................................................. 44
Pro: American public supports background checks .......................................................................... 45
A/2: American public supports background checks ..................................................................... 49
Pro: Background checks prevent firearm trafficking ........................................................................ 53
A/2: Background checks prevent firearm trafficking ................................................................... 58
Pro: Background checks prevent those with mental illnesses from obtaining firearms ... 62
A/2: Checks prevent those with mental illnesses from obtaining firearms ....................... 66
Pro: Background checks protect victims of domestic violence ..................................................... 71
A/2: Background checks protect victims of domestic violence ................................................ 75
Pro: Background checks prevent criminals from obtaining firearms ........................................ 80
A/2: Background checks prevent felons from obtaining firearms .......................................... 85
Pro: Background Checks Prevent Violent Conflict ............................................................................ 89
A/2: Background Checks Prevent Violent Conflict ........................................................................ 94
Pro: Background Checks Prevent Suicides ........................................................................................... 98
A/2: Background Checks Prevent Suicides .................................................................................... 101
Pro: Background Checks Decrease Gang Violence ......................................................................... 105
A/2: Background Checks Decrease Gang Violence ..................................................................... 109
Pro: Background Checks Decrease Accidental Gun Deaths ........................................................ 113
A/2: Background Checks Decrease Accidental Gun Deaths .................................................... 118
Pro: Background Checks Close Gun Sale Loopholes ...................................................................... 122
A/2: Background Checks Close Gun Show Loopholes ............................................................... 127
Pro: Background Checks Prevent Terrorism .................................................................................... 131
A/2: Background Checks Prevent Terrorism ................................................................................ 136
Pro: Background Checks Are Effective in Other Countries ......................................................... 140
A/2: Background Checks Are Effective in Other Countries ..................................................... 144
Pro: Background Checks Do Not Conflict With The 2nd Amendment ..................................... 148
Champion Briefs 6
Table of Contents Nov/Dec 2017

A/2: Background Checks Do Not Conflict With The 2nd Amendment ................................. 152
Pro: Background Checks Decrease the Number of Guns ............................................................. 157
A/2: Background Checks Decrease the Number of Guns ......................................................... 161
Pro: Background Checks Facilitate Gun Tracking ........................................................................... 166
A/2: Background Checks Facilitate Gun Tracking ....................................................................... 170

Con Arguments with Pro Responses ............................................... 174
Con: Universal background checks don’t deter those that intend to commit violence .. 175
A/2: Universal background checks don’t deter those that intend to commit violence 180
Con: A universal gun registry would expand the surveillance state ...................................... 183
A/2: A universal gun registry would expand the surveillance state ................................... 187
Con: NICS is structurally ineffective ..................................................................................................... 191
A/2: NICS is structurally ineffective .................................................................................................. 196
Con: Background checks breed complacency .................................................................................. 200
A/2: Background checks breed complacency ............................................................................... 204
Con: Violating background checks isn’t widely prosecuted by the Justice Department 207
A/2: Violating checks isn’t widely prosecuted by the Justice Department ...................... 211
Con: Universal background checks limit second amendment rights ..................................... 214
A/2: Universal background checks limit Second Amendment rights ................................. 219
Con: Background checks encourage criminals to buy unlicensed guns ................................ 224
A/2: Background checks encourage criminals to buy unlicensed guns ............................ 229
Con: Universal background checks can’t prevent straw purchases ....................................... 233
A/2: Universal background checks can’t prevent straw purchases .................................... 237
Con: Universal background checks would encourage lobbyist backlash ............................. 242
A/2: Universal background checks would encourage lobbyist backlash .......................... 246
Con: Guns are beneficial to our protection ........................................................................................ 249
A/2: Guns are beneficial to our protection ..................................................................................... 253
Con: Background checks set a dangerous precedent .................................................................... 257
A/2: Background checks set dangerous precedents .................................................................. 260
Con: Background checks harm the rights of minorities ............................................................... 264
A/2: Background checks harm the rights of minorities ........................................................... 268
Con: NICS Background Checks Are Based on an Inadequate Amount of Data .................... 271
A/2: NICS Background Checks Are Based on an Inadequate Amount of Data ................ 278
Con: Universal Background Checks Give False Hope ..................................................................... 283
A/2: Universal Background Checks Give False Hope ................................................................. 289
Con: Universal Background Checks Exacerbate Backlog .............................................................. 294
A/2: Universal Background Checks Exacerbate Backlog ......................................................... 299
Champion Briefs 7
Champion Briefs
November 2017
Public Forum Brief
Topic Analyses
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda Nov/Dec 2017

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all gun sales and
transfer of ownership.
Introduction
October topics have a history of tackling domestic policy, from GMOs to the internet of
things. This month is no exception; with gun violence as an ever-present political issue, fiercely
debated in both parties, this resolution promises to bring clash to the debate community. These
resolutions will reward debaters who are not only creative and technical, but also can find
arguments which appeal to both sides of the partisan aisle. Debating gun control in particular is
likely to be divisive, and have judges enter the round with preconceived opinions, so debaters
who write arguments that are analytically persuasive to any political affiliation will do well.
This topic dives deep into both politics and policy, asking us philosophical questions on
gun control, theoretical claims on political will and coalition making, and public policy problems
about implementation. Having a multifaceted debate creates many spaces for argumentation, and
requires that debaters be familiar with a wide range of impacts. A policy, though just, is of little
use if it is ineffective or counterproductive, and vice versa. The topic thereby engages debates on
several levels, exposing their arguments to many risks, and ensuring a wide field of
argumentation.
Champion Briefs 9

Tournament Considerations
November features a sharp contrast in tournaments. Much of the month being taken up by
smaller tournaments with more regional draws, and the rest of the month is occupied by
Glenbrooks. These tournaments have dramatically different fields and types of judging, and
debaters should prepare accordingly. It has often been said that not every argument that wins at
in a regional tournament will fly on the national circuit, and November is no exception. Smart
teams will use the time to figure out what arguments are being run in different parts of the
country and learn from them.
The switch between smaller tournaments and the Glenbrooks can be dramatic and
unpredictable, but debaters can take measures to help themselves succeed. For instance, while
tailoring arguments to a local ideological/political skew may be helpful, such a strategy will
almost certainly not work on Glenbrooks’ larger and more diverse judging pool. Leading up to
Glenbrooks, debaters should focus on making their cases technical, objective, and appealing to as
many judges as possible. This is also the perfect opportunity to ask friends from different parts of
the country which arguments are winning and how their judges are reacting to them. Big national
tournaments are often scary and Glenbrooks has a reputation as a particularly brutal field, but
fortune favors the prepared.
Strategy Considerations
Before we get into the meat of the topic we ought to get into the meat of the debate, we
should consider how the resolution is framed, and what areas of contention might be in terms of
the ground of the topic.
Champion Briefs 10

Before dealing with the credibility or substance of any of the arguments in the debate, the
resolution seems to pose three natural questions to the debater:
1) Will background checks work as a means to decrease gun violence?
2) Will there be any negative externalities to passing background checks?
3) Do background checks pass various constitutional and legal tests?
The first question engages the debater on the substance of the gun control debate: what
measures can we take to effectively reduce gun violence? Many debates will center around this
question, as it is the most immediately relevant to the question of gun control. Gun related deaths
can take many forms, from accidents to homicides, and it would be best for teams to be familiar
with each and be able to do an impact level comparison. It would be hard for a team advocating
for background checks to win a round without proving that they could impact gun violence, and
teams should be more than prepared to engage in such a debate. This will almost certainly be the
most talked about point on the affirmative, given the evidence that supports background checks
in lowering crime.
The second question asks the debater about the broader political battle over gun control.
The central dogma of public policy is that ‘an action must be evaluated in the context of its
alternatives’. This forces the debater to look at the topic as just one moving part in a political
game of chess. Passing some policies hurts the ability of others by draining political will, can
embolden social movements, or can create coalitions. When policies are passed, the nation
focuses on the issues at hand, the media works to shape viewpoints, and lobbyists hunker down
for a battle. Groups like the NRA use major policy battles to slander and discredit the other side,
and can generate momentum which swings the subsequent elections. Consider for instance the
Clinton administration’s attempt at expanding affordable healthcare. A powerful lobby of anti-
Champion Briefs 11

expansion groups formed, including industry insiders and insurance companies, and blasted the
new bill with a massive ad campaign. The bill was dead, and many representatives paid a steep
political price for having supported it. Background checks are merely a battle, creating a political
architecture which is favorable to good gun policy is the war.
Policies can also affect the national agenda, helping or hurting our ability to pass other
unrelated programs, or can eat up time which may trigger important deadlines. However, when
one thinks about the topic, politics is a game that has ramifications beyond just gun control, and
a contentious policy such as this one certainly would involve many important political actors.
This is significant, because decisions made by politicians are often zero sum: they appease some
constituents and enrage others. Politicians therefore need to balance their support for policies
favored by some groups with support for policies favored by others. In this way, every policy has
some impact of the legislation that comes after it.
The third question that the topic asks of debaters is whether or not there might be any
constitutional or legal challenges to background checks. Opinions on both sides of this debate are
fierce, but it is important to recognize that this is not a purely normative question. Aside from
how we ought to see and interpret the constitution, this is a question of the policy’s viability. A
policy which is not constitutional (or deemed unconstitutional by the current courts) will be
rolled back. Such a political setback might squander valuable political capital for the gun control
lobby, which has finite resources.
Debate teams should not only figure out how to address these questions, but also think
about how they interact with each other or could be used as responses. If a team looks like they
have very solid warrants for why background checks would decrease homicide, it might be worth
Champion Briefs 12

attacking from the angle of political tradeoffs or rollback, and vice versa. The debate allows for
many different types of argumentation, all of which should be exploited by a smart debater.
Affirmative Argumentation
There are a few arguments that Affirmative teams should consider. This topic analysis will
break down the routes of affirmative argumentation into two camps: homicide reduction and
political outcomes. Homicide reduction is the idea that background checks will lower the number
of guns on the streets, especially in the hands of high risk individuals. One the other hand, political
outcomes are impacts which pertain to the ability to pass gun control legislation in the future. Both
ultimately impact in lives lost, either directly or down the road. A strong affirmative team will be
able to grapple with the immediate ramification of passing universal background checks, but also
their long term political implications.
How to universal background checks impact gun violence? This is certainly going to be
the most common strand of argumentation on the topic, and is certainly the way the debate is
framed in popular discourse and the media. Background checks aim to keep firearms out of the
hands of felons and people with specific mental illnesses. By doing so, background checks may
reduce the risk of accidents or crimes being committed.
Currently, background checks are only required at licensed firearm dealers, creating a
huge loophole for buyers who wish to purchase guns without being checked. Only 60 percent of
guns are sold at licensed dealers, creating a huge pool of weapons that can be purchased without
screening. Many experts agree about the importance of closing what is called the ‘gun show
Champion Briefs 13

loophole’, with a universal background check being ranked the number one policy that the
government could implement to decrease gun violence by a panel of 39 firearms policy experts.
The other avenue of argumentation concerns long term political development. While
universal background checks are important, they are only one part of an ongoing battle over gun
control, and pale in comparison to the bigger picture of gun safety laws across America. Every
day, a battle is being waged between ‘gun rights’ groups such as the NRA, and gun control
activists. From state legislatures to Washington DC, special interests and lobbyists push their
representatives to enact more favorable laws on their behalves. In this fight, it is important to
play the long game by building support, encouraging your base, and slowly crafting policies.
Universal background checks could be major political win for the gun control
community. Winning landmark legislative victories can give movements legitimacy, and help
create collective action advantages for further advocacy. Ryken Grattet of UNC has conducted
research on the symbolic effects of legislation, which he writes can “communicate positions on
ideological battles and affirm or change values”. Many scholars have argued that the Assault
Weapons Ban fell into this category: many loopholes in the legislation muted the physical effect
on gun violence, but the bill paved the way for more gun control advocacy and set gun violence
as a major priority for law enforcement and judicial agendas.
Negative Argumentation
The negative side probably has the short end of the stick on this topic. The wealth of
evidence suggests that universal background checks would curb shootings, and Americans vastly
favor such legislation being passed. Traditional arguments against background gun control usually
Champion Briefs 14

fall along the lines of ‘they are ineffective’ and ‘good people need guns for defense’. However,
background checks are probably more effective than nothing, and it is hard to imagine vast
numbers of people without criminal records being denied the right to hold a gun because of a
background check. Therefore, I will be focusing on the negative’s political arguments, which
contend that passing universal background checks would hurt our ability to pass other pieces of
legislation, and ultimately stall the gun control movement.
Of course, lobbying efforts and special interest intervention happen on both sides of the
aisle. That being said, the battle over gun control is an especially tough one to crack. This is
because would-be firearms regulators face an age-old problem: concentrated benefits and diffuse
harms. This is called a collective action problem, the idea that gun-rights advocates are
significantly more organized, willing to spend money, and focused than their counterparts. While
many Americans support gun control, few Americans protest about it, fewer make it their largest
political issue, and even fewer spend substantial time and effort lobbying for it. On the other
hand, the firearms industry has developed an expansive network of clients, industries, and
enthusiasts who all stake their livelihoods, jobs, and even personal identities on a robust gun
market. Thus, any battle for gun control will be one that goes up against an angry, organized
opposition.
When background checks get passed, the NRA likely takes revenge. The NRA will create
massive ad campaigns against representatives who didn’t vote for gun rights, fielding more
extreme primary challengers, and lobbying more aggressively. Even policy makers that win
reelection will feel pressured into making concessions to gun rights advocates. If taken to the
extreme, the effect of this blowback could be worse than the positive impacts of background
checks. Remember that policy does not exist in a vacuum, and that if today’s gains will be rolled
Champion Briefs 15

back tomorrow, they will do little good. The solution must instead be to push incremental,
politically palatable change, while gradually weakening the power of the NRA over time.
Good luck this month!
Champion Briefs 16
Topic Analysis by Liya Khan Nov/Dec 2017

Topic Analysis by Liya Khan


Introduction
November is an exciting month for Public Forum, especially if you find yourself headed
to the Glenbrooks Tournament. This tournament boasts an incredibly expansive spread of
debaters, and is definitely considered one of the most competitive pools in the country. Expect to
see many high level debates at this tournament, starting as early as preliminary rounds on the
first day.
The topic this month comes at a contentious time in our society. With the shock and
trauma of recent incidents of gun violence, I would strongly advise teams to tread carefully in
every round they participate in this month. Debate is meant to be an inclusive space for all, and
rhetoric that may exclude others is counterproductive to the intent of this activity. All in all, you
never know who you are debating against or in front of; it is very possible that people in that
round are affected in one way or the other by recent events involving gun violence. With that in
mind, teams should be cautious of how they frame “lives vs. rights” arguments, or in how they
choose to discuss violence or death in the round in general. Debate often asks us to challenge
harsh, controversial, and sometimes painful ideas and emotions, but I believe that these
discussions can (and should) be had in a way that respects all who participate. On that note, let’s
discuss argumentation strategy this month by starting off with some clarifications on the topic
wording.
Champion Briefs 17

Framing
The wording of the topic is straightforward enough for both teams, but a debate about the
word requirement could be an interesting dimension of the round that changes the way teams
approach arguments. In the status quo, licensed sellers are required to ask buyers to fill out a
background check form, and sellers submit this information to the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS) to be processed by the FBI. Unlicensed sellers, like private
sellers at gun shows or online, don’t have to submit the same information to the NICS database.
A federal requirement, then, would most likely alter the status quo for all buyers to require some
type of background check. Additionally, a requirement assumes a system of punishment for
failure to comply as well as a prosecution process. This is an important detail to keep in mind,
especially when addressing the fact that people can lie about their backgrounds in order to attain
firearms, and that the NICS system of checking is based on state reporting that may not be
entirely comprehensive. A federal law that requires background checks from all buyers, then,
must include these details in order to function in practice-a system of compliance for which there
are imposed costs for failing to do so, a process that exacts these costs, and a background check
system that can successfully root out risky or ineligible buyers.
Affirmative Arguments
The Affirmative approach to arguments is going to be (fairly obviously) an impact-based
approach about reducing gun violence, and in turn, hopefully saving lives. But rather than simply
constructing arguments that assert this to be true, teams should challenge themselves to find
more nuanced links about how and why background checks can lead to less violence in the long
Champion Briefs 18

term. Studies funded by multiple interests on both sides of this issue tend to produce results that
directly conflict each other-teams should be prepared to hear blocks against their own statistics
about violence from opposing teams. That is why it’s important to explore more nuanced
reasoning when it comes to background checks and violence reduction; fairly competitive teams
in general will be well prepared to argue that violence can either increase or decrease, but the
most successful teams will be the best at explaining why.
There are two arguments that I think help explore these nuanced links. The first is that
requiring universal background checks is the first step in cracking down on gun trafficking.
Federal statutes regarding the explicit trafficking of both legally and illegally bought firearms
over state lines fail to effective address the issue; in fact, it is mostly state legislation that sets up
the system for prosecution of buying firearms in states with weaker gun control laws and selling
or moving them to states with stronger laws. As most Negative teams will argue, universal
background checks fail to affect criminals who obtain firearms illegally. Ineligible buyers, as
they may argue, will still find a way to get weapons even in a system of universal background
checks, since their options still include the black market, straw purchasing, and theft. However,
Affirmative teams can argue that the bulk of black market gun sales and the origins of their
supply lines can often originate through sales that would require background checks. And even if
background checks have just above a mitigatory effect on certain gun sales, that alone could
equal a sharp reduction in the amount of guns available on the black market or accessible
through trafficking across state lines. This is especially true given the disparity of laws regarding
background checks in each state. Missouri, for example, repealed its law requiring background
checks for gun sales and directly saw an increase in gun violence. This was most likely due to its
sharp reduction in ‘time-to-crime,’ or the time between when a gun is first obtained and when it
Champion Briefs 19

is used in a crime. ‘Time-to-crime’ has been used as an indicator for trafficked guns, and the
reduction of time between obtainment and committing a crime has led officials in Missouri to
believe that gun trafficking as gone back up following the repeal.
The appeal in linking into reducing gun violence and access to firearms to use in crimes
through trafficking has other beneficial impacts as well. Gun trafficking helps to uphold other
forms of illegal activity, similar to trafficking drugs, such as kidnapping, border crossing and
prostitution. Trafficked guns help aid a cycle of violence that criminals and would-be criminals
can easily access. Universal background checks are useful because their enforcement can help
not only control the possession of guns by eligible gun owners, but also have a spillover effect on
those that would otherwise obtain guns illegally. This is a useful argument to weigh against
defensive claims that the Negative can make about background checks not addressing the illegal
dimension of obtaining guns because Affirmative teams can assert that their side is the only side
with a risk of addressing both legal and illegal pathways to gun ownership.
The second argument is a different type of argument that draws a little more specifically
on the reduction of gun violence scenario. Teams can argue that gun violence disproportionately
affects certain groups. For example, if teams can identify that gun violence is particularly
prevalent among younger minorities, and that these incidents of gun violence have the risk of
being reduced because of a federal requirement for universal background checks, there are other
spillover impacts that can really drive this argument home. Teams can point out that younger
minorities that are particularly affected by gun violence tend to do worse in school, live in lower
income areas, and fall victim to the trap of poverty more easily. Reducing gun violence and the
climate of obtaining guns easily may help mitigate these impacts for these disproportionately
affected groups. Additionally, the incidents of women killed by their intimate partners in
Champion Briefs 20

incidents of gun violence have been increasing. Teams can take a similar approach and argue that
gun availability to people with violent histories or any indication of escalating violent in their
past may come up in a background check, greatly reducing the risk of that person being able to
obtain a gun. Reducing this risk for violent offenders would mean that less women die as a result
of intimate partner violence, and the protection of women dying in these disproportionately
higher types of deaths is the most important impact in the round.
Affirmative teams have many more options in approaching arguments in unique ways,
and don’t necessarily have to limit themselves to the scenarios presented here. I would challenge
teams looking to write more competitive Affirmative strategies to not only look at nuanced links
into the topic, but explore different dimensions of impacts related to gun violence as well.
Negative Arguments
The approach on the Negative side should take into consideration the same strategic ideas
as the Affirmative in terms of nuanced links, but should remain cautious of falling into the
prototypical ‘lives vs. rights’ debate that topics like this can often create. While discussions of
Second Amendment rights may be relevant to this debate as a foundational context, the debate
risks getting messy and unfocused if the collapse at the end of the round fails to get both sides to
agree on the most important impacts on the table. The worst case scenario for each round, and
one that becomes particularly confusing for judges to adjudicate, is whether or not limiting x
right is worth saving x amount of lives, or vice versa. While there are genuine long-winded
philosophical arguments out there for this particular debate, trying to have them sound
convincing in four and two minute speeches is nearly impossible. Therefore, the utility of
Negative arguments should originate from the efficacy of background checks themselves; the
Champion Briefs 21

Negative strategy I would advise would be to agree that reducing gun violence is important and
ought be addressed by both sides. That way, the debate comes down to whether or not the
specific mechanism that the resolution advocates-in this case, required universal background
checks-serve this purpose the best. There are two arguments accessible to Negative teams that I
think make this point quite effectively.
The first argument is that the NICS database and current background checking system in
place is structurally ineffective and would most likely fail to bar ineligible buyers once the
system becomes more overloaded with searches and requests for checking information. The
system itself is prone to failure for one critical reason-the information available for background
checking is entirely dependent on up to date state reporting. The NICS database can only search
information that is submitted to it by state agencies that have jurisdiction over criminal records,
medical histories, etc. The problem is that states aren’t necessarily required by any federal statute
to submit information to the database, and simply requiring background checks doesn’t solve this
problem in particular. The resolution doesn’t imply that the NICS database would elicit accurate
or complete information about background check submissions, it simply asserts that these checks
would become federally required. Other state-based bureaucratic hurdles-record release,
understaffed departments, privacy laws-prohibit the release and retention of accurate
information. Insofar as the system that actually conducts background checks fails to use the most
complete records of information about buyers in the status quo, the Affirmative has no warrant to
assert that simply requiring background checks in all sales would fix this structural inefficiency,
especially since the power to do so lies almost entirely with the states, not the federal
government. The impact to this argument is that any structural failures of the NICS system in of
itself directly minimizes and mitigates the impacts of the Affirmative; this argument is
Champion Briefs 22

particularly effective because it allows teams to spend more time actually weighing arguments
against each other, framing them differently for the judge, rather than asserting whether or not
gun violence reduces in the long term.
The second argument follows a similar line of thinking to the inefficiency of universal
background checks. This argument asserts that universal background checks do nothing to
address the problem of ‘straw’ gun purchases. Straw purchases occur when someone who is an
eligible gun buyer-any individual that can pass a background check-purchases a gun for someone
else, usually an ineligible buyer. In this scenario, universal background checks do nothing to
prohibit the sale of a firearm that will eventually end up in the hands of an individual who
shouldn’t be able to have one in the first place. Straw purchasing, in conjunction with trafficking,
makes up thousands of purchases a year, and have been traced to usage in crimes all over the
country. This argument demonstrates how the link chain from universal background checks to
less gun availability and thus less gun violence isn’t as clear-cut as it may appear. If the ability to
transfer these weapons to ineligible buyers still exists, then would-be criminals still have access
to weapons even in a world with universal background checks.
This argument is compounded by the fact that tracing and prosecuting straw purchasing is
a difficult process, and is often retroactive in nature. Guns used in crimes can be traced back to a
purchase by an eligible buyer who sold or gave it to someone who used it in a crime, but it is
often hard for sellers to tell whether or not they are selling to a straw buyer. States in of
themselves have some regulations in regards to straw purchasing, but at the federal level, there
are no clear statues that lead to widespread prosecution of straw purchasers. As a result, studies
from the ATF have demonstrates that almost 26,000 firearms can be traced back to straw
purchases. The impact of this argument is similar to the first-that the prevalence of guns doesn’t
Champion Briefs 23

necessarily decrease with the implementation of universal background checks. Moreover,
required checks may create an incentive to construct networks of straw purchases between
eligible and ineligible buyers, fortifying the black market of guns and increasing the risk of gun
violence overall.
Good luck this season!
Champion Briefs 24
Topic Analysis by Harrison Hurt Nov/Dec 2017

Topic Analysis by Harrison Hurt

Introduction
The November 2017 NSDA Public Forum resolution is likely one of the most “hot
button” topics in recent years. The very core of this debate strikes at issues that run deep for
people across our country. Many Americans have some connection to gun violence, whether they
know a victim personally or have seen the issue touch their lives in some influential way.
Moreover, many others feel very strongly about their Second Amendment right to bear arms,
whether due to cultural traditions of gun ownership, desires for individualism, or fears towards
government and society at large. Our society has been fragmented by conflicts and divides
between the two seemingly irreconcilable perspectives of those who see guns as cause of an
epidemic in this country and those who believe them to be an essential part of personal liberty
and security. The recent devastating mass shooting in Las Vegas only adds to this heavily tense
context. Bearing these things in mind, tread respectfully as you develop your arguments on this
topic.
It’s likely that many debaters are going to fear inherent judge side biases on this topic,
which can run in either direction depending on region. That said, there are a couple keys to
navigate a topic with this scale of controversy. First, hedge your arguments as purely on their
logic as possible; appeals based on rationality can cut through some of the emotional and
Champion Briefs 25

partisan fumes that cloud this topic. Second, be sensitive to the controversial nature of both the
resolution and topic area in general. When responding to your opponent’s arguments, for
example, try not to seem callously dismissive of their argumentation or impacts. Always sound
as fair, charitable, and reasonable as possible. Don’t take this as a suggestion to openly concede
your opponent’s arguments; but on topics like this, acting in a way that appears overly hostile to
your opponent’s arguments can be very alienating to judges.
In a month that bears important tournaments like Apple Valley and the Glenbrooks, this
topic indubitably presents a significant challenge to public forum debaters in November. Try to
remember as much as you can, though, that the implications of your arguments go much further
than your debate rounds. You never know what the experiences could be of someone your
debating or who is judging you, and how they might personally relate to the subject of gun
violence. This is certainly true to some degree of all topics we have, but the November resolution
uniquely strikes at a core American issue, and will require debaters to come to understand and
address one of the contemporary United States’ most divisive issues with respect and honesty.
Framing and Weighing Consideration
There are many avenues where big picture analysis could work on this topic. Likely, the
most common framing will be as “lives are the most important thing,” as this type of framing is
the most simplistic and widely known to debaters. Conceivably, rights-based framing could also
develop, especially on negative arguments about preserving gun rights. Remember that any such
rights-based arguments, while potentially compelling to some individuals, rely on some sort of
established framework that gives the judge a reason to vote and prefer violations of civil liberties
Champion Briefs 26

to anything else. These frameworks face a perceptual uphill battle against the intuitive, common
analysis of “being alive is a prerequisite to having rights.” While not entirely infeasible, thus,
they will be difficult to pull off and will require debaters to invest a lot of time and effort to
nuance and strengthen them yet also make sure that judges will be able to understand the
complicated moral and philosophical claims behind them.
Another direction to spin these kinds of rights based impacts is on a “rollback” claim;
that is, negatives could argue that universal background checks are somehow unconstitutional
and thus would be eliminated by the Supreme Court, using this to mitigate affirmative offense.
Pushing the truth value of this argument aside, which is questionable due to the presence of
background checks in many states and the fact that the resolution doesn’t necessarily presuppose
the federal government as the actor, I think rollback arguments are not incredibly strategic
because at best, they mitigate a lot of the potential offense for both affirmative and negative. It
may honestly be that the simplest framing on this topic is the best, and that both affirmative and
negative teams should be framing their cases largely on impacts to lives.
Affirmative Strategy and Argumentation
The best affirmative argumentation will likely come out of the most direct, largescale
impacts of universal background checks. Peripheral or secondary effects of background checks
are likely to be smaller on magnitude and scope. Moreover, affirmatives should leverage their
inherent advantage on solvency as much as possible: the negative has no guaranteed mechanisms
of stopping gun violence, which is clearly a significant problem in the status quo. Framing gun
violence as the largest impact in the round and weighing the risk of solvency for that issue is
likely to be a common strategy for affirmative teams. The best affirmatives, though, will not just
Champion Briefs 27

be winning a mere risk of solvency, but a strong, unique solvency link only accessed through
background checks and no other forms of gun control, as this approach both offers strong
impacts and preempts potential squirrely counterplans or political tradeoffs.
One core affirmative argument is that universal background checks, at a basic level, will
reduce the quantity of gun sales in the United States by making it more difficult for people with
criminal records or mental health disorders to buy weapons. This can reduce the amount of gun
violence for a couple reasons. First, background checks directly prevent those with criminal
records themselves from accessing weapons, or at least make it much more difficult to do so,
reducing the ability of career criminals to engage in violence. Second, restricting gun sales with
background checks can prevent weapons from being bought and pawned off to illegal sources, as
many of the guns that end up in illegal transactions start from legal sources. This can reduce
violence from drug cartels, gangs, and even terrorists. Third, background checks may add to
databases which allow state and federal agencies to better monitor the overall flow of guns in the
United States, which can in turn improve alertness and responsiveness to potential outbreaks of
violence. Altogether, the impacts of this argument can be strongly consequential in terms of
reducing violence and saving lives. There is also a strong empirical literature base that supports
that background checks are associated with fewer gun-related homicides. Running this kind of
argument, though, needs to be done with precision and caution in certain contexts; if you get too
caught up in the rhetoric of “taking away guns,” that may enflame partisan biases of judges.
Alternatively, try to emphasize that the goal of background checks is to prevent guns from
getting into the hands of people who would abuse them, and that responsible gun owners with no
intent to harm anyone should have nothing to worry about.
Champion Briefs 28

Other affirmative strategies may incorporate arguments that revolve around mental
health. This ranges from arguments about preventing those with mental disorders from engaging
in violence against others to suicide prevention arguments, leveraging the prevalence of suicides
among violent deaths. Many Americans are inclined to see mental health as an important factor
in gun violence, especially with the publicized mental health issues of many mass shooters, like
Charleston shooter Dylann Roof. I would recommend running these arguments with extreme
caution and sensitivity. Those suffering from mental health disorders have been disparaged
significantly by the gun control debate, often painted as irrational and uncontrollable. Remember
that these are complex, real human beings who can’t simply be defined by their mental disorder,
and reducing them down to the status of wildly violent rogues of society is both intellectually
dishonest and morally bankrupt.
Negative Strategy and Argumentation
On face, the Negative seems at a natural disadvantage. Support for background checks is
consistently very high,1 and the controversy surrounding the issue means many may have strong
biases. To overcome this uphill battle, the Negative will likely have to dig deeper and think
harder to find arguments with a strong offense. One intuitive argument that will be common is a
“black market” Negative. This argument claims that universal background checks will
incentivize prospective gun buyers with criminal records to purchase weapons illegally, such as
from local gangs and criminal enterprises, as well as through online transactions. The argument

1
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/most-americans-agree-with-obama-that-more-gun-buyers-should-get-
background-checks/
Champion Briefs 29

both functions defensively and offensively. It mitigates the efficacy of the affirmative's core
argumentation about reducing gun violence. It further provides offense because shifting gun
sales underground will fund criminal enterprises, potentially causing an increase in violence. The
main weakness in this argument is that it is likely much more difficult and expensive for gun
buyers to purchase weapons illegally, and the inherent risks in buying weapons illegally may
deter many buyers. Thus, a strong version of this Negative will need to prove that the
underground gun market is cheap, easy to access, and under policed by law enforcement.
Moreover, to make the offense of the argument truly impactful, Negative teams should be as
specific as possible about how much worse gun trafficking might become and how much
violence this could lead to through supporting gangs. This is the kind of argument that I suspect
will be common as a type of Negative overview at the top of rebuttal to function as both terminal
defense and a case turn to Affirmative teams; if that’s how you seek to use it, make sure that the
analysis is well-explained and that the argument still maintains the components I’ve described
above, without eating up too much time in rebuttal.
Another Negative argument might be that universal background checks unfairly
discriminate against felons, most whom are minorities, while the majority gun owners are white.2
This gives a more progressive spin against what is otherwise seen to be a liberal policy. I suspect
this argument is going to be fairly stock given its intuitive nature and since it’s one of the chief
complaints in many of the surface-level articles and literature on this topic. That being said, this
argument has a lot of implicit holes that need to be addressed to be run effectively. First and
foremost, the exact implication of the argument needs to be fleshed out via some method of
terminal impacting or framework. How do we weigh discrimination against certain felons over

2
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/
Champion Briefs 30

potential lives saved through background checks? The implicit premise of the discrimination
argument is to say that felons ‘deserve’ guns or should be allowed to have them; this argument
may thus inherently need to rest on some rights based framework which, as I previously
discussed in the Framework and Weighing section, has a lot of its own baggage, especially in the
context of felons. Our society already makes exceptions against felons based in terms of voting
rights and employment. This means that even without universal background checks, felons
would not be in possession of their full rights, so Negative advocates of this position would need
to find a way to provide a uniqueness on the importance of being able to buy a gun. Outside of
the rights-based question, though, is a pragmatic one: would felons be truly better off if they had
guns? Why necessarily do they need guns? Answering these kinds of questions may be difficult
for the Negative position here. Even if it may seem intuitively wrong to some that felons should
be treated differently than the rest of society with regards to gun ownership, implicating and
filling in some of the pragmatic holes in this argument can be difficult.
Finally, a “creative” Negative approach on this topic may be to run some type of
“political tradeoff” argument, proving that requiring universal background checks would either
absorb political capital or require concessions on other policy areas that would have detrimental
impacts. I’m not a huge fan of these arguments, mostly because they often rely on very tenuous
links. If you want to run one, though, there are several important links you need to shore up to
make it work. First, you have to prove that background checks would either cause a rollback of
an existing policy or prevent a policy that is likely to pass; the former is preferable to the latter,
because the Affirmative can credibly contest whether the policy in question is truly “likely” to
pass. Second, you need very specific evidence that says background checks uniquely will cause
this tradeoff, as opposed to some other policy, and that identifies a very specific, concrete policy;
Champion Briefs 31

nebulous tradeoffs are often ineffective because their impacts are unclear. I would also guess that
you’re more likely to find stronger evidence and warrants for a tradeoff with other forms of gun
control, rather than something completely unrelated like healthcare or education. Finally, the
impacts of the trade-off need to somehow outweigh the impacts of background checks
themselves, or the tradeoff can be easily beaten back with the right weighing.
Good Luck!
About Harrison Hurt
Harrison Hurt is a Public Forum coach for the Walt Whitman Speech and Debate team in
Bethesda, Maryland. This year, his students have collected a total of five bids to the Tournament
of Champions, championed Blake, quarter-finaled at Harvard, and won top speaker at Columbia.
Before coaching for Whitman, Harrison debated in Public Forum for four years at Poly Prep
Country Day School in Brooklyn, New York. As a debater, he accumulated twelve bids to the
Tournament of Champions and championed several national circuit tournaments, including
Harvard, NCFL, Blake, Villiger, and NDCA. He also won the round robins held at Blake, Laird
Lewis, and Bronx. He made it to semis or further at the main tournaments of Wake Forest,
Bronx, Lexington, Emory, and Laird Lewis. In both his junior and senior years, he finished in the
top ten at NSDA Nationals and broke at the Tournament of Champions. He earned numerous
speaker awards, including top speaker at Bronx, second speaker at Yale, and second speaker at
the Tournament of Champions. Harrison is a freshman at Georgetown University’s Walsh
School of Foreign Service, where he plans to major in International Political Economy.
Champion Briefs 32
Champion Briefs
November 2017
Public Forum Brief
General
Information
General Information Nov/Dec 2017

General Information
Foreword: We, at Champion Briefs, feel that having deep knowledge about a topic is just as
valuable as formulating the right arguments. Having general background knowledge about the
topic area helps debaters form more coherent arguments from their breadth of knowledge. As
such, we have compiled general information on the key concepts and general areas that we feel
will best suit you for in- and out-of-round use. Any strong strategy or argument must be built
from a strong foundation of information; we hope that you will utilize this section to help build
that foundation.
Champion Briefs 34

Gun Violence Statistics
Summary

Champion Briefs 35

The Effect of Guns

Gun Possession

Comparatively, the United States owns most of the guns in
the world, and thus has most of the gun violence. Americans
own half, or about 310 million, of the estimated 650 million
civilian-owned guns worldwide. India is second, with a
minimal 46 million. However, it is impossible to measure
the exact number of civilian-owned firearms due to illegal
trade and global conflict. America owns more funs ger
capita with 89 firearms per 100 people. Yemen comes in
second per capita, at 55 guns per 100 people.
The United States now owns 70 million more guns than they
did two decades ago. This is a 71% increase in gun
ownership. Overall, Americans own 265 million guns,
which is more than one gun for every American adult.
Broken down, this means that 55 million Americans own
guns. 300,000 to 600,000 of the guns in America are stolen
every year.
Looking at the population of Americans who own guns, most of them are male and/or white.
White men are more likely to be gun owners, as 48% say their own a gun, comp ared to 24% of
nonwhite men and white women. The education gap is another important distinction in gun
possession. Just over 30% of those with a high school diploma or some college education own
Champion Briefs 36

guns, while a quarter of those with bachelor’s degrees. This is even further exacerbated among
whites, where 40% of those without college degrees own guns and 26% of college graduates own
them.
The important facet of gun possession is the culture that exists among gun owners. About three-
quarters of gun owners say that they couldn’t see themselves not ownng a gun in their lifetime.
This is a consistent finding among all groups who own guns, regardless of race or education.
This is a typical thought among those who see owning a gun as part of their identity.
Gun Violence

The US makes up only 5% of the world’s population, and holds 31% of mass shooters in the
world. From 1966 to 2012, the US had 90 mass shootings. The Philippines came in second at 18
mass shootings. It is clear that violence as a result of firearms within the United States is at
massive proportions. 93 Americans
are killed with guns on an average
day. This means that there are nearly
12,000 gun homicides in a year.
However, it isn’t just homicides. 62%
of firearms deaths in the United States
are suicides. Further, for every one
person killed with guns, two more end up injured.
Breaking down the murders that happen every day because of guns, the first large statistic is that
of young adults.
Seven children and teens are killed every single day. Suicide and homicide are the second and
third leading causes of death among teens, after unintentional injury. 88% of the time, firearms
Champion Briefs 37

were the instrument of death in teen homicide. Within the statistics for suicide, guns were used
41% of the time. Non-firearm injuries cause death only one out of every 760 cases, but when
firearms are involved, 25% of firearm injuries are fatal for youth. Homicide and suicide rate have
increased overall, as well.
The next important statistic relates to women and firearms. In an average month, there are
50 women who fall victim to death by intimate partners in the United States. A women’s risk of
homicide increases greatly if her male abuser owns a gun. Unless the abuser is a convicted felon,
there is no provision banning abusers from owning guns. The only law that relates is a U.S.
Supreme Court cases from June 2016, Voisine v. United States, which found that reckless
abusers can be banned from having guns. Due to the massive amount of guns in the US,
American women, when compared to women in similar countries, are 11 times more likely to be
murdered with firearms. Between the years of 1980 and 2008, more than 65% of women
murdered by their spouses in America were killed with guns.
What Are Gun Rights?

Federal

The current federal laws regarding gun rights rest in the Constitution and within the federal penal
code. The largest right regarding guns resides within the second amendment, which reads as
follows:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Federal gun laws that are meant to restrict the above amendment are aimed at regulation. They
relate to the manufacturing, possession, transfer, record keeping, destruction, and transport of
guns, as well as control ammunition and firearms accessories. The enforcement agency
Champion Briefs 38

responsible for upholding and enforcing these laws is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives (ATF). Below are the major laws that the ATF is in charge of.
The National Firearms Act
This law was signed on 1934, and rests within the Internal Revenue Code. It relates to the
manufacture and transfer of firearms. There is a federal tax on manufacture, sale and transfer of
particular firearms as a result of the NFA. Currently, there are some registration requirements on
machine guns, short-barreled shotguns or rifles, and silencers. However, almost all handguns are
excluded from these requirements.
The Federal Firearms Act
The FFA of 1938 created a license requirement for all gun manufacturers, importers, and sellers.
This act requires licensees to maintain all customer records and made the transfer of firearms to
certain people illegal. This includes transfer of firearms to convicted felons, as felony possession
of a gun is against the law. In 1968, the FFA itself was repealed, but its provisions were
reinstated as a part of the Gun Control Act.
The Gun Control Act
The GCA of 1968 aimed at revising the NFA and FFA while keeping many of its provisions.
This act instated a minimum age for firearm purchasers, and required all firearms have a serial
number on the gun. This act includes most of the provisions listed in the two acts above as well.
The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act
The FOPA Act of 1986 significantly amended the GCA. It’s goal was to liberalize the
restrictions that existed on those attempting to sell firearms. It legalized sales by licensed dealers
away from the location on their license, as well as limited the number of inspections that could
be done by the ATF without a warrant. It also prevented the federal government from
Champion Briefs 39

maintaining a central database of firearms dealer records. It repealed public safety provisions
such as eliminating the sales records of ammunition transfers. This act, as shown by its name,
was intended to expand the protection given to gun owners through the second amendment.
The Brady Act
This act is perhaps one of the most infamous laws that exists regarding gun rights. It originally
wanted to impose a five-day waiting period for review of the prospective handgun purchaser
before the sale of a gun could be completed. However, this check is now instant, but can be
extended to three days if the check results aren’t clear at first. Persons with a federal firearms
license or one from the state are not subject to the waiting period.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban
The AWB was a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It was
intended to prohibit manufacture and transfer or semi-automatic assault weapons, as well as the
transfer and possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. It also banned 19 different
models of assault weapons.
National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act
The NICS Improvement Amendments Act intended to incentivize states financially to provide
info to the NICS database. It was hoped states would give information relevant to whether the
person should be buying firearms, such as names or identifying information, including those
committed to mental institutions. However, it only gave grants to these states on a volunteer
basis, and there was no mandated information.
State
Champion Briefs 40

State laws differ based on your state, as some states have expanded gun rights while others have
attempted to enact much stricter laws than those that exist on the federal level. In order to
accurately identify state trends and laws, either search for laws in your state or go to the
following link. It is noted that most Republican states have expanded these gun rights, and is a
trend that has continued for decades.

Status Quo
The United States currently does have a background check system. Briefly discussed
above, it is known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. The
Federal Bureau of
Investigation is currently in
charge of the entirety of the
system. The process is
meant to be fast. After a
prospective buyer files the
needed forms, someone
with a Federal Firearms
License initiates a background check using a computer. The check examines three different
databases: The National Crime Information Center, the Interstate Identification Index, and the
NICS Index. The check is typically done within minutes, even though the FBI could hold the
check for up to 3 days. If the checks aren’t approved or denied within 3 days, the purchase can
proceed anyway. Currently, background checks are not required for any intrastate firearm
transfer, as long as it is done between private parties. States are also allowed to implement their
Champion Briefs 41

own programs. In these cases, states become the point of contact between FFL dealers who
complete the background checks and the NICS.
In this case in which a buyer believes he or she has been wrongly denied the opportunity
to purchase a weapon, they can claim the record used as basis for the rejection is invalid or
challenge the truth of the record. In 2014, 90,895 rejections occurred, and 4,411 were overturned.
Most appeals are not granted. Overall, these rejections are typically because of crime
convictions, domestic violence conviction, or unlawful user to a controlled substance. There
continues to be a backlog of appeals totaling in the thousands.
Works Cited
Cage, Feilding, and Gabriel Dance. "Gun Laws in the US, State by State – interactive." The
Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Jan. 2013. Web.
Fox, Kara. "America's Gun Culture vs. the World in 5 Charts." CNN. Cable News Network, 04
Oct. 2017. Web.
Gorman, Michele. "Guns Are Used in More than Half of Homicides with Female Victims, the
CDC Has Found." Newsweek. Newsweek, 21 July 2017. Web.
"Gun Violence by the Numbers." EverytownResearch.org. Every Town Research, 22 June 2017.
Web.
Jervis, Rick. "3% of Americans Own Half the Country's 265 Million Guns." USA Today. Gannett
Satellite Information Network, 22 Sept. 2016. Web.
Johnson, Kevin. "FBI Official: 'Perfect Storm' Imperiling Gun Background Checks." USA Today.
Gannett Satellite Information Network, 20 Jan. 2016. Web.
"Key Federal Acts Regulating Firearms." Smart Gun Laws. Law Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, n.d. Web.
Champion Briefs 42

Lopez, German. "America's Unique Gun Violence Problem, Explained in 17 Maps and Charts."
Vox. Vox, 02 Oct. 2017. Web.
Mitchell, Travis. "1. The Demographics of Gun Ownership." Pew Research Center's Social &
Demographic Trends Project. Pew Research, 22 June 2017. Web.
"National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)." FBI. FBI, 03 May 2016. Web.
"Teen Homicide, Suicide and Firearm Deaths." Child Trends Data Bank. Child Trends, Dec.
2015. Web.
Champion Briefs 43
Champion Briefs
November 2017
Public Forum Brief
Pro Arguments with

Con Responses
Pro Arguments with Con Responses Nov/Dec 2017
Pro: American public supports background checks
Argument: The vast majority of Americans support the implementation of universal

background checks. As a democracy, the US should implement this policy.

Warrant: Americans have shown broad support for the expansion of background checks.

Hannah Fingerhut “5 facts about guns in the United States” Pew Research Center.
01/05/16. <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/05/5-facts-about-guns-
in-the-united-states/>

“Americans have shown broad and consistent support for expanded background
checks for gun purchasers. In July, 85% of the public – including large majorities of
both Republicans (79%) and Democrats (88%) – favored making private gun sales and
sales at gun shows subject to background checks. There also was substantial bipartisan
support for laws to prevent people with mental illness from purchasing guns.”
Warrant: 90% of the public supports universal background checks.
Scott Clement “90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns.
Why isn’t this a political slam dunk?” Washington Post. 04/03/13. <
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/03/90-percent-of-
americans-want-expanded-background-checks-on-guns-why-isnt-this-a-political-
slam-dunk/?utm_term=.7e986db60164>
“Nine in 10 Americans support expanding background checks on gun purchases in a

recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, an extraordinary level of agreement on a
political issue and a finding that's been duplicated in nearly every major public poll.
Surveys show broad support spans gun owners and non-gun owners alike,
Democrats and Republicans, and even among members of the National Rifle
Champion Briefs 45
Association, whose leadership is leading efforts to spike the measure from pending
legislation.”

Warrant: Other forms of gun control are more controversial and have less support.


“And Pew Research isn’t the only polling organization with these findings. In 2013, a
number of other polling organizations found similar results about public views of
background checks, asking slightly different questions. A review of more recent polls on
this question finds it’s still the case. Other proposals were more contentious, however.
Fully 85% of Democrats, but just 55% of Republicans, supported a federal database
to track gun sales. And while 70% of Democrats favored a ban on assault-style
weapons, only about half of Republicans (48%) did so.”
Warrant: Those who oppose background checks are just a very active minority.
Scott Clement “90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns.
Why isn’t this a political slam dunk?” Washington Post. 04/03/13. <
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/03/90-percent-of-
americans-want-expanded-background-checks-on-guns-why-isnt-this-a-political-
slam-dunk/?utm_term=.7e986db60164>
“Another factor, argues political scientist Jonathan Bernstein, is that few Americans are
taking to the streets to demand universal background checks. Ninety percent of
people answering a phone survey the same way is not the same as hordes of voters
protesting in the streets or badgering their congressmen. The lopsided level of activism
was clear in a January Pew Research poll, where respondents who prioritized gun
Champion Briefs 46
rights were more than four times as likely as those backing gun control to donate
money to an organization that takes a position on gun policy. More than four in 10
gun rights supporters (42 percent) reported participating in at least one type of
political activism on the issue, compared with 25 percent of those prioritizing gun
control.”
Impact: As a democracy, the US ought to implement the will of the people
CNN Political Unit “CNN Poll: Popular background checks also cause worry” CNN.
04/10/13. <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/cnn-poll-popular-
background-checks-also-cause-worry/>
“President Barack Obama on Monday angrily chided lawmakers reluctant to back gun
control legislation, saying the overwhelming support for measures like universal
background checks among the American people should force action in Congress.
‘If our democracy's working the way it's supposed to, and 90% agree on something,
in the wake of a tragedy, you would think this would not be a heavy lift,’ Obama
said, saying the Republicans who were vowing to filibuster the bill were, in essence,
telling Americans that their ‘opinion doesn't matter.’ The president made his
comments at an event in Connecticut, the state that was the scene last December of a
horrific elementary school shooting that left 20 young students and six adults dead. The
incident spurred the current push for legislation to deal with gun violence.”
Impact: Policy makers will be rewarded for voting for background checks
Beton Strong “RELASE: Gun Owners Overwhelmingly Support Background Checks,

See NRA as Out of Touch, New Poll Finds” Center for American Progress.
11/17/15.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2015/11/17/125618/release-
Champion Briefs 47
gun-owners-overwhelmingly-support-background-checks-see-nra-as-out-of-
touch-new-poll-finds/>
“The NRA is out of touch with gun owners on gun safety issues such as background
checks: Only 29 percent of gun owners feel that the NRA represents their thinking
when it comes to background checks, with 62 percent saying the NRA is out of line
with them on the issue. That fits in with a broader feeling that the NRA has lost it way:
59 percent of gun owners feel that the NRA used to be an organization devoted to gun
safety but that it has been overtaken by lobbyists and the interests of gun manufacturers
and lost its original purpose and mission. Nearly one-third of NRA members believe the
organization has lost its way. ‘The big picture from this survey is clear: Gun owners
overwhelmingly support background checks,’ said Tom Jensen, director of Public
Policy Polling. ‘And that includes gun owners who are Republicans and gun owners
who are NRA members. Gun owners want politicians to take action on these issues,
and if anything, they will reward them for it. Gun owners also send a clear message
that the NRA has lost its way and does not represent them on this issue.’”
Analysis: Use this argument to frame the debate in terms of likelihood of gun control
legislation being passed. Argue that universal background checks are the most likely form
of gun control to be passed, with broad bipartisan support, and absent this policy gridlock
will prevent gun control of any form from being passed. This allows you to circumvent neg
arguments about other forms of gun control being better.

Champion Briefs 48
A/2: American public supports background checks

Answer: Support for background checks is neither bipartisan nor broad.

Warrant: Many Republicans support background checks in theory but not in practice.

“Background checks have proven to be more contentious in practice than in

principle. In May 2013, after the Senate rejected the Manchin-Toomey bill to extend
background checks to internet and gun show sales, we found that the public was more
supportive of background checks in principle than they were of the legislation
aimed at achieving this goal. At the time, 81% favored expanded background checks,
while 73% wanted the background checks bill to pass. Among Republicans – especially
Tea Party Republicans – support for background-check legislation was much lower than
for the overall proposal: 63% of Tea Party Republicans and leaners supported
expanded background checks but just 28% wanted the background-check bill to
pass. When we asked those who supported tougher background checks, but opposed the
bill, to describe in their own words why they felt that way, the responses were revealing:
Many voiced suspicions that the bill would go too far or that it would be a ‘slippery
slope’ toward stricter gun controls.”
Warrant: A majority of Americans believe background checks would be a slippery slope to a

national gun registry.
Champion Briefs 49
“One day before the full Senate begins debate over a gun control bill that includes
increased background checks, a new national survey indicates that nearly nine in ten
Americans support tougher background checks. But according to a CNN/ORC
International poll released Wednesday, a majority also fear that increased background
checks would lead to a federal registry of gun owners that could allow the
government to take away legally owned weapons.”
Warrant: Most Americans don’t support a national gun registry
“‘Support for background checks has fallen slightly since January, possibly as memories
of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings have started to fade,’ adds Holland. A major
concern raised by gun owners is the prospect that background checks will lead to a
federal registry of gun owners and their firearms, and that is something that 55% of
Americans would oppose, according to the poll. And two-thirds believe that if the
government did keep a list of gun owners, it would eventually use that list to take
guns away from people who own them.”
Warrant: Support for background checks depends on the specific implementation
“The most popular is the gun show proposal, which 83% of all Americans support. Seven
in ten favor background checks on prospective buyers trying to purchase a gun from
Champion Briefs 50
another person who is not a gun dealer but owns a gun and wants to sell it. Least
popular is a proposal to require background checks for buyers who are purchasing
a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift. Support for that proposal
drops to 54% - still a majority, but not as popular as gun show requirements.”

Analysis: Use this argument to beat back the pro’s warrant that there is a broad consensus
for background checks. Though people may say they’re supportive of universal background
checks, you can do warrant-level weighing by discussing how your analysis is more specific
to the implementation of background checks. If people don’t actual support background
checks once they’re implemented, the pro gets no offense here.

Answer: There will be mass backlash from pro-gun groups.

Warrant: Colorado’s pro-gun groups became more active after the passage of universal
background checks

Stephanie Condon “Colorado gun laws go into effect facing immediate backlash” CBS
News. 07/01/2013. <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-gun-laws-go-into-
effect-facing-immediate-backlash/>

“Nevertheless, the new rules were met with skepticism, anger and concern in Colorado,
where gun ownership is common. Gun dealers say the new laws spurred residents to
buy guns and magazines before the new laws took effect, and the figures on
background checks back that up, the Denver Post reported: The state processed 71
percent more background checks from January to May of this year than it did over
the same time frame in 2012. Meanwhile, a Colorado magazine and accessory
manufacturer over the weekend handed out hundreds of 20- and 30-round
magazines for free in a ‘Farewell to Arms’ festival in Glendale, Colorado. The first
1,500 adults at the event received a free magazine, while latecomers could purchase up to
Champion Briefs 51
five magazines at $10 each. Thousands attended the event, hosted by the gun rights group
Free Colorado, CBS Denver reported.”
Warrant: Politicians don’t support gun laws because of political backlash
Ted Barrett, Tom Cohen “Senate rejects expanded gun background checks” CNN.
04/18/13. <http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-
vote/index.html>
“In a major defeat for supporters of tougher gun laws, the U.S. Senate on Wednesday
defeated a compromise plan to expand background checks on firearms sales as well
as a proposal to ban some semi-automatic weapons modeled after military assault
weapons. The votes were on a series of amendments to a broad package of gun laws
pushed by President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in the aftermath of the
Newtown school massacre in December. However, fierce opposition by the powerful
National Rifle Association led a backlash by conservative Republicans and a few
Democrats from pro-gun states that doomed key proposals in the gun package, even
after they had been watered down to try to satisfy opponents.”
Analysis: If it is the case that people do not actually support the implementation of
background checks, there will be significant political backlash that makes it difficult to pass
gun legislation in the future and precludes proper implementation of this law. Weigh by
explaining why the gun legislation that would be passed up in the future would be more
beneficial and supported by wider coalitions and thus it’s not worth passing up future
progress for an ineffective and unpopular policy.

Champion Briefs 52
Pro: Background checks prevent firearm trafficking

Argument: Lack of background checks allows gun traffickers to easily purchase guns for
resale to criminals.

Warrant: There is no federal law against gun trafficking

Brian Schatz “Amazingly, There Is No Federal Law Against Gun Trafficking” Mother
Jones. 10/13/16. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/gun-trafficking-
law-maloney-kenneth-thompson/
“According to the ATF, 50,000 firearms are illegally trafficked across state lines
every year. Yet the closest thing to a federal anti-gun trafficking law is a prohibition
on ‘straw purchasing’—when someone buys guns for people who legally can not.
But that offense is usually prosecuted as a minor paperwork violation and rarely
results in prison time, even if the purchaser was part of a larger gunrunning ring. The
penalties for straw purchasers ‘are very, very low,’ says Lindsay Nichols, a senior
attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Convicted buyers get ‘maybe one
year of probation, maybe: some community service.’ Gunrunners who face serious time
will often get sent away on related charges, such as drug or financial offenses, which
carry stiff penalties.”

Warrant: A universal background check law makes unlicensed sales prosecutable
Jim Kessler et al “Would Universal Background Checks Make A Difference?” Third

Way. 1/20/13. http://www.thirdway.org/memo/would-universal-background-
checks-make-a-difference
“A universal background check law would make the sale of a firearm from an
unlicensed individual to a criminal illegal and prosecutable. This alone would have a
Champion Briefs 53
huge impact on ‘gun trafficking’—which is a term of art but not currently an actual
federal crime. It would help dry up the shadow market by requiring background
checks for those who seek to stockpile firearms (perhaps purchased through gun
shows, the internet, newspaper want ads, and elsewhere) for the purposes of selling to
criminals and minors.”
Warrant: Current requirements need to be expanded
Neera Tanden et al “Preventing Gun Violence in Our Nation” Center for American
Progress. 1/12/13.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2013/01/12/49510/preven
ting-gun-violence-in-our-nation/
“Federal law requires federally licensed dealers to report to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives when an individual purchases multiple
handguns within a five-day period. These reports provide crucial information for
the bureau in criminal gun-trafficking investigations. This type of reporting is not
generally required for multiple sales of assault rifles, however, despite the fact that
many such guns are increasingly used in crimes and are illegally trafficked. We
applaud the administration for the 2011 ATF order expanding multiple-sale reporting to
require certain dealers on the southwest border to alert the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives about multiple sales of assault rifles. This policy is helping
interdict illegal gun trafficking into Mexico. We can do more, however, to deter the
illegal acquisition of military-grade assault rifles here at home.”

Warrant: Guns are trafficked across the border because US gun laws are so lax

Violence Policy Center “Gun Trafficking” Violence Policy Center. 2015. <
http://www.vpc.org/regulating-the-gun-industry/gun-trafficking/>

Champion Briefs 54
“New semiautomatic assault weapons are trafficked across the border from the
United States because it is the easiest and cheapest place in the world to purchase
them, thanks to weak gun laws and a deliberate strategy by the U.S. gun industry to
design and sell military-style weapons to civilians. The government of Mexico
recovered and submitted more than 99,000 firearms to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing in the years 2007 to 2011. Of
those, the vast majority — more than 68,000 — were sourced to the United States.”

Impact: Trafficked weapons are used to commit crimes.

Brian Schatz “Amazingly, There Is No Federal Law Against Gun Trafficking” Mother
Jones. 10/13/16. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/gun-trafficking-
law-maloney-kenneth-thompson/

“‘Gun traffickers know what’s going on,’ Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson
recently told me. Thompson made going after gunrunners a personal crusade during his
time as DA, taking more than 550 illegal guns off the streets between 2014 and his
untimely death from cancer late last week. ‘They can make a substantial amount of
money trafficking in these weapons, and the penalties are not that severe,’ Thompson
said. ‘They get people who have clean records to buy these guns and give them to
these gun traffickers, knowing that they’ll be used to commit crimes. Gun violence
and gun trafficking go hand in hand.’”
Impact: Lax straw purchasing laws allow weapons to be trafficked across the border
Julia E. Sweig “A Strategy to Reduce Gun Trafficking and Violence in the Americas”
Council on Foreign Relations. 7/29/13. < https://www.cfr.org/report/strategy-
reduce-gun-trafficking-and-violence-americas>
Champion Briefs 55
“Six years later, little has changed: the U.S. civilian firearms market continues to
supply the region's transnational criminal networks with high-powered weaponry
that is purchased with limited oversight, especially from unlicensed individuals at gun
shows, flea markets, pawn shops, and on the Internet. Lax U.S. gun laws enable
straw purchasers, including those under investigation in Operation Fast and Furious, to
legally procure thousands of AK-47 and AR-15 variants every year and traffic them
across the border to sell them illegally to criminal factions.”
Impact: Weapons in other countries can be traced to US manufacturers
“U.S. government data highlights the problem. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) Web-based firearm trace request and analysis system,
eTrace, enables law enforcement officials to collaborate with ATF to track the path of
recovered weapons from the manufacturer or importer though the distribution chain to the
first retail purchase. Over 70 percent of the ninety-nine thousand weapons recovered
by Mexican law enforcement since 2007 were traced to U.S. manufacturers and
importers. Likewise, 2011 eTrace data for the Caribbean indicates that over 90 percent
of the weapons recovered and traced in the Bahamas and over 80 percent of those in
Jamaica came from the United States. The ATF has not released data for Central
America, but the numbers are likely similar.”
Impact: Easy access to firearms increases homicides in Latin America and the Caribbean
Champion Briefs 56
“The UN Office on Drugs and Crime reports that easy access to firearms is a major
factor influencing homicide trends in Latin America and the Caribbean; the gun-
related homicide rate in Latin America exceeded the global average in 2010 by more
than 30 percent. The World Bank estimates that crime and violence cost Central
America nearly 8 percent of its GDP when accounting for the costs of law enforcement,
security, and health care.”
Impact: Lack of oversight in the US harms Mexico’s efforts to prevent gun trafficking
“The U.S. government has empowered law enforcement in the region to recover and
investigate the source of weapons used by criminal factions. In December 2009, the ATF
introduced the Spanish version of eTrace. Since 2012, the State Department has funded
the Organization of American States' (OAS) program to provide firearm-marking
equipment and training to law enforcement in twenty-five countries. Yet, these efforts
notwithstanding, Mexican authorities intercepted only 12.7 percent of the roughly
250,000 guns smuggled into Mexico between 2010 and 2012, while the ATF
intercepted no more than 2 percent. In effect, the United States undermines its own
efforts at preventing arms trafficking with its unwillingness to strengthen oversight
of the firearms industry and lukewarm support for multilateral agreements.”
Analysis: The key thing to emphasize with this argument is that though there still may be a
black market for firearms, background checks make it easier to prosecute those who
facilitate the black market. Emphasize how prosecution is the only way to check back on
the existing market.

Champion Briefs 57
A/2: Background checks prevent firearm trafficking

Answer: Private sales don’t account for most gun crime, the black market does.

Warrant: Private sales don’t account for most gun crime, the black market does.

Danielle Kurtzleben “Resarch Suggests Gun Background Checks Work, But They’re Not
Everything” NPR. 1/9/16. < http://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/462252799/research-
suggests-gun-background-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything>

“But data suggests that gun shows don't directly supply many of the guns used in
crimes. Spokespeople from the National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports
Foundation, a trade group for gun sellers, both also pointed NPR to government data
showing that less than 1 percent of prison inmates in 1997 said they got their guns
from gun shows. Meanwhile, nearly 80 percent obtained their guns from friends,
family or "street" (illegal) sources. All of this very well may mean that, as gun-rights
advocates like Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio often point out, criminals will
simply obtain guns through some avenue other than stores. That would mean that
background checks don't deter those people, and, therefore, that expanding them to
more online or private or gun show sales would do little.”
Analysis: Use this argument to explain how there still will exist an incentive for criminals to buy
on the black market. You can also emphasize how sending more people to the black market is
actually worse than the status quo because it means you have even less regulation and control
over the market. This is clearly an ineffective mechanism for the regulation the pro wants.
Answer: Background checks don’t account for guns acquired through theft.
Warrant: Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US

Champion Briefs 58
Brian Fresksos “Up to 600,000 guns are stolen every year in the US – that’s one every
minutes” The Guardian. 9/21/16. < https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2016/sep/21/gun-theft-us-firearm-survey>
“Privately owned firearms are stolen in America with alarming frequency: between
300,000 and 600,000 every year, according to a new survey of gun ownership by
researchers at Harvard and Northeastern universities. At the high end, that’s more than
1,600 guns stolen every day, more than one every minute. That’s enough firearms to
provide a weapon for every instance of gun violence in the country each year –
several times over. An examination by the Trace of data from police departments in 25
large American cities found that thousands of firearms were reported stolen from cars
last year, and that in most cities, the numbers are on the rise. Some police officials
say thieves are breaking into vehicles for the specific purpose of finding firearms.”

Analysis: Again, you want to make the analysis that criminals who want to commit violent
crimes are not going to be deterred by a background check law. They will take any means
necessary to obtain weapons and clearly, with theft already as an option, they will find
ways to obtain firearms.

Answer: Background checks don’t effectively reduce gun violence.

Warrant: Murder rates between states with and without background checks are not
significantly different.

Jens Ludwig PhD, Philip Cook, PhD “Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated With
Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act” Journal of the
American Medical Association. 8/2/2000.
<http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192946#qundefined>
Champion Briefs 59
“Based on the assumption that the greatest reductions in fatal violence would be within
states that were required to institute waiting periods and background checks,
implementation of the Brady Act appears to have been associated with reductions in the
firearm suicide rate for persons aged 55 years or older but not with reductions in
homicide rates or overall suicide rates. However, the pattern of implementation of the
Brady Act does not permit a reliable analysis of a potential effect of reductions in
the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets. The
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,1 implemented in February 1994, provides
an unusual opportunity to conduct a systematic evaluation of a national system of
background checks and waiting periods for the purchase of handguns from federally
licensed firearms dealers (FFLs). The intent of the legislation was to interrupt sales of
firearms to persons who are legally prohibited from purchasing them. A total of 18 states
and the District of Columbia already met requirements, but dealers and law enforcement
officials in the other states ("treatment" states) had to institute new more stringent
procedures. The result is a sort of natural experiment, with 1 group of states in the change
or treatment condition and the no-change states serving as ‘controls.’”
Warrant: Most guns used in crimes aren’t purchased through retail distribution channels
CD Michel “Why universal background checks won’t work” The Hill. 4/17/13. <
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/294213-why-universal-
background-checks-wont-work>
“The story gets worse. The same study notes that just as many crime guns were
acquired by acquaintances, be they family or friends (this rather lose category also
includes fellow criminals, who are equally unlikely to participate in “universal”
background checks). Totaled, nearly 80 percent of crime guns are already outside of
retail distribution channels (which are 14 percent of crime gun sources) and outside
of transactions made by the law abiding folks who would participate in ‘universal’
Champion Briefs 60
background checks at gun shows (0.7 percent). When 80 percent of the problem is not
addressed by legislation, even if the law was enforced it would be nearly useless.”
Analysis: This allows you to short-circuit the pro arguments about impacts to violence. For the
reasons outlined above, it’s clear that criminals were still able to obtain weapons and thus
background checks don’t make anyone safer.

Champion Briefs 61
Pro: Background checks prevent those with mental illnesses from

obtaining firearms

Argument: Currently, lack of background checks allows those diagnosed with mentally
illnesses to purchase firearms. This endangers the public and the firearm owners
themselves.

Warrant: Violent actors often have histories of mental illness

Donna Cooper “Cuts to Mental Health Services Could Lead to More Spree Killings”
Center for American Progress. 7/31/12.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-
crime/news/2012/07/31/11871/cuts-to-mental-health-services-could-lead-to-
more-spree-killings/>
“To be sure, a person with mental illness is not de facto a violent person. Nor are they
likely to cause human carnage by embarking on a shooting rampage. But spree killers
share a number of traits, and one of them is being troubled. In the aftermath of one of
the most infamous incidents of spree killing—the Columbine High School rampage in
1999—the Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center examined 37 school
attacks involving 41 student assailants from 1974 and 2000. They found a disturbing mix
of mental illness and inaction: 93 percent of assailants exhibited behavior that caused
a school official, parent, or law enforcement officer to be concerned before the
attack. 81 percent of assailants let at least one person know that they were thinking
of or planning an attack. 78 percent of the assailants “exhibited a history of suicide
attempts or suicidal thoughts.” 66 percent of attackers were known to be real
threats by at least one person; in nearly every case, the person who knew this was a
peer, friend, or sibling. 34 percent of the assailants had a mental health evaluation
prior to the attack. 17 percent of the assailants “had been diagnosed with mental
health or behavior disorder prior to the attack.””
Champion Briefs 62
Warrant: Lack of background checks makes it easy for those with mental illnesses to obtain
firearms.
David Callahan “Lax Gun Laws Amplify the Negative Effects of Mental Illness” Demos.
12/15/12. < http://www.demos.org/blog/lax-gun-laws-amplify-negative-effects-
mental-illness>
“There will always be mental illness in societies. But thanks to lax gun laws, deranged
people in the United States can easily become heavily armed deranged people.
People with mental illness are not legally allowed to buy guns, but they often can —
and easily. According to a study last year, Seung-Hui Cho "was a prohibited
purchaser under the law, but he was able to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people
because his mental health records were never submitted to the national database."
Jared Loughner, though clearly an unstable person, passed two background checks to buy
the high-powered guns he used. In fact, according to that same study, millions of people
who are not legally allowed to buy guns are not in a national database of prohibited
buyers. In Virginia, which became one of the best states in this area after the Virginia
Tech shooting, tens of thousands of Virginians with mental illness are not in the federal
database that the state uses for background checks.”
Warrant: States are dangerously cutting mental health resources.
Champion Briefs 63
“Prior to the shooting rampage at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater earlier this month,
the accused gunman sent a journal—replete with detailed drawings of his plans for the
deadly assault—to a University of Colorado psychiatrist who he was seeing. The fact that
the Aurora shooting suspect was in touch with a medical professional is an indication that
he fits the profile of a spree killer. Typically mentally disturbed individuals, spree
killers most often plan their attacks and, as a rule, generally tell someone about
their plans—in many cases, a mental health professional. Unfortunately, federal and
state budget cuts mean that individuals with mental illness will find that help is
increasingly harder to come by. Between 2009 and 2011, states cumulatively cut
more than $1.8 billion from their budgets for mental health services, according to a
report released in 2011 by the National Alliance on Mental Illness. At least two-thirds of
states significantly slashed spending for services for children and adults living with
mental illness.”
Impact: Cutting funding for mental health services puts people at risk
more-spree-killings/>.

“Failing to appropriately treat and care for mentally ill Americans, especially young
adults, puts us all at risk. Federal efforts to stem the state-level cuts and ensure
sufficient Medicaid funds for behavioral health treatment must be considered a
basic public-safety investment. Yet the National Alliance for Mental Illness finds that,
“The magnitude of these cuts in a number of states is staggering. California cut $587.4
million during this period, New York $132 million and Illinois $113.7 million.” To make
matters worse the current House Republican budget for 2013 proposes to further reduce
federal funding for mental health treatment. Continued funding cuts to mental health
Champion Briefs 64
services will mean that an ever-increasing number of disturbed individuals will be

forced to cope on their own and won’t receive the professional help they need and
deserve. According to National Alliance on Mental Illness, one in four adults—
approximately 57.7 million—experience a mental health disorder in a given year.”
Impact: Many mass shootings have been committed by those with mental illnesses.
mental-illness>
“Still, it does seem obvious that having lots of guns lying around — and no nation has
more than the U.S. — increases the destructive effects of mental illness on society.
Not much is known about Adam Lanza, the Connecticut shooter, but more
information is emerging about his mental problems. At some level, of course, he had
to be mentally ill to massacre classrooms full of children for no reason. Seung-Hui Cho,
the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 people, was profoundly mentally ill. The
Aurora shooter James Holmes sought treatment for mental illness before opening
fire in a Colorado movie theater. Jared Loughner, the Arizona shooter who tried to
assassinate Gabrielle Giffords, was also disturbed. The list goes on.”

Analysis: This argument allows you to explain that the easy availability of firearms coupled
with increasingly declining mental health services creates a dangerous combination and
the potential for even more tragedy. The impact here is clear: we need background checks
to prevent people with mental illnesses from being able to obtain weapons that can allow
them to do devastating harm to society, those around them, and themselves. You can weigh
this impact at the end of the round on its sheer strength of link – with universal
background checks, it’s a certainty that firearms don’t get into the hands of those with
mental illnesses.

Champion Briefs 65
A/2: Background checks prevent those with mental illnesses from

obtaining firearms

Answer: Mental illness does not necessarily correlate with gun violence.

Warrant: Studies show that mental illness is not usually linked to crime

Jillian Petersen “Mental Illness Not Usually Linked to Crime, Research Finds” American
Psychological Association. 4/21/14.
<http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/mental-illness-
crime.aspx>

“In a study of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders, only 7.5
percent were directly related to symptoms of mental illness, according to new
research published by the American Psychological Association. Researchers analyzed
429 crimes committed by 143 offenders with three major types of mental illness and
found that 3 percent of their crimes were directly related to symptoms of major
depression, 4 percent to symptoms of schizophrenia disorders and 10 percent to
symptoms of bipolar disorder. “When we hear about crimes committed by people with
mental illness, they tend to be big headline-making crimes so they get stuck in people’s
heads,” said lead researcher Jillian Peterson, PhD. ‘The vast majority of people with
mental illness are not violent, not criminal and not dangerous.’”

Warrant: Fewer than 5 percent of gun-related deaths are caused by individuals with
mental illnesses

Jonathon Metzi et al “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American
Firearms” American Journal of Public Health. February 2015. <
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/>

Champion Briefs 66
“Yet surprisingly little population-level evidence supports the notion that individuals
diagnosed with mental illness are more likely than anyone else to commit gun
crimes. According to Appelbaum,25 less than 3% to 5% of US crimes involve people
with mental illness, and the percentages of crimes that involve guns are lower than
the national average for persons not diagnosed with mental illness. Databases that
track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that
fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001
and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.26”
Warrant: Fears over violence by those with mental illness is largely the result of bias,
rather than fact

Jonathon Metzi et al “Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American
Firearms” American Journal of Public Health. February 2015. <
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/>

“Four assumptions frequently arise in the aftermath of mass shootings in the United
States: (1) that mental illness causes gun violence, (2) that psychiatric diagnosis can
predict gun crime, (3) that shootings represent the deranged acts of mentally ill
loners, and (4) that gun control “won’t prevent” another Newtown (Connecticut school
mass shooting). Each of these statements is certainly true in particular instances. Yet, as
we show, notions of mental illness that emerge in relation to mass shootings
frequently reflect larger cultural stereotypes and anxieties about matters such as
race/ethnicity, social class, and politics. These issues become obscured when mass
shootings come to stand in for all gun crime, and when “mentally ill” ceases to be a
medical designation and becomes a sign of violent threat.”
Warrant: The mentally ill are more likely to be the victims of gun violence.
Champion Briefs 67
Michael Ollove “States Tackle Mental Illness and Gun Ownership” Pew Charitable
Trusts. 3/21/13. <http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2013/03/21/states-tackle-mental-illness-and-gun-
ownership>.
“Many blanched at Cuomo's comments even as states across the country struggle to
achieve a balance between public safety and the rights of the mentally ill on this issue. To
many, Cuomo seemed to suggest that anyone with a mental illness — a broad swath that
includes depression, eating disorders, personality disorders and schizophrenia — is
dangerous even though studies have shown that those with mental illness are only
slightly more likely to commit acts of violence than anyone else. Research shows that
they are more likely to be victims of violence.”

Analysis: Use these cards to argue that the pro’s characterization of those with mental
illnesses being more likely to commit violent crimes simply isn’t based in fact. Thus, it’s
unfair to deny those with mental illnesses of a right afforded to other Americans.

Answer: Records on mental illness are not always accessible and sometimes don’t even
exist.

Warrant: Cuts to mental health spending make it more difficult to identify potentially
dangerous individuals.

Champion Briefs 68
“Spending cuts are likely to make it more difficult to close the gaps in the mental
health information that is supposed to be reported to the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, the point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to
purchase a firearm. Already the criminal justice system and mental health
providers are failing to keep track of known dangerous persons. The best evidence of
this shortcoming is: 17 states have less than 10 mentally ill individuals listed as
prohibited gun purchasers on the federal National Instant Criminal Background
Check System. Six states and the District of Columbia have less than 100 mentally ill
persons listed as prohibited gun purchasers on the system. Since America’s worst
spree shooting at Virginia Tech University five years ago, 14 more spree killings have cut
short 135 lives and injured 167 innocent victims when mentally disturbed and heavily
armed individuals have decided to wreak havoc. More alarmingly, the pace of spree
killings is increasing and so too is the extent of the mayhem.”
Warrant: Many states don’t submit mental health records to the background check database.
mental-illness>
“In fact, according to that same study, millions of people who are not legally allowed to
buy guns are not in a national database of prohibited buyers. In Virginia, which
became one of the best states in this area after the Virginia Tech shooting, tens of
thousands of Virginians with mental illness are not in the federal database that the
state uses for background checks. Many states barely even submit mental health
records to the database, and the federal government has limited clout to force them
to under law. As of last year, 23 states had submitted fewer than 100 such records to
the database; seventeen states had submitted fewer than ten; and four states had
submitted none at all. In addition, many federal agencies with mental health data do not
share these records with the database, contrary to law.”
Champion Briefs 69
Analysis: This allows you to turn the pro’s narrative of declining mental health resources against
them. If people are less likely to be able to obtain the mental health assistance that they need, law
enforcement and medical professionals will not have the records to identify them as potentially
dangerous. Background checks only work if there are sufficient records in the system.

Champion Briefs 70
Pro: Background checks protect victims of domestic violence

Argument: A lack of background checks allows domestic abusers to obtain firearms,
endangering victims.

Warrant: Firearms can escalate domestic violence into lethal encounters.

Winnie Stachelberg et al “Preventing Domestic Abusers and Stalkers from Accessing
Guns” Center for American Progress. 5/9/13.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2013/05/09/60705/preve
nting-domestic-abusers-and-stalkers-from-accessing-guns/>

“Under federal law, individuals convicted of “misdemeanor crimes of domestic
violence” are disqualified from possessing firearms. This is sound public policy, as
domestic violence often involves seemingly low-level violence that can escalate
quickly into lethal encounters. Because domestic violence occurs among individuals
with a familial or intimate relationship who will have repeated contact with each other,
removing firearms from these situations is a crucial tool for protecting victims from
serious injury or death.”

Warrant: Current law doesn’t go far enough to protect victims of domestic abuse.

Guns” Center for American Progress. 5/9/13. <
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2013/05/09/60705/preven
ting-domestic-abusers-and-stalkers-from-accessing-guns/>

“Congress has previously recognized the unique dangers posed by domestic abusers with
guns. In the mid-1990s it enacted legislation to ban domestic-violence misdemeanants
and individuals subject to some domestic-violence restraining orders from buying or
Champion Briefs 71
possessing guns. But the current laws do not go far enough to protect women from
the dangers presented by batterers and stalkers with guns. Federal law that is
currently designed to protect women from gun violence suffers from four key
weaknesses: Background checks are not required on all gun sales, so domestic
abusers prohibited from gun ownership can easily circumvent the gun-ownership
ban by buying a gun from a private seller.”
Warrant: Domestic abusers represent a significant portion of those prohibited from buying
firearms by background checks.

“In the years since domestic-violence offenders have been prohibited from firearm
ownership, they have represented a significant portion of individuals who have
sought to buy guns and been prevented from doing so after a background check.
Between November 1998—when the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System was created—and March 31, 2013, domestic-violence misdemeanor
convictions have accounted for more than 10 percent of gun-sale denials and were
the second-most frequent reason for denial of an application to purchase a firearm
by the FBI. Domestic-violence restraining orders have accounted for another 4.3 percent
of denials over this period. Out of the 2 million denials of applications to purchase a
firearm between November 1998 and March 2013, more than 146,000 applications
have been denied because of the applicant’s history of domestic violence.”
Warrant: Domestic abusers can purchase firearms from private sellers.
Champion Briefs 72

“There is currently a loophole in the federal law, however, that permits a significant
number of guns to change hands without a background check. Sales between private
individuals, for example, are exempted from the background-check requirement,
which means that guns may be sold by private sellers at gun shows, over the
Internet, through classified ads, or through other methods without first conducting
a background check to ensure that the purchaser is legally qualified to possess a
gun. The best estimate is that 40 percent of gun sales every year occur in this manner,
which accounts for more than 6 million gun transfers with no background checks.
Additionally, data from a survey of prison inmates revealed that nearly 80 percent of
those polled who had used a handgun during the commission of a crime had acquired it
from someone who was not a licensed dealer. This gap in the law means that untold
numbers of domestic-violence perpetrators who are banned from buying or
possessing guns because of a misdemeanor conviction or restraining order can easily
purchase guns through private sales. The potential harm to victims of domestic
violence from this scenario is obvious, as demonstrated by the cases below.”

Impact: Victims of domestic violence are likely to be harmed using firearms.

Nikhil Swaminathan “Gun background checks could save women’s lives” Al Jazeera.
3/12/17. <http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-
lines/FaultLinesBlog/2014/3/13/domestic-homicideinamerica.html>

“According to a forthcoming study to be published in the Journal of Urban Health,
Missouri's murder rate jumped 16 percent, with roughly 60 more murders committed
each year from 2008 to 2012 compared with the period before the law's repeal.
Champion Briefs 73
Among the types of murder that spike when background checks aren't required are
domestic-violence homicides. Though estimates vary, more than 40 percent of women
murdered each year are killed by intimate partners, according to a study that
appeared in the British medical journal The Lancet last year. More than half the women
murdered each year are killed with firearms — and in nearly 75 percent of those
deaths, the weapon is a handgun. Female victims of domestic abuse are five times
more likely to be killed if their abuser owns a handgun.”

Impact: In states with background checks, 38% fewer women are killed by intimate partners
each year.
Nikhil Swaminathan “Gun background checks could save women’s lives” Al Jazeera.
3/12/17. < http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-
lines/FaultLinesBlog/2014/3/13/domestic-homicideinamerica.html>
“An analysis of FBI data by the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns shows that in
states where background checks are mandatory, 38 percent fewer women are killed
by intimate partners each year. Some of the lowest female homicide rates in the
country are found in states such as Illinois, Massachusetts and Hawaii, where
background checks are required for all gun purchases, even for private transactions at
places like gun shows. Meanwhile, South Carolina, which does not mandate
background checks between private parties, has the highest female homicide rate in
the country. And, according to the Violence Policy Center, its rate of women killed by
intimate partners is double the national average.”
Analysis: You should emphasize that firearms can escalate already violent situations in the
case of domestic abuse. If the government knows an individual is already prone to violence,
they’re obligated to prevent that individual from acquiring a deadly weapon and the best
way to do that is through universal background checks. You can weigh this argument by
explaining how even though domestic violence won’t cease entirely absent firearms,
background checks ensure that escalation of the situation can be limited and lives can be
saved.
Champion Briefs 74
A/2: Background checks protect victims of domestic violence

Answer: Background checks are ineffective at preventing domestic abusers from obtaining
firearms.

Warrant: Despite background checks, people with domestic violence records are able to
obtain firearms.

Government Accountability Office “Gun Control: Analyzing Available Data Could
Help Improve Background Checks Involving Domestic Violence Records”
United States Government Accountability Office. July 2016.
<http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678204.pdf>

“For fiscal years 2006 to 2015, FBI data show that most NICS checks involving domestic
violence records that resulted in denials were completed before firearm transfers took
place (see table). However, about 6,700 firearms were transferred to individuals with
prohibiting domestic violence records, which resulted in the FBI referring these cases
to DOJ’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for firearm retrieval.
Under federal law, firearm dealers may (but are not required to) transfer a firearm
to an individual if the dealer has not received a response (proceed or denial) from
the FBI after 3 business days.”

Warrant: The information necessary to prevent domestic abusers from obtaining firearms
is not readily available at the federal level.

Government Accountability Office “Gun Control: Analyzing Available Data Could
Help Improve Background Checks Involving Domestic Violence Records”
United States Government Accountability Office. July 2016.
<http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/678204.pdf>

Champion Briefs 75
“FBI data also show that during fiscal year 2015, the FBI completed 90 percent of denials
that involved MCDV convictions within 7 business days, which was longer than for any
other prohibiting category (e.g., felony convictions). The FBI completed 90 percent of
denials that involved domestic violence protection orders in fewer than 3 business days.
According to federal and selected state officials GAO contacted, the information needed
to determine whether domestic violence records—and in particular MCDV
convictions—meet the criteria to prohibit a firearm transfer is not always readily
available in NICS databases and can require additional outreach to state agencies to
obtain information. DOJ has taken steps to help states make prohibiting information
more readily available to NICS—such as through training and grant programs—but does
not monitor the timeliness of checks that result in denials by prohibiting category.
Ongoing monitoring could help the FBI determine if specific prohibiting categories
present greater challenges in making determinations than other categories and, in turn, the
FBI could provide the results to other DOJ entities to help them establish priorities, such
as for grants, state outreach, or training.”
Warrant: Vague sentencing for domestic violence makes background checks ineffective.
Laura Sullivan “Experts: Gun Background Checks Have Big Gaps” NPR. 1/15/11.
<http://www.npr.org/2011/01/15/132942261/experts-gun-background-checks-
have-big-gaps>.
“‘Imagine you're law enforcement and you're sent to retrieve the firearm from the felon
who bought it or the domestic violence offender,’” said Becca Knox, director of research
for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. ‘Not exactly the situation we want to
put our law enforcement officers in.’ Some of the biggest challenges for the database,
experts say, are domestic violence and drug cases, which often have inconclusive
ends. Defendants are sometimes given a year or two to attend treatment, complete
community service or enter therapy before a court decides whether a conviction will
stand. An arrest is not enough to prohibit someone from buying a gun.”
Champion Briefs 76
Warrant: Domestic violence often goes unreported.

DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence “Domestic Violence Facts” DC Coalition
Against Domestic Violence. No date.
<https://www.dccadv.org/img/fck/file/Resources/DCCADV_DomesticViolenceF
acts_Sheet.pdf>
“Only about half of domestic violence incidents are reported to police. African-
American women are more likely than others to report their victimization to police. The
most common reasons for not reporting domestic violence to police are that victims
view the incident as a personal or private matter, they fear retaliation from their
abuser, and they do not believe that police will do anything about the incident. Even
with this dramatic under-reporting, domestic violence calls constitute approximately half
of all violent crime calls to police departments. For example, 49% of the violent crime
calls received by the DC Metropolitan Police Department in 2000 were for domestic
violence incidents.”
Analysis: Use this answer to explain how by nature of domestic violence cases, with their vague
sentencing and lack of consistent record keeping, a background check simply won’t solve the
issue the pro wants it to. This is especially important considering how national background check
laws require the state to turn over records within three days, which often isn’t possible with these
kinds of records. You can use this argument later in the round to do warrant-level weighing,
since pro warrants will likely discuss the benefits of background checks generally. These cards
show, however, why background checks are ineffective in cases of domestic violence
specifically.
Answer: Inadequate forfeiture laws mean domestic abusers don’t have to give up their firearms.
Warrant: Lack of forfeiture laws makes it difficult to prevent domestic violence with a firearm.
Champion Briefs 77
Joel Gunter “Fatally flawed: The loopholes that let domestic abusers keep their guns”
BBC. 04/13/17. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39581887>
“A domestic violence conviction or restraining order will turn up on a federal

background check and prevent a gun sale, but there are no federal laws requiring
convicts to surrender guns they already own. Only 30 states authorise or require
confiscation in the event of a protection order, according to a recent report by the
Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, and application of the law varies wildly. An
Everytown study of cases in Rhode Island between 2012 and 2014 showed that only 5%
of people issued with a protection order were ordered to surrender their guns. In
cases where there was a written record of a firearm threat, that figure rose to just
13%.”
Warrant: Firearm confiscation laws are vague and ineffective.
Joel Gunter “Fatally flawed: The loopholes that let domestic abusers keep their guns”
BBC. 04/13/17. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39581887>
“Of the 30 states that have some law authorising the confiscation of guns following a
protection order, only 11 require the guns be handed to police. Some states allow
firearms to be sold to a licensed dealer. Nine states allow guns to be handed over to
any third party not prohibited from possessing a gun. ‘There's a lot of room for
improvement on the possession side,’ said Shannon Frattaroli, an associate professor at
the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who studies gun use in domestic
violence. ‘Some states place deadlines on surrendering guns and require some kind of
proof presented to court. Some simply say you can't possess a gun but don't take any
steps to enforce it. They're essentially relying on goodwill,’ she said.”

Champion Briefs 78
Analysis: You can use this argument to explain how a background check doesn’t stop a
domestic abuser from purchasing a firearm if they haven’t yet been convicted of domestic
violence (which you argue is unlikely to happen anyway given the reasons listed above).
Thus, if a person is convicted or accused of domestic violence after purchasing firearms, the
police are unlikely to have the legal backing or resources to force them to give it up. Lives
are still lost in a world with background checks.

Champion Briefs 79
Pro: Background checks prevent criminals from obtaining firearms

Argument: Background checks prevent criminals from obtaining firearms, increasing
safety for US citizens.

Warrant: Dangerous people must be preventing from obtaining firearms

Arkadi Gerney and Chelsea Parsons “The Gun Debate 1 Year After Newtown” Center
for American Progress. 12/13/13.
crime/reports/2013/12/13/80795/the-gun-debate-1-year-after-newtown/>

“Prohibit all dangerous people from owning guns. All potentially dangerous
individuals need to be identified as such and prohibited from gun ownership. Many
such people are already covered by the federal law—including felons, fugitives, some
domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill—but there are additional categories
of people who should also be barred from possessing guns, such as violent
misdemeanants, convicted misdemeanant stalkers, and certain domestic abusers
who are not covered by the current law. Many states have already acted to bar such
persons from possessing guns under state laws.”

Warrant: Currently, felons can buy firearms from private sellers.

Neera Tanden et al “Preventing Gun Violence in Our Nation” Center for American
Progress. 1/12/13.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/courts/reports/2013/01/12/495
10/preventing-gun-violence-in-our-nation/>

“The nation’s licensed federal firearms dealers routinely conduct such checks, but under
current federal law, gun transfers by people other than licensed federal firearms
Champion Briefs 80
dealers are exempted from background checks. These so-called “private sellers”—
people who maintain that they are not “engaged in the business” of selling guns —are not
required to perform checks. An estimated 40 percent of the gun transfers that occur
each year in the United States—more than 6 million gun transfers—originate from
private sellers. Such private sellers often congregate at gun shows or sell guns online.
This creates an easy opportunity for dangerous individuals who are ineligible to
possess guns under federal law—felons, persons adjudicated mentally ill, and other
prohibited people—to bypass a background check and obtain a weapon with no
questions asked.”
Warrant: Universal background checks would consolidate the currently broken system

Rick Schmitt “Badly flawed background check system fails to contain firearms sales”
Center for Public Integrity. 6/23/11.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/06/23/4982/badly-flawed-
background-check-system-fails-contain-firearms-sales

“A dozen years after it went fully operational, NICS is still a patchwork operation that,
despite a huge data base, often relies on massively incomplete information. Millions
of pertinent documents – from mental health and drug abuse records to the case
records of accused felons – remain outside the system, in boxes in courthouse
basements or in legal limbo because of state and local laws that prohibit sharing with
the feds. As a result, guns are getting into the hands of people who should never
possess them.”
Warrant: Felons can currently purchase firearms online.
Stephanie Mencimer “Want to Buy a Gun Without a Background Check? Armslist Can
Help” Mother Jones. 2/01/13.
Champion Briefs 81
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/want-buy-gun-without-
background-check-armlist-can-help/>

“Armslist isn’t the only online gun site in the country, but it’s by far the biggest,
especially after KSL.com, a news site owned by the Mormon church, stopped taking gun
ads after the Newtown shooting. These sorts of online operations are a primary target
of proposals from President Obama that would require background checks for
every gun sale, even private ones. When New York City took a look at the online gun
marketplace in 2011, it found more than 25,000 weapons for sale on just 10 websites,
making the internet a significant component of gun industry. The report suggested
that the internet sales were likely tied to a fair amount of crime.”
Impact: Law enforcement killers often obtain guns because of lack of universal background
checks
Chelsea Parsons, Lauren Speigel “9 Things to Know About Gun Violence in

Washington State” Center for American Progress. 10/06/14.
crime/reports/2014/10/16/99130/9-things-to-know-about-gun-violence-in-
washington-state/>

“According to an Everytown for Gun Safety analysis of firearm murders of police
officers in Washington state between 1980 and 2013, at least 61 percent of the
perpetrators of those murders were prohibited from gun possession, primarily
because of previous felony convictions. These individuals should not have been able
to acquire a gun, yet they were able to do so at least in part because of weak gun
laws that do not require a background check for every gun sale. Such laws place
police officers in unnecessary danger as they perform even the most routine duties.”

Champion Briefs 82
Impact: 1 million attempted firearm purchases by convicted felons have been prevented
by background checks

Wesley Lowery “2.1 million gun sales stopped by background checks in 20 years,
Brady report finds” Washington Post. 2/28/14.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/02/28/2-1-
million-gun-sales-stopped-by-background-checks-in-20-years-brady-report-
finds/?utm_term=.fe177d29f7fd>.

“More than 2.1 million illegal firearms sales -- including 1 million attempted
purchases by convicted felons -- have been stopped in the 20 years since the
enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, according to a new report.
But the report released Friday by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence also
stresses that millions of weapons are still being sold to buyers who are prohibited from
owning them. Roughly 40 percent of gun purchases, including guns sold online and at
gun shows by unlicensed sellers, are not subject to the background checks.”
Impact: Gun homicides decrease as a result of background checks
Wesley Lowery “2.1 million gun sales stopped by background checks in 20 years,
Brady report finds” Washington Post. 2/28/14.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/02/28/2-1-
million-gun-sales-stopped-by-background-checks-in-20-years-brady-report-
finds/?utm_term=.fe177d29f7fd>

“’It is clear Brady background checks work. Lives have been saved by the Brady law
as we have seen the undeniable evidence showing gun homicides have decreased
since the law took effect 20 years ago,’ said Dan Gross, president of the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. ‘We need Congress to expand Brady background
Champion Briefs 83
checks to make it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to get guns online,
in classified advertisements or at gun shows.’”
Impact: Missouri saw an increase in homicides after repealing its background check law.
“Repeal of Missouri’s Background Check Law Associated with Increase in State’s

Murders” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 2/17/14.
<https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2014/repeal-of-missouris-
background-law-associated-with-increase-in-states-murders.html>
“Missouri's 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase (PTP) handgun law, which

required all handgun purchasers to obtain a license verifying that they have passed
a background check, contributed to a fourteen percent increase in Missouri's
murder rate, according to a new study from researchers with the Johns Hopkins Center
for Gun Policy and Research. The study, published in the April 2014 issue of Journal of
Urban Health, finds that the law's repeal was associated with additional 49 to 68
murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012. State-level murder data for the
time period 1999-2012 were collected and analyzed from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system. The analyses controlled
for changes in policing, incarceration, burglaries, unemployment, poverty, and other state
laws adopted during the study period that could affect violent crime.”
Analysis: This argument allows you to explain how there are currently loopholes in the
system that allow people who have already been convicted of crimes to obtain dangerous
weapons. You can use this argument to demonstrate how the government has already
recognized that dangerous criminals should not be allowed to obtain firearms, but the lack
of universal background checks makes it possible for this to happen anyway. This will
allow you to get out of con arguments that talk about constitutionality, since there’s already
legal precedent that says criminals shouldn’t be able to obtain firearms. The impacts here
are also very easily weighed later in the round. When people who have already committed
crimes get firearms, they are more likely to use them violently.

Champion Briefs 84
A/2: Background checks prevent felons from obtaining firearms

Answer: The federal background check system has inadequate data to be effective.

Warrant: The federal background check system is riddled with holes.

<https://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/06/23/4982/badly-flawed-
background-check-system-fails-contain-firearms-sales>
“But the so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 has clearly not
improved things much at all, an iWatch News investigation found. And that’s far from
the only problem. The federal background check system, conceived as a first line of
defense against gun crime, remains riddled with data gaps, loopholes and disputes
over just who should be barred – a troubling conclusion brought into sharp relief by the
January shooting spree in Arizona that killed six and wounded 13 others, including Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords.”
Warrant: Many people who shouldn’t buy guns are cleared anyway because of the three-day
limit.
“What’s more, several thousand people each year who are prohibited from buying
guns are cleared to buy them anyway. That is because gaps in the FBI criminal
history data base prevent examiners from completing background checks within the
Champion Briefs 85
three-day time limit set by federal law. The impact of the Brady law is also the subject
of debate. Proponents say the act is one of an amalgam of factors that has brought violent
crime down over the last two decades. But some academics believe the effect has been
minimal because criminals have been able to get guns from other sources.”
Warrant: Felons are able to obtain firearms from other sources.
“Experts say that adds credence to the notion that the really bad guys are getting their
guns elsewhere, through unregulated or illegal sources. ‘The word went out, “You are
going to be denied. You might as well find another means of getting it, either
through the illicit market or through the legal non-NICS markets, such as gun shows
and private transactions,”’ says Alfred Blumstein, a crime expert at Carnegie Mellon
University.”

Warrant: The documents necessary to clear a background check are often inaccessible or
destroyed.


“The criminal history data base the FBI uses to check for felons has its own troubled
history. The good news is that the system contains millions of easily accessible arrest
records. The bad news is that in about half of the cases there is no information about
Champion Briefs 86
how the cases turned out – whether the person was found guilty or not or even
prosecuted at all. Without that information, the FBI cannot make a final decision to
approve or reject an application. Moreover, under the law, a dealer has the right to
transfer a firearm to a purchaser after three days, even if the FBI has not completed the
background check. What that means at the NICS operation center in Clarksburg is that
missing disposition information begins a race against time. Calls are placed to local
courts where the initial charges were filed, in the hope of finding a clerk willing to
run down documents. Often, the documents are in storage. Sometimes, they have
been destroyed.”
Analysis: This response allows you to explain how a background check system isn’t necessarily
a fix-all. In many cases, the issue with completing background checks has to do with state
backlog or even destruction of records. As long as issues continue at the state level, it will be
possible for background checks to prevent felons from obtaining firearms.
Answer: The current background check system is already overburdened.
Warrant: Even with background checks, felons have been able to obtain firearms due to
system backlog.


“Like many states, Maine depends on the FBI to conduct background checks of people
who want to acquire firearms from the state’s federally licensed gun dealers. And like
many states, Maine is a slacker in supplying the records that the FBI depends on to
run those checks. That’s how Raymond Geisel got his guns, including a Glock Model
17 pistol and a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle. Geisel had previously
Champion Briefs 87
been committed to a psychiatric hospital in Bangor, which made him ineligible

under federal law to buy or possess a gun. But because state officials had not
supplied records of his commitment to the FBI, Geisel passed background checks
without being flagged.”
Analysis: You should make the argument that given that the current system already can’t handle
the amount of data it has to go through, flooding the system with even more data is not only
ineffective, but could actually be counterproductive and lead to even slower rates of processing.
Feeding more information into a broken system won’t make anyone safer.
Answer: People can easily lie about their criminal history.
Warrant: People usually aren’t prosecuted for lying about their criminal history when
purchasing a gun.
“Lying about one’s criminal history or background on the form to purchase guns is
fairly common – and a federal offense – but hardly anyone is ever prosecuted. Among
the 67,000 people who failed background checks conducted directly by the FBI in
2009, fewer than 70 ever faced criminal charges, a Justice Department-funded study
published in April found. Justice officials cited a lack of resources.”
Analysis: Given the fact that the Justice Department already lacks the resources to prosecute
those who fail background checks but still purchase guns, there isn’t any incentive for felons to
stop buying weapons if background checks are expanded. An overburdened system already can’t
handle the current cases.
Champion Briefs 88
Pro: Background Checks Prevent Violent Conflict
Argument: Guns within homes often have the result of increasing the likelihood that
conflict turns deadly. By decreasing the proliferation of guns within the United States,
universal background checks make it less likely that minor conflicts become deadly.

Warrant: Universal background checks decrease the number of guns sold in the U.S.

Prickett, Kate. “State Firearm Laws, Firearm Ownership, and Safety Practices Among
Families of Preschool-Aged Children.” Journal of Public Health. National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, June 2014. Web. 4 Oct
2017. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4061995/>.

Table 1 presents a description of the sample by firearm ownership and storage
safety practices. Overall, 21.6% of families with preschool-aged children in 2005
had firearms in the home. Of these families, more than two thirds (68.6%)
reported storing their firearms in a locked cabinet. Notably, parents of preschool-
aged children with firearms in the household were less likely than were
families who did not own firearms to live in states with more comprehensive
firearm laws (an average index score of 2.9 vs 3.7) and were less likely to live
in states with specific CAP laws (32.6% vs 56.8%). We found no statistical
difference in the proportion of families who lived in states with CAP laws when
comparing families who locked their firearms in a cabinet with families who did not
(approximately one third of families). Firearm owners in this sample were more
likely to live in states in which a greater proportion of the population lived in rural
areas (27.1% vs 19.8% of non–firearm owners), had a lower violent crime rate (4.5
incidents per 1000 people vs 4.7 incidents), had a higher property crime rate (3.6
incidents per 1000 people vs 3.4 incidents), had a greater proportion who voted for
President Bush in the 2004 presidential election (54.7% vs 51.3%), had a
Champion Briefs 89
legislature that was Republican controlled (49.1% vs 43.0%), and had higher
overall household firearm ownership (38.9% vs 31.4%). These differences in
state-level characteristics between families with and without firearms in the
home support our need to control for state-level variables in the multivariate
analyses.

Warrant: Guns within households make it more likely for conflict to end in violence

Kellermann, Arthur. “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home.”
The New England Journal of Medicine. N.p., 7 Oct 1993. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506?hc_locati
on=ufi#t=article>.

Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our
results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the
household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk
of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a
substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate
acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in
the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry.
Saltzman and colleagues recently found that assaults by family members or other
intimate acquaintances with a gun are far more likely to end in death than those that
involve knives or other weapons26. A gun kept in the home is far more likely to
be involved in the death of a member of the household than it is to be used to
kill in self-defense4. Cohort and interrupted time-series studies have
demonstrated a strong link between the availability of guns and community rates of
homicide2,15-17. Our study confirms this association at the level of individual
households.

Warrant: Strong gun laws decrease access to firearms, which decreases violent crime
Champion Briefs 90

Muggah, Robert. “Stronger Gun Laws, Less Violence.” The Huffington Post. N.p., May
3 2015. Web. 7 Oct 2017. <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-
muggah/stronger-gun-laws-less-violence_b_7199092.html>.

More guns equal more lethal crime. The evidence is convincing. Studies
consistently show how increases in firearms ownership are positively
associated with increases in homicide and suicide. Whether on the street or in
the home, where handguns and rifles are easily available they are more likely to be
used in a criminal act. This applies across most wealthy societies and middle-income
ones too. Strong gun laws, when enforced, can help deny access to firearms to
people who really should not have them. The reverse is also true. In
jurisdictions with weak legislation related to gun purchasing, ownership and
use, there tend to be higher rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and
murder. In the U.S., for example, right-to-carry laws are statistically associated with
increases in the incidence of violent assault.

Warrant: Gun availability makes violence more likely for conflicts to escalate to death

Shaw, Kerry. “12 Facts That Show How Guns Make Domestic Violence Even
Deadlier.” The Trace. N.p., 22 Aug 2016. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<https://www.thetrace.org/2016/08/15-facts-that-show-how-guns-make-
domestic-violence-even-deadlier/>.

The link between guns and fatal domestic abuse is so strong, research shows
that simply living in a state with a high rate of firearm ownership increases a
woman’s risk of being fatally shot in a domestic violence incident. The domestic
violence epidemic is fueled by many factors, but the presence of firearms often
increases the lethality of attacks and expands the number of victims. Abusers
intent on killing an intimate partner, especially if they use a gun, often take
Champion Briefs 91
out other people who happen to be on the scene: children, friends,

grandparents, total strangers. While the stats show that guns are used to kill
women in 53 percent of intimate partner homicides, they are responsible for 70
percent of these collateral victims. Of police officers slain while responding to
domestic disputes, 95 percent of them were killed with firearms. One study found
that domestic violence victims are five times more likely to be killed if their abuser
has access to a gun.

Impact: For every 1 percentage point increase in gun ownership, there is a 0.9% increase
in homicide rates

Siegel, Michael. “The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide
Rates in the United States, 1981–2010.” American Journal of Public Health.
N.p., 9 Oct 2013. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?jou
rnalCode=ajph&>.

We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis of panel data from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and
Reporting Systems database on gun ownership and firearm homicide rates across
all 50 states during 1981 to 2010. We determined fixed effects for year, accounted
for clustering within states with generalized estimating equations, and controlled
for potential state-level confounders. Results. Gun ownership was a significant
predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence
interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point
increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun
ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine
Champion Briefs 92
causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had
disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Impact: A 10 percent increase in gun ownership causes a 2 percent rise in homicide

Duggan. Mark. “More Guns, More Crime.” The National Bureau of Economic
Research. N.p., Oct 2000. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<http://www.nber.org/papers/w7967.pdf>.

The coefficient estimates presented in Table 4 demonstrate that changes in state-
level homicide rates are significantly positively related to changes in gun
ownership. The first three specifications use FBI homicide data when calculating
the left-hand side variable, while the latter three employ the corresponding data
from the National Center for Health Statistics. The coefficient estimates are not
significantly affected by the inclusion of state trend dummies or by state-level
economic and demographic controls, as the second and third specifications reveal.
The coefficient estimates suggest that a 10 percent increase in the rate of gun
ownership is associated with approximately a 2 percent increase in homicide
rate. This finding is consistent with the theory that increases in gun ownership
lead to a rise in criminal activity, but provides equal support for the hypothesis
that an increase in crime leads individuals to purchase guns for self-defense.

Analysis: Universal background checks would have the effect of decreasing gun ownership
in the U.S., which will stop violent conflicts from turning into homicides. This argument has
a pretty intuitive link chain, making it an effective point to argue regardless of your judge.
Due to the vast amounts of statistics on the issue, there is also the potential to establish
bright lines. Go for this argument if you’re trying to weigh large lives impacts.

Champion Briefs 93
A/2: Background Checks Prevent Violent Conflict
Answer: There are few successful studies linking background checks to decreased gun
ownership

Warrant: The study that examines the impact of gun laws on ownership is flawed


Despite these advantages, this study also has several limitations. For example,
the data were correlational; thus, causal inference is not possible. Future
research exploring changes in firearm ownership and storage practices before
and after implementation of state-level laws may clarify how these laws
influence family-level behavior. In addition, the survey questions used to address
firearm behavior were brief: parents were asked whether they kept their firearms in
locked cabinets but not about the purpose of their firearms or the types of firearms
that they owned.28 Questions on firearm ownership and storage may also lend
themselves to social desirability bias, although the sensitivity analyses that we
conducted testing for possible misclassification of firearm storage behaviors
indicated that a substantial proportion (approximately 20%) of parents who stated
that they stored their firearms in a locked cabinet would need to have been
misclassified to nullify our findings (results available upon request). Finally, the
measure used to assess firearm policy has not been previously validated,
although in light of scarce research on this topic, this measurement allowed an
informative preliminary exploration.
Champion Briefs 94
Warrant: Studies on the relationship between background checks and gun ownership are
flawed due to cherry picked data


A lack of data that can be used to compare ownership and specific aspects of that
ownership, such as safety practices, also makes it difficult to determine if stronger
laws generally affect firearm ownership or laws directed at specific unsafe
behaviors work. Furthermore, the potential for state policies to be a product of
the selectivity of the residents of the state complicates disentangling the
effects of state-level firearm laws.11 Lawmakers in states with a high
proportion of firearm owners may be more reluctant to pass laws that
regulate firearm practices; consequently, observed correlations between laws
and state-level firearm ownership may reflect state population characteristics
or state “gun culture” to a greater extent than states’ firearm policy (or lack
thereof).

Analysis: If the data linking background checks to decreased gun ownership, the crucial
link in the pro case, cannot be confirmed due to poor data, the con has the ability to prevent
the pro from accessing their impacts. These cards, when used together, make it very
difficult for pro to prove that there will be a decline in accidental deaths.

Answer: Statistically, increased gun control measures do not result in any decreases in
crime rates

Champion Briefs 95
Warrant: Study found no correlation between increases in gun control and decreases in
violent crime

Kleck, Gary. “Does Gun Control Reduce Violent Crime?” Criminal Justice Review. N.p.,
3 Oct 2016. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016816670457>.

Do gun control laws reduce violence? To answer this question, a city-level cross-
sectional analysis was performed on data pertaining to every U.S. city with a
population of at least 25,000 in 1990 (n = 1,078), assessing the impact of 19
major types of gun control laws, and controlling for gun ownership levels and
numerous other possible confounders. Models were estimated using instrumental
variables (IVs) regression to address endogeneity of gun levels due to reverse
causality. Results indicate that gun control laws generally show no evidence of
effects on crime rates, possibly because gun levels do not have a net positive
effect on violence rates. Although a minority of laws seem to show effects, they are
as likely to imply violence-increasing effects as violence-decreasing effects. There
were, however, a few noteworthy exceptions: requiring a license to possess a gun
and bans on purchases of guns by alcoholics appear to reduce rates of both
homicide and robbery. Weaker evidence suggests that bans on gun purchases
by criminals and on possession by mentally ill persons may reduce assault
rates, and that bans on gun purchase by criminals may also reduce robbery
rates.

Warrant: Harvard study shows that in many countries, including the U.S., more guns could
be statistically linked to less violence

Kates, Don. “WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?”
Harvard University. N.p., 2007. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
Champion Briefs 96
<http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauser
online.pdf>.

Of course, pro-gun activists’ belief leads them to the opposite conclusion: that
widespread firearm ownership reduces violence by deterring criminals from
confrontation crimes and making more attractive such nonconfrontation
crimes as theft from unoccupied commercial or residential premises. Superficially,
the evidence for this belief seems persuasive. Table 1, for instance, shows that
Denmark has roughly half the gun ownership rate of Norway, but a 50%
higher murder rate, while Russia has only one-ninth Norway’s gun ownership
rate but a murder rate 2500% higher. Looking at Tables 1–3, it is easy to find
nations in which very high gun ownership rates correlate with very low
murder rates, while other nations with very low gun ownership rates have
much higher murder rates. Moreover, there is not insubstantial evidence that
in the United States widespread gun availability has helped reduce murder
and other violent crime rates. On closer analysis, however, this evidence appears
uniquely applicable to the United States. More than 100 million handguns are
owned in the United States84 primarily for self-defense,85 and 3.5 million
people have permits to carry concealed handguns for protection.86 Recent
analysis reveals “a great deal of self-defensive use of firearms” in the United
States, “in fact, more defensive gun uses [by victims] than crimes committed
with firearms.”8

Analysis: If decreasing the number of guns will not lower the amount of violence, there is
no reason to believe that background checks will be helpful. This effectively blocks the
impacts that pro attempts to garner from this contention, and the two cards used together
provide a solid evidence foundation for your argument.

Champion Briefs 97
Pro: Background Checks Prevent Suicides
Argument: If the government had to conduct a background check on every single person who
went to buy a gun, it would mean that we could keep guns out of the hands of people who are
more likely to commit suicide.
Warrant: Universal background checks allow the government to prevent the mentally ill from
buying guns.
Ewing, Maura. “Why Mentally Ill People Are Allowed to Buy Guns - or Keep The Ones
They Have.” The Trace, 7 Apr. 2017, www.thetrace.org/2017/01/why-mentally-ill-
have-guns-legally-background-checks/.
Licensed gun dealers are required to query the FBI’s federal background check system —
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS — to see if a would-
be customer is banned from purchasing a firearm. If a buyer’s name is listed among those
with disqualifying mental health records, the dealer is supposed to refuse the sale. In all
but 19 states, private sales do not necessitate a background check, and therefore do not
involve a mental health screening.
Warrant: People who are mentally ill are more likely to commit suicide.
Swanson, Jeffrey W., et al. “Mental Illness and Reduction of Gun Violence and Suicide:
Bringing Epidemiologic Research to Policy.” Annals of Epidemiology, Elsevier,
May 2015, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211925/.
What is the mechanism by which mental illness increases suicide risk? A number of
systematic reviews have summarized suicide risk factors in different patient groups. “Self-
harm”—which seems related to suicide on its face—has consistently been the strongest
association, but many studies have reported that concurrent substance abuse and specific
Champion Briefs 98
psychological symptoms, such as hopelessness, also have strong links with suicide. In
those with psychosis or bipolar disorder, concurrent depressive symptoms increase risk.
However, one of the clearest findings in the suicide literature is the substantial
contribution of environmental factors—notably including the availability of lethal means
such as firearms—and exposure to media reporting of suicide.
Warrant: Universal background checks have successfully reduced suicides.
Bakalar, Nicholas. “Some Gun Laws Tied to Lower Suicide Rates.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 15 Mar. 2017,
www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/well/live/some-gun-laws-tied-to-lower-suicide-
rates.html?_r=0.
Researchers found that states with universal background checks had a decrease of 0.29
suicides per 100,000 people from 2013 to 2014. Those without such laws had an average
increase of 0.85. There was a decrease of 0.38 per 100,000 in states with mandatory
waiting periods, compared with an increase of 0.71 in states without them. States with
both laws had a decrease of 0.76 per 100,000; states with neither had an increase of 1.04.
The results were unchanged after controlling for rates of gun ownership, depression,
poverty and other factors.
Impact: Suicide is the leading cause of gun deaths in America.
Bendery, Jennifer. “Suicide Is Leading Cause Of Gun Deaths, But Largely Absent In
Debate On Gun Violence.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14
May 2013, www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/guns-
suicide_n_3240065.html.

There should be plenty of personal stories to go around. More than 19,000 of the
31,000 deaths from guns in the United States in 2010 were suicides, far more than
Champion Briefs 99
the number of homicides or unintended shooting deaths. The overall suicide rate is
rising so rapidly that it now outnumbers deaths from car crashes. Most recently,
health officials noted a startling spike in suicides among middle-aged Americans:
they have jumped by 28 percent from 1999 to 2010. The issue hit close to home for
at least one of the faith leaders in Biden’s meeting, who spoke of losing a close
family friend to suicide by gun. Other leaders of different faiths shared stories about
being on the other end of a phone call consoling a member of the community who
had lost a loved one to a gun-related suicide
Analysis: This argument is very easy to weigh because it concerns the majority of gun deaths in
America. This outweighs any argument not pertaining to gun deaths because you can say that
lives matter most since deaths are irreversible, and if they link into gun deaths you can easily
outweigh because this argument links into the leading cause of gun deaths. This will shift the
round to be focused around your arguments, which will increase perceptual dominance in the
debate.
Champion Briefs 100

A/2: Background Checks Prevent Suicides
Answer: Background checks are inefficient ways of keeping the mentally ill from buying guns.
Warrant: Background checks cast too wide a net.
Admin. “Gun Wars: Background Checks Don’t Keep Guns from Mentally
Ill.”MarylandReporter.com, 25 Aug. 2014,
marylandreporter.com/2014/08/19/gun-wars-background-checks-dont-keep-guns-
from-mentally-ill/.
Thirty states have passed laws mandating mental health reporting to NICS, four of which
were added in the last six months. Yet no organization has been able to address the larger
concern that NICS is poorly designed to identify those in society most likely to be
violent. “It’s really casting a very wide net to try to find a few people, which is largely an
impossible task,” said Dr. Michael Norko, head of forensics at the Connecticut
Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. “It’s not really a good public
health measure. We really need to find a better way of doing this.”
Warrant: Information gathered is too inclusive, which makes it hard to distill information to a
useful amount that can be put into practice.
Ferris, Sarah. “Lack of Data Makes It Hard for Background Checks System to Work
Properly.”The Washington Post, WP Company, 28 Aug. 2014,
www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lack-of-data-makes-it-hard-
for-background-checks-system-to-work-properly/2014/08/28/d166c1b4-2ed8-
11e4-be9e-60cc44c01e7f_story.html?utm_term=.52729fa56dc3.
Champion Briefs 101

The system is also vastly overinclusive, six public health experts said in interviews.
People’s names are kept in the database based on a decades-old definition of
“mentally defective,” which relies on court decisions rather than doctors’ orders.
Under federal law, individuals with histories of violent psychotic episodes can buy guns
as long as they never set foot in a courtroom. Every one of the country’s mass shooters
since January 2009 could have slipped through NICS, according to a July 2014 study by
the gun control organization Everytown for Gun Safety.
Analysis: Even if we find the people who are mentally ill, if the system is inefficient because we
classify too many people as mentally ill it means that it is hard to determine who we should
actually prevent from buying guns. This also means that some people who deserve to have guns
will be unable to get them, which violates their rights.
Answer: Universal background checks increase suicides.
Warrant: Background Checks make it harder to remove guns from the households of people at
risk of suicide.
Seaman, Andrew M. “Preventing Gun Suicides May Require Changes to Background

Check Laws.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 16 Nov. 2016,
www.reuters.com/article/us-health-violence-firearm/preventing-gun-suicides-
may-require-changes-to-background-check-laws-idUSKBN13B258.
The research team looked at what happens when people want to temporarily remove
firearms from their home because they fear someone in the house might be considering a
suicide attempt. In some states, they found, gun control laws may actually hamper the
ability to easily transfer a gun temporarily to reduce suicide risk. What’s needed,
according to Jon S. Vernick of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore
and colleagues, are laws that allow for temporary storage of guns by federally licensed
firearm dealers, law enforcement officers, family members and friends.
Champion Briefs 102

Analysis: This is a very good response to the argument because even if we can prevent people
who are at risk of committing suicide in the future from obtaining guns, background checks
make it harder to prevent suicides among people who already own guns. This directly turns the
argument and makes it a reason to vote con.
Answer: Background checks do not prevent the mentally ill from obtaining firearms.
Warrant: Medical information is unavailable.
Parlapiano, Alicia. “Why People With Mental Illness Are Able to Obtain Guns.” The
New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Jan. 2016,
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/06/us/how-people-with-mental-illness-are-
able-to-obtain-guns.html.
According to federal law, individuals cannot buy a gun if a court or other authority has
deemed them a “mental defective” or committed them involuntarily to a mental hospital.
Only a handful of states prohibit broader categories of people with mental illness from
obtaining a gun. Mental health records are overwhelmingly under-reported to the federal
and state databases scanned during a background check. For example, while the majority
of states now have laws that require them to submit records to the F.B.I.’s National
Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS, there is little enforcement,
and the comprehensiveness of those records vary significantly
Warrant: Medical information is incomplete.
Wintemute, Garen. “Background Checks for Firearm Transfers.” Violence Prevention

Research Program, 2013,
Champion Briefs 103

www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/CBC%20White%20Paper%20Final%20Report%2
0022013.pdf.
When incomplete information or other problems arise, background checks cannot

be completed immediately and are considered delayed. Approximately 8% of checks
are delayed each year. The Brady Act allows for a waiting period of up to three days in
such circumstances, but after that time the purchaser may take possession of the firearm
even though the check is not complete. This occurred 3,166 times in 2011. In such cases,
ATF agents must contact the purchasers and recover or arrange other dispositions for the
firearms.
Analysis: Even if we turn away everyone who is mentally ill at the cashier for gun sales, this
won’t necessarily be an effective tactic to stop suicides if the people we turn away are not
actually mentally ill and we look over cases of people who actually are and let them in
accidentally.

Champion Briefs 104

Pro: Background Checks Decrease Gang Violence
Argument: Since background checks make it much harder to buy guns, this means that fewer
gang members will be able to get their hands on them, which will reduce gun violence in gang-
prone neighborhoods.
Warrant: Gang violence is a gun problem
DeFilippis, Evan. “Do We Have a Gang Problem or a Gun Problem?” The Huffington
Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 3 Apr. 2014, www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-
defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html.
Gun advocates’ blind focus on gangs, drugs and violent felons overlooks the larger gun
problem facing America. It is irresponsible and disingenuous for some of us to brush off
our staggering death toll from firearms merely as the product of gangs or even violent
criminals. Recognizing America’s high homicide rate for what it is — a gun problem —
is the first step in solving it.
Warrant: Background checks limit gangs’ abilities to buy guns
Cornell, Dewey. “Gun Violence: Prediction, Prevention, and Policy.” American

Psychological Association, American Psychological Association,
www2.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/gun-violence-prevention.aspx.

The use of a gun greatly increases the odds that violence will lead to a fatality: This
problem calls for urgent action. Firearm prohibitions for high-risk groups —
domestic violence offenders, persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, and
individuals with mental illness who have been adjudicated as being a threat to
themselves or to others — have been shown to reduce violence. The licensing of
Champion Briefs 105

handgun purchasers, background check requirements for all gun sales, and close
oversight of retail gun sellers can reduce the diversion of guns to criminals.
Reducing the incidence of gun violence will require interventions through multiple
systems, including legal, public health, public safety, community, and health.
Increasing the availability of data and funding will help inform and evaluate policies
designed to reduce gun violence.
Warrant: Background checks empirically reduce homicides
Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Research Suggests Gun Background Checks Work, But They're
Not Everything.” NPR, NPR, 9 Jan. 2016,
www.npr.org/2016/01/09/462252799/research-suggests-gun-background-checks-
work-but-theyre-not-everything.
Two recent studies provide evidence that background checks can significantly curb gun
violence. In one, researchers found that a 1995 Connecticut law requiring gun buyers to
get permits (which themselves required background checks) was associated with a 40
percent decline in gun homicides and a 15 percent drop in suicides. Similarly, when
researchers studied Missouri's 2007 repeal of its permit-to-purchase law, they found an
associated increase in gun homicides by 23 percent, as well as a 16-percent increase in
suicides.
Impact: Gang related homicides account for 80 percent of homicides
Hawkens, Dustin. Putting Gun Death Statistics in Perspective, jpfo.org/articles-

assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm.
To hear gun control advocates speak, one would be led to believe that gun violence is a
widespread problem whereby the mere existence of a gun is as much a problem as the
person who intends to wield it. But the reality is that gun homicides are overwhelmingly
Champion Briefs 106

tied to gang violence. In fact, a staggering 80% of gun homicides are gang-related.
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for
roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011. That means that there were
just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300
million people and 250 million guns. Cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Los
Angeles, Cleveland, and New Orleans all have very high per-capita murder rates.
Individual police estimates usually find at least 65% and often more than 80% of all
murders in those cities are gang-related. Solve the problem of gang violence, and a huge
chunk of the gun homicide and violence problem is solved. And what national gun
control measures would slow the gang violence problem, when local gun control laws
have failed in cities like Chicago? If politicians were really worried about gun deaths,
wouldn't they be specifically targeting where a majority of the problems exist?
Impact: Gang violence leads to zero-tolerance policies
Castillo, Jennifer. “Tolerance in Schools for Latino Students: Dismantling the School to
Prison Pipeline.” Journal of Hispanic Policy, Harvard,
www.harvardhispanic.org/tolerance-in-schools-for-latino-students-dismantling-
the-school-to-prison-pipeline/.
The ideological origins of punitive policies like zero tolerance policies can be traced to
the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s when youth of color were viewed as violent
predators and became a widely accepted stereotype. During this time, the media focused
on youth gangs and the rise of the teen- super predators that would come of age by 2010.
Many of these teen super-predators were urban African American and Latinos, and they
were described as “relentlessly violent.” The media’s coverage exaggerated the extent of
gang membership and gang violence among youth. According to the article Framing
Children in the News: The Face and Color of Youth Crime in America, two-thirds of
violent crimes covered focused on youth under the age of 25. The rhetoric of the rise of
the teen-super predator set the stage for substantive policy changes in the area of student
Champion Briefs 107

discipline. In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Gun Free Schools Act in response to
school shootings and an alleged surge in adolescent violence. The act mandated that
every state enact a law that required districts to expel students that brought a firearm to
school for at least one year.
Analysis: This argument is easy to weigh against basically anything the con can run because if
run successfully you can link into the number one leading cause of homicides in the United
States. This means that even if they prove that there may be more crimes in general, you can
easily outweigh this without even responding on the link level by saying that solving for gang-
related violence will surely save more lives than they prove happens in the con world.
Champion Briefs 108

A/2: Background Checks Decrease Gang Violence
Answer: It decreases innocent people’s ability to protect themselves
Warrant: Background checks make it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy guns
Lott, John R. “Think Background Checks Prevent Gun Violence? Think Again.” Los
Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 15 Dec. 2015,
www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-le-1215-tuesday-guns-background-
checks-20151215-story.html.
Peer-reviewed research by criminologists and economists consistently shows that

background checks don't reduce any form of violent crime. Law-abiding citizens, not gang
members, are the ones paying for these background checks, with fees that frequently
range between $60 and $80. What these laws do is disarm the law-abiding poor,
disproportionately blacks, and prevent them from being able to defend themselves.
Warrant: Self-defense is important to decrease homicides
Bell, Larry. “Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet.” Forbes,
Forbes Magazine, 14 May 2013,
www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-
gun-crimes-plummet/#50f4644e3f7c.
Is John Lott, the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” right? Does the rapid growth of gun
ownership and armed citizens have anything to do with a diminishing gun violence trend?
His expansive research concludes that state “shall issue” laws which allow citizens to
carry concealed weapons do produce a steady decrease in violent crime. He explains that
this is logical because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed target, so
as more citizens arm themselves, danger to the criminals increases.
Champion Briefs 109

Analysis: This is a very good response to the argument because it makes the issue a reason to
vote for the con. By stating that gang violence can be better solved through self-defense, you
can call into question the entire premises of the pro’s argument, which are that decreased
availability of guns will reduce gun violence.
Answer: There are better methods of solving gang violence
Warrant: Better policing could solve better
Lin, Summer. “How To Stop Gun Violence Without Scrapping Second Amendment
Rights.” Bustle, Bustle, 2 Oct. 2017, www.bustle.com/p/how-to-stop-gun-
violence-without-scrapping-second-amendment-rights-2755866.
A police tactic called "Operation Ceasefire," implemented in 1990s Boston saw a group
of law enforcement, social service, and community members come together to target
gang violence. They used a method called "pulling levers" that made it known to gang
members that the police knew their identities and that gun violence wouldn't be tolerated.
The city then implemented social services and community resources to double down on
prevention efforts and gave gang members special attention. Studies have shown that the
urban gun violence rate has reduced by 20 to 40 percent as a result of these measures.
Warrant: We need a comprehensive approach
Libresco, Leah. “Opinion | I Used to Think Gun Control Was the Answer. My Research
Told Me Otherwise.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Oct. 2017,
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-
my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-
58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.2288b24c51ed.
Champion Briefs 110

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang
members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more
personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an
algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though
they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from
finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible.
We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential
victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns
themselves.
Analysis: This response is good because it brings new factors into the conversation of the cause
of gang violence, which makes it seem like you are taking a more comprehensive approach to the
issue than your opponents. By saying that there are other solutions, you can not only argue that
gun control trades off with other important policies, but it also means that even if it does not, it
only accounts for a sliver of the issue.
Answer: Fewer guns does not necessarily mean less crime
Warrant: It is correlation not causation.
Stray, Jonathan. “Gun Violence in America: The 13 Key Questions (With 13 Concise
Answers).” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 4 Feb. 2013,
www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/gun-violence-in-america-the-13-
key-questions-with-13-concise-answers/272727/.
Although countries that offer easier access to guns also have more gun violence, at least
among developed nations, this doesn't necessarily mean that more guns cause more
deaths. People may own more guns in dangerous places because they want to protect
Champion Briefs 111

themselves. It's also possible that gun ownership is a deterrent to crime, because criminals
must consider the possibility that their intended victim is armed.
Warrant: It has been empirically proven.
Economist John Lott did extensive work on this question in the late 1990s, culminating in
his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime. He studied the effect of right-to-carry laws by
examining violent crime rates before and after they were implemented in various states,
up until 1992, and concluded that such laws decreased homicides by an average of 8%.
Lott's data and methods have been extensively reviewed since then. A massive 2004
report by a 16-member panel of the National Research Council found that there was not
enough evidence to say either way whether right-to-carry laws affected violence. In 2010,
different researchers re-examined Lott's work, the NRC report, and additional data up
through 2006, and reaffirmed that there is no evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce
crime.
Analysis: Even if the pro wins the entirety of the argument, this response allows you to say that
the reduction in crime is caused by an external factor. This response is strategic because you can
be extremely charitable to your opponents and still win. Not only does this make you seem like
you are considering both sides of the debate but it is also a compelling point to make.

Champion Briefs 112

Pro: Background Checks Decrease Accidental Gun Deaths
Argument: By decreasing the number of guns sold, background checks would help prevent
accidental gun deaths, which are responsible for killing thousands of Americans every
single year

Warrant: Universal background checks decrease the number of guns on the streets and in
homes


Objectives. We investigated how state-level firearms legislation is associated with
firearm ownership and storage among families with preschool-aged children.
Methods. Using 2005 nationally representative data from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (n = 8100), we conducted multinomial regression
models to examine the associations between state-level firearms legislation
generally, child access prevention (CAP) firearms legislation specifically, and
parental firearm ownership and storage safety practices. Results. Overall, 8% of
families with children aged 4 years living in states with stronger firearm laws and
CAP laws owned firearms compared with 24% of families in states with weaker
firearm laws and no CAP laws. Storage behaviors of firearm owners differed
minimally across legislative contexts. When we controlled for family- and state-level
characteristics, we found that firearm legislation and CAP laws interacted to predict
ownership and storage behaviors, with unsafe storage least likely among families in
states with both CAP laws and stronger firearm legislation. Conclusions. Broader
Champion Briefs 113

firearm legislation is linked with the efficacy of child-specific legislation in

promoting responsible firearm ownership.

Warrant: This decline in gun ownership has been proven to lower death rates

Storrs, Caroline. “Study: 3 federal laws could reduce gun deaths by more than 90%.”
CNN. N.p., 10 March 2016. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/health/gun-laws-background-checks-
reduce-deaths/index.html>.

Passing federal laws that require universal background checks for firearm
purchases, background checks on ammunition purchases and firearm identification
could reduce the rate of U.S. gun deaths by more than 90%, according to a new
study. "We wanted to see which restrictive gun laws really work, as opposed to
saying 'restrictive laws work,' and figure out if we are pushing for a law which might
not work," said Bindu Kalesan, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University
and lead author of the study, which was published on Thursday in The Lancet.
Researchers arrived at the projection by looking at the number of gun-related
deaths in every state in 2010 and the types of laws that existed in those states in
2009, including restrictive laws, such as background checks and child access
prevention laws, and permissive laws, such as stand-your-ground laws.

Warrant: Were these laws implemented nationwide, there would be a 57% reduction in
deaths

Storrs, Caroline. “Study: 3 federal laws could reduce gun deaths by more than 90%.”
CNN. N.p., 10 March 2016. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/health/gun-laws-background-checks-
reduce-deaths/index.html>.
Champion Briefs 114


They took into account differences in rates of gun ownership, unemployment and
homicides that did not involve guns deaths. Out of the 25 existing state laws that
Kalesan and her colleagues studied, nine were associated with lower rates of gun-
related deaths. The researchers found the largest effects for universal background
checks, which were associated with a 39% reduction in death, and ammunition
background checks, which were associated with an 18% reduction in death. Laws
around firearm identification, which make it possible to determine the gun that fired
a bullet, were associated with a 16% reductions in deaths. Researchers projected
that federal laws expanding background checks for firearms purchases would
reduce the U.S. gun death rate by 57%, while background checks for ammunition
purchases would cut gun death rates by 81% and firearm identification would
reduce the rate by 83%. The researchers said it would take many years to lower the
rates so far.

Impact: Accidental shootings kill hundreds of thousands of Americans

“EXAMINING ACCIDENTAL SHOOTING DEATH STATISTICS.” Aftermath. N.p., n.d.
Web. 4 Oct 2017. <http://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-
deaths-statistics>.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 130,557 deaths in 2013
from unintentional injuries, the 4th ranking cause of death in 2013 overall. From
2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.
Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. Over 1,300 victims
of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.
Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific
behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings
of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms. Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway reported
in a 2001 study that regardless of age, people are significantly more likely to die
Champion Briefs 115

from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative
to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine
times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest
gun levels. A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and
the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. In the United
States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded
and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not
locked and stored properly. A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many
people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm
owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded.

Impact: Many people accidentally killed are small children

“Gun Safety & Public Health: Policy Recommendations for a More Secure America.”
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. N.p., 25 Sep 2015. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-safety-public-health-policy-
recommendations-for-a-more-secure-america/>.

Americans own an estimated 310 million firearms—approximately 90 guns for
every 100 people.3 Yet research has shown time and time again that the presence of
firearms in a home makes its residents less safe. A national study of those who died
from accidental shootings showed that victims were more than three times more
likely to have had a gun in their home as those in the control group.4 Compared to
states with the fewest guns, states with the most guns have, on average, nine times
the rate of unintentional firearm deaths.5 The danger of unintentional shootings is
especially acute for homes with children. 89% of unintentional shooting deaths of
children occur in the home—and most of these deaths occur when children are
playing with a loaded gun in their parents’ absence.

Champion Briefs 116

Analysis: If universal background checks can decrease the number of individuals who own
guns, it means that there will be fewer guns in circulation, decreasing the likelihood of
accidental gun deaths. Make sure to clearly explain the linkage here, as it is less inherent
than with some other pro arguments. The impact will likely save hundreds of thousands of
lives, making weighing easy and making it possible to connect strongly with your judge.

Champion Briefs 117

A/2: Background Checks Decrease Accidental Gun Deaths
Answer: There are few successful studies linking background checks to decreased gun
ownership, meaning that there will be no decline in accidental deaths

regularly flawed and unusable due to poor data examination


Currently, limitations of this literature constrain the ability to draw strong
conclusions about the effects of state-level policies on firearm ownership and
storage practices.4,9 For example, because person-level data on firearm-related
behavior is scarce, many studies that rely on macrolevel statistics (e.g., state firearm
ownership, firearm-related mortality) run the risk of creating ecological fallacies,
whereby associations at the aggregate level are erroneously extrapolated to the
individual level.10 Similarly, aggregate-level data do not allow the examination of
the specific populations that the policies address and, hence, may not be sufficiently
sensitive to directly test these policies’ effects. A lack of data that can be used to
compare ownership and specific aspects of that ownership, such as safety practices,
also makes it difficult to determine if stronger laws generally affect firearm
ownership or laws directed at specific unsafe behaviors work.

flawed due to cherry picked data

Champion Briefs 118


A lack of data that can be used to compare ownership and specific aspects of that
ownership, such as safety practices, also makes it difficult to determine if stronger
laws generally affect firearm ownership or laws directed at specific unsafe
behaviors work. Furthermore, the potential for state policies to be a product of the
selectivity of the residents of the state complicates disentangling the effects of state-
level firearm laws.11 Lawmakers in states with a high proportion of firearm owners
may be more reluctant to pass laws that regulate firearm practices; consequently,
observed correlations between laws and state-level firearm ownership may reflect
state population characteristics or state “gun culture” to a greater extent than states’
firearm policy (or lack thereof).

Analysis: If the data linking background checks to decreased gun ownership, the crucial
link in the pro case, cannot be confirmed due to poor data, the con has the ability to prevent
the pro from accessing their impacts. These cards, when used together, make it very
difficult for pro to prove that there will be a decline in accidental deaths.

Answer: The biggest impact to accidental gun deaths is on children, but without further
regulation children are likely to continue dying

Warrant: There are specific laws that could be enacted to prevent gun deaths among
children

“Should More Gun Control Laws be Enacted?” ProCon.org. N.p., 9 August 2017. Web.
4 Oct 2017. <https://gun-control.procon.org/>.

Champion Briefs 119

Enacting gun control laws such as mandatory safety features would reduce the
number of accidental gun deaths. Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal
shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by
friends or family members. [18] [4] According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun
Violence and the National Physicians Alliance, states with the highest concentration
of guns have nine times the amount of accidental gun deaths and "89% of
unintentional shooting deaths of children occur in the home—and most of these
deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parents’ absence."
[34] The US General Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental
shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns:
100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills
him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety
locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year
could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber
ready to be fired. [35] Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd
College who has researched children’s behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates
around swimming pools to keep children from drowning.

Warrant: States with higher gun control laws saw no increased likelihood in parents
locking away their firearms, indicating that the primary reason for children harming
themselves is not impacted by gun legislation


Table 1 presents a description of the sample by firearm ownership and storage
safety practices. Overall, 21.6% of families with preschool-aged children in 2005
had firearms in the home. Of these families, more than two thirds (68.6%) reported
Champion Briefs 120

storing their firearms in a locked cabinet. Notably, parents of preschool-aged

children with firearms in the household were less likely than were families who did
not own firearms to live in states with more comprehensive firearm laws (an
average index score of 2.9 vs 3.7) and were less likely to live in states with specific
CAP laws (32.6% vs 56.8%). We found no statistical difference in the proportion of
families who lived in states with CAP laws when comparing families who locked
their firearms in a cabinet with families who did not (approximately one third of
families). Firearm owners in this sample were more likely to live in states in which a
greater proportion of the population lived in rural areas (27.1% vs 19.8% of non–
firearm owners), had a lower violent crime rate (4.5 incidents per 1000 people vs
4.7 incidents), had a higher property crime rate (3.6 incidents per 1000 people vs
3.4 incidents), had a greater proportion who voted for President Bush in the 2004
presidential election (54.7% vs 51.3%), had a legislature that was Republican
controlled (49.1% vs 43.0%), and had higher overall household firearm ownership
(38.9% vs 31.4%). These differences in state-level characteristics between families
with and without firearms in the home support our need to control for state-level
variables in the multivariate analyses.

Analysis: If the major rationale behind the pro argument is that gun laws will lead to fewer
accidental deaths, reading both of these cards makes it more difficult for them to access
their impacts. Due to the lack of complementary legislation and parents not changing their
personal practices in the face of new gun laws, children will on net be just as likely to harm
themselves. This effectively minimizes the pro’s impacts.

Champion Briefs 121

Pro: Background Checks Close Gun Sale Loopholes
Argument: There currently exist loopholes that allow unlicensed individuals to purchase
guns at gun shows, or anywhere else on the secondary market. Creating universal
background checks would close this loophole, and result in fewer individuals purchasing
weapons

Warrant: Currently, individuals can purchase weapons on the secondary market without
providing any form of identification

“Top 10 Frequently Asked Firearms Questions and Answers.” Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<https://www.atf.gov/file/61721/>

Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he
resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person
is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. There may
be State laws that regulate interstate firearm transactions. Any person considering
acquiring a firearm should contact his or her State Attorney General’s Office to
inquire about the laws and possible State or local restrictions.

Warrant: As a result, individuals can purchase guns and then turn around and sell them to
individuals without any background check

“Universal Background Checks.” Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. N.p., n.d. Web.
4 Oct 2017. <http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-
checks/universal-background-checks/>

Champion Briefs 122

By far the most dangerous gap in federal firearms laws today is the background
check loophole. Although federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to perform
background checks on prospective purchasers, it does not require unlicensed sellers
to do so. An estimated 40% of all firearms transferred in the US are acquired from
unlicensed sellers without a background check.1 According the US Department of
Justice, because federal law fails to require background checks by every person who
sells or transfers a gun—known as universal background checks—“individuals
prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers
and do so without any federal records of the transactions.”2 “The private-party gun
market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns
used in crimes.”3 Although this loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show”
loophole, because of the particular problems associated with gun shows, it applies
to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur.4

Warrant: This loophole allows guns to fall into the hands of people who should not have
access to firearms

Cooper, Michael. “Loopholes in Gun Laws Allow Buyers to Skirt Checks.” The New
York Times. N.p., 10 April 2013. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-
skirt-background-checks.html>.

But the checks have blocked purchases. Since 1998 the F.B.I. has rejected more than
a million would-be sales, and when state-level rejections are factored in the number
of denials is closer to two million — usually because the would-be buyers are
convicted felons, or fugitives from justice, or mentally ill, among other reasons. How
many of those rejected buyers were able buy guns without background checks, from
private sellers or over the Internet, is difficult to say, in part because restrictions
imposed by Congress make it difficult for law enforcement officials to track firearms
sales. While private sales at gun shows account for a small proportion of private gun
Champion Briefs 123

sales, researchers say, they have been found vulnerable to abuses. When New York
City sent undercover private investigators to try to buy guns from private sellers at
gun shows in 2009, it reported that 19 of the 30 sellers they approached agreed to
sell them guns even after they were told that the buyers “probably couldn’t pass” a
background check.

Warrant: The internet has made this problem even worse


The internet has significantly increased illegal buyers’ ability to find sellers willing
to transfer firearms to them without background checks. As of September 2013,
about 67,000 firearms were listed for sale online from private, unlicensed sellers.5
29% of ads by private sellers on armslist.com (a popular website for firearm sales)
were posted by high-volume private sellers who posted five or more ads over an
eight-week period.6 According to an undercover investigation by the City of New
York, 62% of private online firearm sellers agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer even
after the buyer had told the seller that he or she probably could not pass a
background check.7

Warrant: Universal background checks would close this loophole, as seen by how
universal checks have impacted the several states that have them

Kirkham, Chris. “Private Gun Sale Loophole Creates Invisible Firearms Market,
Prompts Calls For Reform.” THe Huffington Post. N.p., 21 Dec, 2012. Web. 4
Oct 2017. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/private-gun-sales-
sandy-hook_n_2347420.html>

Champion Briefs 124

Under the current system, federal law on gun purchases extends only to the first
point of sale. Federally licensed firearms dealers are required to perform
background checks on prospective buyers to screen out those with felony records, a
history of domestic violence or mental illness and several other categories. Dealers
are also required to keep detailed records of customers. On private party sales, none
of those restrictions apply under federal rules. States come up with their own laws
governing the secondary gun market, and the restrictions vary widely, leaving an
uneven patchwork of regulations from state to state. A handful of states, including
California and Rhode Island, require universal background checks for all private
party transactions. If someone wanted to purchase from an unlicensed seller at a
gun show or anywhere else, he or she would have to go to a federally licensed seller
to certify the transaction: the licensed dealer would have to perform a background
check before the sale could go through and keep a record of the transfer.

Impact: Background checks regularly prevent felons and mentally ill individuals that
utilize this loophole


Gun offenders overwhelmingly obtain their guns through private sales. A survey of
state prison inmates in 13 states who were convicted of gun offenses found that only
13% obtained the gun from a gun store or pawnshop where background checks are
required.11Nearly all (96%) of those inmates who were already prohibited from
possessing a gun at the time of their crime obtained the firearm through an
unlicensed private seller.12 When background checks are required, they are
extremely effective at keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous, prohibited
persons. Since the federal background check requirement was adopted in 1994,
over 3 million people legally prohibited from possessing a gun—mainly convicted
Champion Briefs 125

felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill—have been denied a
firearm transfer or permit.13 In 2014 alone, 147,000 prohibited people were
blocked from acquiring guns by NICS, the federal background check system.14 The
Data Confirms that Universal Background Check Laws are Effective and Save Lives
From 2009 to 2012, states that required background checks on all handgun sales or
permits had 35% fewer gun deaths per capita than states without that background
check requirement.

Analysis: The gun show loophole is perhaps the most damning aspect of gun law, and it
regularly allows potentially dangerous individuals to purchase firearms. By eliminating this
loophole, there will be fewer dangerous people permitted to access weapons. This
argument is effective because the link is really impossible to attack - the fact that this
loophole would be closed is inherent in the resolution. In addition, the impact is to lives,
and will therefore allow you to effectively outweigh opponents attempting to access
virtually any other impact, weighing on magnitude (and potentially scope given the
number of lives saved).

Champion Briefs 126

A/2: Background Checks Close Gun Show Loopholes
Answer: Studies examining the effectiveness of background checks are often flawed, and as
a result it’s difficult to determine if checks are actually effective.

Warrant: Several of the most prominent studies finding evidence to support universal
background checks are flawed in their methodologies.

Not Everything”. NPR. 9 Jan 2016. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<http://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/462252799/research-suggests-gun-
background-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything>.

Those are some huge results — one expert called the Missouri study "the strongest
evidence that background checks really matter," as The New Republic reported —
but as with lots of social-science research, there's some fuzziness as to what the
results mean. One caveat is that these studies aren't about background checks alone.
Instead, they're about permit-to-purchase laws, under which people had to go to
local law enforcement to get a permit and, therefore, a background check. That
difference might have impacted the results, explained Daniel Webster, a co-author
on both studies. He said that being forced to get a permit from law enforcement
might do more to deter a straw purchaser, for example, than getting a check at a
nearby store. Furthermore, he added that because so many factors influence gun
violence in different ways, it's hard to say how much the effects seen in Connecticut
and Missouri would also happen in other states. In addition, a stand your ground
law enacted in Missouri in 2007 may have affected the results.

Warrant: Other studies find that the link between increased checks and decreased gun
purchases is not a strong one, and overall there is not enough research to be certain
Champion Briefs 127


Not Everything”. NPR. 9 Jan 2016. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
background-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything>.

A CDC task force also found in a 2003 review "inconsistent findings" as to whether
restricting gun access through background checks works and insufficient evidence
as to whether an array of other gun laws are effective. However, the CDC also said
that its findings didn't mean that gun laws don't work; rather, it said it needed to
study the topic more. Gun-policy researchers say they want to better study
background checks (as well as many other policies), but a couple of hurdles stand in
the way. Part of the problem is that good studies on the effectiveness of background
checks are pretty rare, according to Webster. One reason is that it's hard to find
good test cases to study. "There's not a lot of change or variation [in laws] to study
in recent times," he said. "The vast majority of these laws have been on the books for
many, many decades." Another expert blamed the federal government. "One of the
big problems is that the feds have not funded good research in this area," said David
Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and an expert on
firearm-related injuries.

Analysis: The pro can only access their impacts if background checks actually decrease the
likelihood of gun violence, but to the point where there are few to no studies in this area,
and the ones that exist are flawed, they have no way to prove there will be fewer deaths.
These cards, when used in conjunction, effectively block pro from accessing their impacts.

Answer: There are many other loopholes allowing unsafe individuals can purchase guns,
and as a result closing this loophole will have a minimal impact.

Champion Briefs 128

Warrant: Loopholes from gaps in the FBI’s crime database have allowed thousands of
people to purchase weapons

“Gun sales loopholes that should be closed.” The Los Angeles Times. N.p., 22 July
2015. Web. 4 Oct 2017. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-
gun-loophole-20150722-story.html>.

Gaps in the F.B.I.‘s database of criminal and mental health records, which are
consulted during background checks, have allowed thousands of people to buy
firearms who should have been barred. Many states fail to send the federal
government comprehensive data on people with mental illness. Before the mass
shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007, for example, a Virginia state judge had declared
the gunman mentally ill. But the record was not sent to the F.B.I., so the gunman was
able to pass a background check and buy the weapons he used to kill 32 people.
(Virginia now submits more data to the F.B.I.)

Warrant: A loophole in the 3-day waiting period has allowed thousands of dangerous
individuals to purchase weapons

“Gun sales loopholes that should be closed.” The Los Angeles Times. N.p., 22 July
2015. Web. 4 Oct 2017. <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-
gun-loophole-20150722-story.html>.

Another loophole has allowed thousands of prohibited buyers to legally purchase
firearms over the past decade — and some of those weapons were ultimately used
in crimes, according to court records and government documents. The problem
stems from the three-day period the government has to determine whether
someone is eligible to buy a gun. More than 95 percent of the time the F.B.I., which
oversees the background checks, can tell licensed gun dealers within seconds if a
buyer can own a gun. But when the F.B.I. cannot immediately determine whether
Champion Briefs 129

would-be buyers have criminal or psychological records that would bar them from
owning guns, it is given 72 hours to clear it up. If it fails to complete the background
check by then, the buyer is allowed to return and purchase the gun. According to
data provided by the F.B.I., roughly 3,000 firearms were sold to prohibited buyers
through this loophole last year.

Warrant: This is the loophole that allowed Dylan Roof to purchase his weapon

York Times. N.p., 10 April 2013. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-
skirt-background-checks.html>.

Meanwhile, there is another loophole in federal law (backed by the NRA) that has
been exploited some 15,000 times over the last five years, according to the
Everytown for Gun Safety advocacy group — and that allowed Dylann Roof, the
alleged Charleston gunman, to buy his weapons. Currently, in most states, a gun
dealer can complete a sale after three days even if the background check is not
finished. While most such checks take minutes, some require deeper reviews of
records. Roof bought his guns as an FBI examiner was still digging into criminal
records that eventually revealed a drug history that should have precluded the sale.
Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) last week introduced the Background Check
Completion Act that would bar a gun sale until the background check is completed,
no matter how long that takes. (In California, a sale can be completed without a
background check only after 30 days.)

Analysis: If there are multiple other loopholes that will allow dangerous individuals
(including Dylan Roof and the Virginia Tech shooter) to purchase firearms, closing this
loophole will be virtually meaningless. These cards drastically minimize the impacts of
your opponents, which will make it much easier to weigh your own impacts against them.
Champion Briefs 130

Pro: Background Checks Prevent Terrorism
Argument: With universal background checks, the government will be able to keep people with
suspected ties to terrorist organizations from purchasing firearms in the US which can help
reduce terrorist attacks at home and abroad.
Warrant: It is currently easy for terrorists to buy guns in the US

Cavanaugh, Matthew. “Background Checks Could Help Prevent Terrorism - The
Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com, 23 Nov. 2015,
www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/11/23/background-
checks-could-help-prevent-
terrorism/G8oVF6s5mOEfiUWrcc2tWM/story.html.

The terrorist attack in Paris has Americans worried, particularly since ISIS, whose
murderous adherents carried out that savagery, has threatened to cause similar
carnage in this country. Beyond vigilance and close attention to intelligence, it’s
sometimes difficult to identify concrete steps that could prevent or mitigate possible
attacks. That’s particularly true when it comes to lone-wolf sympathizers who may
be inspired to terrorism by the murderous mayhem ISIS has caused elsewhere. But
here’s one: Close the gun show and private-sale loophole. That loophole means that
in 33 states, potential terrorists can go to a gun show and purchase firearms from a
private seller without undergoing a background check, as would be required if they
were buying from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Just by way of illustration, at
a gun show in one of those states, a would-be buyer could be rejected after an
instant background check by a federally licensed dealer, then simply move a few
tables away and purchase a similar weapon from a private seller, with no
background check required. And the Internet has become a common way for gun
sellers and buyers to connect for transactions that don’t require background checks.
Champion Briefs 131

Warrant: People on the terrorism watch list can currently buy firearms.
Parlapiano, Alicia. “How Terrorism Suspects Buy Guns - and How They Still Could,
Even With a Ban.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 June 2016,
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/14/us/gun-purchase-ban-for-suspected-
terrorists.html.
The consolidated federal terrorist watchlist had 800,000 people (mostly non-Americans)
on it as of September 2014, including 64,000 on a subset referred to as the “no-fly” list,
which bars air travel to, from or within the United States. While inclusion on the list does
not disqualify people from purchasing weapons, prospective gun buyers are screened
against the terrorist watchlist, and matches are forwarded to F.B.I. agents, who can use the
information to help with investigations. Last year, 244 background checks involved
people on the list. According to a study by the Government Accountability Office using
data collected by the F.B.I., the vast majority of those on the watchlist who attempted to
buy a gun from 2004 to 2015 were allowed to proceed, because they were not stopped by
a disqualifying factor like a history of criminal or mental health problems.
Warrant: Terrorists know how easy it is for them to buy guns in the US.
Hawkins, Derek. “Islamic State Magazine Steers Followers to U.S. Gun Shows for 'Easy'
Access to Weapons.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 May 2017,
www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/05/islamic-state-
magazine-steers-jihadists-to-u-s-gun-shows-for-easy-access-to-
weapons/?utm_term=.6986ed39c5f3.
Now, the Islamic State has spelled out its position in writing. In the most recent issue of
Rumiyah, its glossy multilingual propaganda magazine, the Islamic State encouraged
recruits in the United States to take advantage of laws that allow people to buy firearms
without having to present identification or submit to background checks. Recruits should
Champion Briefs 132

seek out gun shows and online sales in particular, said the write-up in the magazine,
which was released Thursday.“The acquisition of firearms can be very simple depending
on one’s geographical location,” the piece read. “In most U.S. states, anything from a
single-shot shotgun all the way up to a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle can be purchased at
showrooms or through online sales — by way of private dealers — with no background
checks, and without requiring either an ID or a gun license.” “With approximately 5,000
gun shows taking place annually within the United States,” it added, “the acquisition of
firearms becomes a very easy matter.”
Warrant: Background checks allow us to prevent people will possible ties to terrorist
organizations from buying guns.

Berney, Jesse. “A Prohibition of Refugees Won't Prevent Terror Attacks – but Gun
Control Might | Jesse Berney.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 18
Nov. 2015, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/terrorism-
gun-control-immigration-refugee.

As late as this year, bipartisan coalitions in Congress have attempted to pass a law
that would forbid anyone on a terrorist watchlist from purchasing a gun. But the
National Rifle Association opposes the law, because it reflexively opposes any
legislation restricting gun ownership, no matter how much support it has, even
among its own members. That includes closing the background-check loopholes, so
we know if people trying to buy guns shouldn’t have them. It includes a national
firearm registry, so we know who has the guns. It includes allowing the Centers for
Disease Control to study gun violence, so we can determine the best ways to prevent
it. And yes, it even includes keeping people with suspected terrorist ties from buying
guns in the first place.
Impact: Terrorism kills many people in the United States every year.
Champion Briefs 133

Cozart, Bob, et al. “How to Stop Terrorists From Taking Advantage of Our Lax Gun
Laws.”POLITICO Magazine, 6 Dec. 2015,
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/terror-gap-gun-laws-213418.
This past summer, a suspected terrorist with plans to kill a large number of U.S. citizens
on behalf of ISIS was arrested the day before he planned to buy an AR-15 at a North
Carolina gun show. Even if he had gone to a licensed gun dealer, the fact that he was
under investigation for terrorism by the federal government would not have prevented
him from passing a background check and buying a gun under our current lax laws.The
simple fact remains that dangerous people – suspected terrorists or not – continually
exploit loopholes in our gun laws to obtain firearms and kill other people. Some 88
Americans are killed as a result of senseless and preventable gun violence every day in
this country. Our elected leaders can – and must – do more to protect the safety of
Americans by closing the Terror Gap loophole. American lives are at stake.
Impact: Terrorism kills thousands worldwide.
Lister, Tim. “ISIS: 143 Attacks in 29 Countries Have Killed 2,043.” CNN, Cable News
Network, 13 Feb. 2017, www.cnn.com/2015/12/17/world/mapping-isis-attacks-
around-the-world/index.html.
Since declaring its caliphate in June 2014, the self-proclaimed Islamic State has
conducted or inspired more than 140 terrorist attacks in 29 countries other than Iraq and
Syria, where its carnage has taken a much deadlier toll. Those attacks have killed at least
2,043 people and injured thousands more. It can be difficult to divine the precise role that
international terrorists play in this or that attack. For example, the person who killed four
U.S. Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in July 2015 was "motivated by
foreign terrorist organization propaganda," FBI Director James Comey said, though he
added that it's hard to say which terrorist group motivated the killer.
Champion Briefs 134

Analysis: This argument is strategic because it is very easy to weigh over any con argument
because terrorism kills far more people than gun deaths in the United States. If the con links to
anything other than deaths, you have already won the round because you can never get a life
back once you have lost it and you need to be alive in order to access any other impact.
However, even if the con links to gun deaths in general, it is very unlikely that they link to
terrorism, which makes it very easy to win with this argument since terrorism kills far more.
Champion Briefs 135

A/2: Background Checks Prevent Terrorism
Answer: It is already difficult to prevent terrorists from buying weapons
Warrant: Terrorists may buy guns on the black market, like in Europe.
Tuccile, jd. “In Europe, Terrorists Arm Themselves on the Black Market While Populists
Champion Self-Defense Rights.” Reason.com, 23 Aug. 2016,
reason.com/archives/2016/08/23/in-europe-terrorists-arm-themselves-on-t.

Those restrictive European gun laws touted by gun control advocates in the United
States have done exactly nothing to disarm criminals and terrorists in the countries
where they've been implemented. As always, restrictive laws have bred black
markets and inconvenienced only the law-abiding. Smart politicians might respond
to public fears of crime and terrorism by acknowledging that they have no ability to
disarm the predators in their society, and by empowering people to defend
themselves without fear of prosecution. Smart officials would concede that the
restrictive path they've chosen has failed and that the American model that they've
ridiculed for so long, under which people are entitled to own the means for self-
defense, may well be preferable. Dumb ones would leave the issue to be wrapped up
in a bow by their country's own Donald Trump.
Warrant: It is easy to buy guns in other countries
Bajekal, Naina. “Paris Attacks: How Europe's Terrorists Get Illegal Guns.” Time, Time,
time.com/how-europes-terrorists-get-their-guns/.
Once European terrorists realized the strategic advantages of guns, they quickly
discovered they were surprisingly easy to find. Just beyond the countries of Western
Champion Briefs 136

Europe, with their restrictive gun laws, lie the Balkan states, awash with illegal weapons
left over from the conflicts that raged there in the 1990s. According to the Switzerland-
based Small Arms Survey, there are anywhere between three million and six million
firearms in circulation in the Western Balkans—and possibly more.
Analysis: If terrorists buy guns illegally, it does not matter if universal background checks
prevent them from buying guns legally. This means that even if the pro team were to prove that
people with ties to terrorist organizations were prevented from buying weapons, the vast majority
of sales that matter would not be stopped in any way.
Answer: Terrorist attacks are a very small amount of gun deaths
Warrant: The number of people killed in the war on terror by guns is very low.
French, David. “Dear Anti-Gun Liberals, Don't Tell Me Which Gun I 'Need' for Self-
Defense.”National Review, 15 June 2016,
www.nationalreview.com/corner/436675/dear-anti-gun-liberals-dont-tell-me-
which-gun-i-need-self-defense.
Earlier today, I did a bit of math. It turns out that less than 1 percent of Americans
who’ve died in the war on terror fell to guns purchased in America. If you narrow the
inquiry to only those American deaths in the United States, the number is less than 3
percent. Jihadists will kill with boxcutters, pressure cookers, knives, guns, cars, airplanes
— with anything they can possibly use to end a human life. It makes far more sense to
aggressively fight jihad than it does to render American families more vulnerable to
crime.
Warrant: Terrorists kill one American per year
Champion Briefs 137

Gould, Dave Mosher and Skye. “How Likely Are Foreign Terrorists to Kill
Americans? The Odds May Surprise You.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 31
Jan. 2017, www.businessinsider.com/death-risk-statistics-terrorism-disease-
accidents-2017-1.
According to a September 2016 study by Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute, a

libertarian think tank, some 3,024 Americans died from 1975 through 2015 due to
foreign-born terrorism. That number includes the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2,983 people) and
averages nearly 74 Americans per year. Since 9/11, however, foreign-born terrorists have
killed roughly one American per year. Six Americans have died per year at the hands,
guns, and bombs of Islamic terrorists (foreign and domestic).
Analysis: Even if the pro team ultimately proves that they prevent terrorists from buying guns, it
is a very small impact. If the con links into gun deaths in any other discernable way, it becomes
very hard for the pro to win with this point of mitigation.
Answer: This is prone to discrimination
Warrant: This will lead to the discrimination of Muslim Americans.
Joyce, Andrew. “Democrats Heavily Push.” Mic, Mic Network Inc., 4 Oct. 2017,
mic.com/articles/184943/democrats-heavily-push-sensible-gun-laws-heres-why-
those-arent-enough#.0w0YkEbxV.
Similar problems arise when considering another popular Democratic policy: banning
people on the federal no-fly list or terrorist watchlist from purchasing firearms. Civil
liberties advocates say both could lead to increased discrimination against Muslim
Americans by bolstering a surveillance program that is already rife with problems. They
argue those risks are not worth taking to try preventing a relatively small portion of the
population from owning guns. Perhaps the only policies floated by Democratic
Champion Briefs 138

lawmakers that could make a significant difference in preventing mass shootings are the
more ambitious proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines
Warrant: Most people on the watchlist are not dangerous.
Jr., John R. Lott. “Mass Shootings and Gun Control.” National Review, 3 Dec. 2015,
www.nationalreview.com/article/427905/mass-shootings-and-democrats.
The American background-check system is supposed to prevent the purchase of a gun by

anyone who has been convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors. The Feinstein
amendment would also ban the sale of guns to anyone who is on the terrorist watch list.
Now, being on the watch list sure sounds bad, but it doesn’t mean that a person has been
convicted of anything. In fact, it is pretty easy to get on the watch list; you can be on it
simply because the FBI wants to interview you about someone you might know.
According to the TechDirt website, about 40 percent of the people on the watch list are
considered to be under “reasonable suspicion” even though they have absolutely “no
affiliation with known terrorist groups.”
Analysis: This response is good because it acts both as mitigation and a turn. As mitigation, it
proves that most people who will be prevented from buying guns if they are on the watchlist
pose no threat whatsoever. As a turn, it can say that even if we catch people who are likely
terrorists, if it comes at the expense of violating people’s personal liberties through racial
discrimination, it is not justified.

Champion Briefs 139

Pro: Background Checks Are Effective in Other Countries
Argument: Many other countries have universal background checks, and these examples
provide insight into the effectiveness of these laws, as well as an idea of how effective they
would be in the United States.

Warrant: Universal background checks are used in Canada

Lopez, German. “How gun control works in America, compared with 4 other rich
countries.” Vox. N.p., 2 Oct 2017. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-
control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada>.

Canada requires a license to own a gun and ammunition, and buyers to pass safety
course tests. Licenses must be renewed every five years. Licensing requires fairly
stringent background checks. An "applicant for a firearm license in Canada must
pass background checks, which consider criminal, mental, addiction and domestic
violence records," according to the Library of Congress's review of Canada's laws.
The background checks also consider whether an applicant has been treated for a
mental illness, if the person was associated with violence, threats, or attempted
violence, and whether the person has a history of any behavior "that includes
violence or threatened or attempted violence on the part of the person against any
person." On top of traditional background checks, each license applicant needs to
submit third-party character references. In addition to licensing requirements,
Canadians can only obtain a permit to carry firearms in public in very limited
circumstances — typically with the requirement that "an individual needs restricted
firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful
profession or occupation" or to protect life.

Champion Briefs 140

Warrant: Universal background checks are used in Japan

Fisher, Max. “A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting
Deaths.” The Atlantic. N.p., 23 July 2013.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-
without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-
deaths/260189/>.

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written
test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting
range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is
unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness),
which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any
criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the
proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with
documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the
ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have
the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every
three years.

Warrant: The United Kingdom has universal background checks

Lopez, German. “How gun control works in America, compared with 4 other rich
countries.” Vox. N.p., 2 Oct 2017. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/4/9850572/gun-
control-us-japan-switzerland-uk-canada>.

For one, handguns are generally banned, with exceptions only for police officers,
members of the armed forces, and people with special permission from the home
secretary. Military-style weapons are also prohibited. For other types of firearms
Champion Briefs 141

and ammo, individuals must go through a stringent licensing process. They must
give a "good reason" — such as job requirements, sport, or shooting vermin — to
own a gun. Self-defense is not considered a good reason. Local police chiefs are
expected to verify that an applicant's reasons for owning a gun are legitimate. For
example, police might see if a person really has vermin in his or her house to the
point that it requires a certain type of gun to deal with the pests. Gun owners also
must meet background checks, which involve a review of a person's criminal record,
mental illness, alcoholism, drug addiction, and references regarding mental state,
home life, and attitudes toward guns. Licenses must be renewed every five years,
although they can be revoked earlier if police find that someone's gun ownership
poses public safety risks or a person no longer has a good reason for the license.

Impact: Background checks have worked in Japan

Jowit, Juliette. “Four countries with gun control – and what America could learn
from them.” The Guardian. N.p., 14 March 2016. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-
how-you-do-gun-control>.

Japan has what may be the closest any country comes to “zero-tolerance” of gun
ownership – a policy that experts say contribute its enviously low rates of gun
crime. As of 2011, legal gun ownership stood at 271,000, according to police
records, in a country of 127 million people. There were six reported gun deaths in
Japan in 2014, according to the National Police Agency. In 2006 just two people
were killed in gun attacks; when the number rose to 22 in 2007 it prompted a bout
of national soul-searching. In his seminal 1993 paper for the Asia Pacific Law
Review, whose conclusions still hold true more than 20 years later, David Kopel
described Japanese gun control laws as “the most stringent in the democratic
world”. The 1958 law on the possession of swords and firearms states: “No one shall
possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords.” Among the few exceptions are
Champion Briefs 142

shotguns, but here too, the restrictions would cause outrage among American gun
owners.

Impact: Background checks worked in Britain

Hartmann, Margaret. “How Australia and Britain Tackled Gun Violence.” NY
Magazine. N.p., 2 Oct 2015. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/how-australia-and-
britain-tackled-gun-violence.html>.

The Hungerford and Dunblane massacres were the only mass shootings in modern
Britain prior to 1997, and there was another massacre in 2010, when taxi driver
Derrick Bird killed 12 people and injured 11 while driving through Cumbria. Bird,
who committed suicide, was licensed to carry firearms. CNN reports gun crime in
England and Wales the late ‘90s increased after the new gun laws were passed,
peaking at 24,094 incidents in 2003–04. By 2010–11 gun crime had decreased by 53
percent from that high. Despite Britain’s more mixed outcome, the Washington
Post’s Anthony Faiola argued that the legislation did play a role in that drop:
Statistics … suggest that the gun bans alone did not have an immediate impact on
firearm-related crime. Over time, however, gun violence in virtually all its guises has
significantly come down with the aid of stricter enforcement and waves of police
anti-weapons operations. The most current statistics available show that firearms
were used to kill 59 people in all of England and Wales in 2011, compared with 77
such homicides that same year in Washington, D.C., alone.

Analysis: Gun laws have been stringent in a number of countries around the world, the
above cards simply listing several key examples. Using these examples, it is possible to
construct a successful narrative, by painting a picture for your judge about how these
measures have been effective everywhere else and would drastically change gun violence
in the U.S. if we take the plunge. Make sure to combine this argument with others that
explain why background checks lead to decrease gun violence, to make the narrative very
clear for your judge.

Champion Briefs 143

A/2: Background Checks Are Effective in Other Countries
Answer: The countries cited by the aff did not benefit from the increase in gun legislation

Warrant: Great Britain did not see great benefits from their gun legislation

Jowit, Juliette. “Four countries with gun control – and what America could learn
from them.” The Guardian. N.p., 14 March 2016. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-
how-you-do-gun-control>.

Mark Mastaglio, an expert on firearms who worked for the Forensic Science Service
for 20 years, said there was no evidence that the ban on handguns after Dunblane
had done anything to cut the criminal use of firearms. “It was very rare that there
was ever leakage from the licensed gun owners to the criminal fraternity. Most guns
used by criminal are either illegally imported or converted weapons. And that
remains the case today,” said Mastaglio. Crime statistics in the years after the ban
was introduced appear to support the theory that it had little impact. Gun crime
rose sharply, to peak at 24,094 offences in 2003/4. After that the number of crimes
in which a firearm was involved fell consistently, to 4,779 offences in 2013. In the
year ending September 2015 there was a small rise of 4% to 4,994 offences.
Thompson said the legislation was only part of it: law enforcement agencies had to
prove they would carry through on the tough penalties and there was also poor
policing of gang areas, and poor ballistics records and analysis. Both were addressed
in the early 2000s, when there was a huge decline in gun crime, he said.

Warrant: Canada has a great deal of gun violence despite its legislation

Champion Briefs 144

Ehrenfreund, Max. “Gun violence in Canada is a lot more common than you think.”
THe Washington Post. N.p., 23 Oct 2014. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/23/gun-
violence-in-canada-is-a-lot-more-common-than-you-
think/?utm_term=.c89a63b5e34e>.

The incident shocked many Canadians. Compared to the United States, gun violence
is rare in Canada, with it occurring about 7 times less often than in the U.S.,
according to Statistics Canada, a government agency. Still, though, there are many
more gun homicides in Canada than in many other developed countries. There were
1,092 violent crimes committed per 100,000 Canadians last year, according to the
agency. About half of those crimes were threats or assaults involving little or no
physical harm. By comparison, the U.S. violent crime rate reported by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation was 387 per 100,000 people, a figure that excludes threats
and simple assaults. The overall Canadian homicide rate was 1.44 per 100,000,
significantly less than the U.S. rate of 4.7 per 100,000. Crime rates in Canada have
been falling, as they have done here. Assault rifles, automatic weapons, and sawed-
off shotguns are banned in Canada, and those who own guns have to apply for a
license. There are about 30 guns in Canada for every 100 people, which is similar to
the number of weapons in Germany, France and the Scandinavian countries.

Analysis: In the very countries held up as the best examples of effective gun control, the
measures failed to actually decrease the violent crime rates. When used together, this is a
block of any impact the pro could garner off of this contention.

Answer: In other countries not mentioned, more gun laws has not been beneficial

Warrant: In Australia, gun legislation did not lead to a drop in violent crime rates

Champion Briefs 145

Libresco, Leah. “The Mass Shootings Fix.” FiveThirtyEight. N.p., July 2016. Web. 7
Oct 2017. <https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-
shootings/>.

In Australia, homicides declined after the ban and buyback, but homicides had
already been falling, according to a 2003 analysisby criminologists Peter Reuter and
Jenny Mouzos. The share of robberies and suicides committed with a gun declined,
but the researchers found that the overall data was “consistent with a story of
substitution” — meaning people used other weapons for homicide and suicide.
Through 1998, the number of suicides (normalized by age) remained nearly
constant, and the share of suicides using a firearm fell by the same rate it had been
falling before the ban. Armed robberies increased through 2000, though fewer were
conducted with a gun. Causing criminals and potential suicide victims to reach for a
different weapon could be a partial victory for a buyback program. Most alternative
weapons are less lethal than a firearm. But if that happened, it didn’t appear to
change the overall trend for violent deaths. Reuter and Mouzos only had a few years
of post-ban data to judge, but last month, a more recent study of Australia’s gun
buyback program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association still
found only muted results.

Warrant: In many countries without strict gun laws, more guns has led to less crime

Kates, Don. “WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?”
Harvard University. N.p., 2007. Web. 7 Oct 2017.
<http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauser
online.pdf>.

Of course, pro-gun activists’ belief leads them to the opposite conclusion: that
widespread firearm ownership reduces violence by deterring criminals from
confrontation crimes and making more attractive such nonconfrontation crimes as
Champion Briefs 146

theft from unoccupied commercial or residential premises. Superficially, the

evidence for this belief seems persuasive. Table 1, for instance, shows that Denmark
has roughly half the gun ownership rate of Norway, but a 50% higher murder rate,
while Russia has only one-ninth Norway’s gun ownership rate but a murder rate
2500% higher. Looking at Tables 1–3, it is easy to find nations in which very high
gun ownership rates correlate with very low murder rates, while other nations
with very low gun ownership rates have much higher murder rates. Moreover, there
is not insubstantial evidence that in the United States widespread gun availability
has helped reduce murder and other violent crime rates. On closer analysis,
however, this evidence appears uniquely applicable to the United States. More than
100 million handguns are owned in the United States84 primarily for self-
defense,85 and 3.5 million people have permits to carry concealed handguns for
protection.86 Recent analysis reveals “a great deal of self-defensive use of firearms”
in the United States, “in fact, more defensive gun uses [by victims] than crimes
committed with firearms.”8

Analysis: This goes beyond simply blocking the pro contention, and is an effort to turn
their argument by addressing countries that they didn’t even mention. Read these cards in
addition to the first cards if you have sufficient time in rebuttal, but make sure to get to the
earlier ones first.

Champion Briefs 147

Pro: Background Checks Do Not Conflict With The 2nd

Amendment
Argument: While many argue that putting restrictions such as universal background
checks in place infringe upon Second Amendment rights to bear arms, most legal scholars
agree that this is simply not the case

Warrant: The founders did not intend for the Second Amendment to cover individual gun
ownership

Waldman, Michael. “How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment.” Brennan
Center for Justice. NYU School of Law, 20 May 2014. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-
amendment>.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or
recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it
mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification
debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as
it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House
included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained,
“composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously
scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!)
and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where
gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts
overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as
going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court
Champion Briefs 148

declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership
outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A
man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty
years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could
it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed
under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

Warrant: Justice Stevens, in his dissent of D.C. v Heller, states explicitly that the Second
Amendment is not intended to be interpreted in the case of individuals

“DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290).” Legal Information Institute. N.p.,
26 June 2008. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html>.

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the
Second Amendment ’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to
use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the
fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly
protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration
of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration
assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in
seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,”
id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed
“[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations
and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in
the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in
crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses
of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.
Champion Briefs 149


Warrant: Rulings by courts regularly reject the rights of individuals to carry guns

Cohen, Jeff. “Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment.” FAIR. N.p., Feb 1,
2000. Web. 4 Oct 2017. <http://fair.org/article/gun-control-the-nra-and-the-
second-amendment/>.

The truth is — and one would hardly know it from the mass media — that since the
Supreme Court’s unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts,
whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second
Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even
by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, has been consistently rejected. Unlike the
average media consumer, Douglas Hickman knows this truth. In 1991, he invoked
the Second Amendment in suing the City of Los Angeles after failing to get a permit
for a concealed weapon. In keeping with dozens of cases since 1939, the Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “We follow our sister circuits in holding that
the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the
possession of a weapon by a private citizen.”The Hickman decision, like most of the
other decisions, went unreported in The New York Times, which once inaccurately
reported that “the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled” on the Second
Amendment’s meaning.

Impact: Background checks are consistent with the Second Amendment, and can be used
without contradicting it

West, Sonja. “The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute.” Slate. N.p., 7 Dec 2015. Web.
4 Oct 2017.
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/12
/second_amendment_allows_for_gun_control.html>.

Champion Briefs 150

The Second Amendment, of course, is no exception. In the 2008 case of District of

Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court told us that we have a constitutional right to
possess firearms for self-defense, at least within our homes. But the opinion never
suggested that this right was unconditional or immune from all regulation. In fact,
Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said just the opposite. In Heller, he
specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as forbidding all
regulations on that right. We can protect that right and still require background
checks, permits, and training. We can still regulate when, where, and what kinds of
guns are allowed. In some cases, we can regulate who can obtain guns, imposing
restrictions on, for instance, felons, the mentally ill, and known terrorists. We can
ban firearms such as military-style assault weapons that (like child pornography)
plainly cause far more harm than they add in value. We can require those who are
negligent with their weapons (as we do those who are negligent with their words in
defamation cases) to be held liable for the harm they inflict on others. We can do all
of these things; we just don’t. There might be policy reasons to debate the pros and
cons of specific regulations, but there’s no reason to assume that there is a
constitutional problem.

Analysis: This is a defensive argument, but an important one, as many con teams may take
the route of arguing that background checks are unconstitutional. By using the above
evidence, it is possible to refute any con argument on the subject, whether it relates to
framer’s intent or modern court decisions. This argument shouldn’t necessarily be used to
weigh as the most important impacts in the round, but if you need a contention that can’t
be turned, or know that your opponents will be running constitutionality and want to
create more clash, running this is a good decision.

Champion Briefs 151

A/2: Background Checks Do Not Conflict With The 2nd Amendment
Answer: The framers, based on their wording, did intend to protect the individual’s right to
have access to firearms, making background checks unconstitutional

Warrant: Several justices have argued that the framers had the clear intent of protecting
an individual's right to bear arms

“Second Amendment vs. Gun Control.” CitizensJournal. N.p., 21 June 2013. Web. 4
Oct 2017. <http://citizensjournal.us/second-amendment-vs-gun-control-
2/>.

Second Amendment supporters tend to interpret this amendment more literally and
believe that restrictions on responsible gun ownership and use should be minimal, if
at all. They generally agree that felons and those with mental impairments, which
could make them prone to violence, should be barred from access to firearms. Most
believe that minors should only utilize firearms under tight supervision. “It is clear
that the Framers…counted the right to keep and bear arms among those
fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”–Supreme Court
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. in McDonald et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al. “The
Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful
proposed, most notably for self-defense within the home.”–From Supreme Court’s
2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. Second Amendment advocates believe
in the wisdom and experience of the founders in establishing this amendment in
perpetuity for all Americans who followed them. They state that militia and the
individual right to arms are separate and have been supported since colonial times.
According to them, the Citizens’ militia, also known as “unorganized militia,” exists
separate and distinct from the National Guard. All able bodied men are technically
militia and should train with local units formed.
Champion Briefs 152


Warrant: The only way to pass gun legislation is to repeal the Second Amendment, as it
prevents these laws from being constitutional

Tobin, Jonathan. “The Second Amendment Blocks Gun Control Efforts.”The New
York Times. N.p., 21 Dec 2015. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/05/is-the-gun-lobby-
still-invincible/the-second-amendment-blocks-gun-control-efforts>.

So long as the Second Amendment to the Constitution remains the law of the land,
the right to bear arms will ensure that guns will continue to be freely obtained.
Tougher laws might make it harder on law-abiding citizens. But in a nation that
already has as many firearms as people that won’t make any difference in stopping
gun violence. The only way to satisfy those who lament the availability of guns is not
to nibble away at the margins as the president and other liberal politicians say is
their goal. Only repeal of the Second Amendment would make the United States
more like other nations where guns are hard to get and rarely legal. It is possible a
future liberal majority on the Supreme Court could re-interpret the Second
Amendment to allow for sweeping restrictions in a way that current laws cannot.
But short of that unlikely occurrence, the only honest debate about guns is not one
that centers on the measures the president backs but one about changing the
Constitution. While the majority of Americans back some regulation of guns, few
would countenance such an attack on the Second Amendment. That’s why this is not
a position the president or his allies wish to defend. But if we are to have an honest
debate about guns it is the one we should be having.

Warrant: The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that individuals do have the right to possess
firearms.

Champion Briefs 153

“The HELLER Decision and What it Means.” Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Oct 2017. <http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/the-second-
amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/dc-v-heller/>.

WHAT WAS AT ISSUE IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER? In District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court heard Second
Amendment challenges to Washington, D.C.’s decades-old ban on handgun
possession and requirement that firearms in the home be stored unloaded and
disassembled or bound by a locking device. In considering the meaning of the
Second Amendment for the first time in 70 years, the Court examined whether the
Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, or only protects
firearm possession connected to service in a state militia. In a radical departure
from its previous interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court held that the
Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-
defense, and struck down the handgun possession ban as well as the safe storage
law (which had no exception for self-defense). The Supreme Court stated, however,
that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep
and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose.”

Analysis: The courts have, in many cases, held that individuals do have the right to bear
arms, making infringements upon these rights of individuals an infringement on the Second
Amendment. This is a direct response to the pro arguments about framers intent and court
rulings.

Answer: Even if the federal government does not protect the right to bear arms, states do

Warrant: 40 states have provisions in their constitutions protecting the rights to bear
arms, just a few of which are listed below

Champion Briefs 154

Goldman, David. “40 States have Constitutional Right to Bear Arms.” Gun Trust
Lawyer. N.p.m June 8 2008. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2008/06/39-states-have-
constitutional.html>.

Pennsylvania: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned.” Pa. Const. art. I, § 21. Rhode Island: “The right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” R.I. Const. art. I, § 22. South
Carolina: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of
peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the
consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be
held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in
time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in
time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.” S.C. Const. art. I, § 20. South
Dakota: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state
shall not be denied.” S.D. Const. art. VI, § 24. Tennessee: “That the citizens of this
State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the
Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to
prevent crime.” Tenn. Const. art. I, § 26.

Analysis: This does not respond to any specific pro argument, but rather the basis of their
contention; if state laws protect gun ownership, it doesn’t matter if the second amendment
does not do so, and makes background checks unlawful regardless

Argument: Background checks violate other Amendments as well

Warrant: It is possible to argue that background checks violate the fifth and first
amendments as well as the second

Champion Briefs 155

Salles, Alice. “RON PAUL: WHY BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”

Voices of Liberty. N.p., 13 Jan 2016. Web. 4 Oct 2017.
<https://voicesofliberty.com/2016/01/13/ron-paul-why-background-
checks-are-unconstitutional/>.

He claims that while the right to bear arms is a “clear cut” right, the left often refuses
to admit that much. Instead, Paul says, they “muddy the waters.” He starts off by
saying that “often, in order to deal with the gun violence in our society,” the left goes
“in and further expand their abuse of civil liberties onto other groups.” During his
conversation with Dick, we learn that the background check system in use currently
is not only wrong because it doesn’t work. It’s wrong because it’s a violation of
several parts of the bill of rights. Dick explains: “… as judge Andrew Napolitano
pointed out earlier this year, [the background ckec] is also a violation of the First
Amendment, because it compels people to speak, provide information about
themselves.” Questions used in background checks include queries into the
consumer’s mental health history, domestic violence, and questions about illegal
drug use. All issues that are private and should be the business of the individual, not
the state. He continues: “At the same time, [the background check system] could be
seen as a violation against the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment because you have to provide evidence against yourself in order to
require a gun.

Analysis: If background checks violate multiple Amendments, they are certainly not
constitutional. This response is effective because it goes beyond the scope of anything the
pro has argued and forces them to think on the fly to address these other amendments.

Champion Briefs 156

Pro: Background Checks Decrease the Number of Guns
Argument: If everyone has to pass a background check before being able to buy a gun, this
inevitably means some people who otherwise would have bought guns are now unable to. This
means that overall fewer guns will be bought and thus in use across the country, which leads to
many good impacts.
Warrant: Background checks make it harder to buy guns
Phillips, Amber. “How Gun-Control Advocates Tried to Make It Harder to Buy Guns in
Nevada.”Chicagotribune.com, 4 Oct. 2017,
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-nevada-gun-control-20171004-
story.html.
Nevada has long been a place where people can buy and sell guns with relatively little
restrictions, and now it's proof that changing gun laws isn't easy. As the state leans further
left politically, gun-control advocates have come tantalizingly close to making it much
harder to get guns in Nevada. But for every step state gun-control advocates have taken,
they've been pulled back several more. Nevada voters technically approved criminal
background checks for private gun sales in November. On Sunday, as Stephen Paddock
fired at hundreds of Las Vegas concertgoers from the 32nd floor of his hotel, both sides
in the gun debate were inching closer to a legal battle over whether to enforce the new
law.
Warrant: Background checks decrease availability of guns.
Sargent, Greg. “Why Expanding Background Checks Would, in Fact, Reduce Gun
Crime.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Apr. 2013,
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/03/why-expanding-
background-checks-would-in-fact-reduce-gun-crime/?utm_term.
Champion Briefs 157

Quite often not. Certainly some will find ways to get guns even with background checks.
But the studies cited above show that state universal background checks, and state laws
that prohibit criminals and other high risk groups from purchasing guns, reduce gun
availability of guns to high risk groups
Impact: Fewer guns in circulation means less gun violence
Lin, Summer. “How To Stop Gun Violence Without Scrapping Second Amendment
Rights.” Bustle, Bustle, 2 Oct. 2017, www.bustle.com/p/how-to-stop-gun-
violence-without-scrapping-second-amendment-rights-2755866.
Gun violence experts agree that universal background checks are the most effective
method of preventing gun violence, according to a recent study. Background checks are
currently mandated by federal law for registered dealers, but don't account for private
sales, which comprise 40 percent of the gun trade, according to the National Institute of
Justice. After the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings in Newtown, President Obama
issued executive actions in Jan. 2016 requiring dealers selling firearms to have federal
licenses and conduct background checks of potential buyers. The policies failed to pass in
Congress. Eight states currently have universal background checks, including New York
and California, but one of the most convincing cases for universal background checks is
Connecticut. The state passed a permit-to-purchase law in 1995, which requires gun
owners to have a permit from law enforcement. Connecticut passed the law in
conjunction with background checks and saw a 40 percent reduction in its firearm
homicide rate by 2005, according to a report by the American Journal of Public Health.
Impact: Fewer guns in circulation means fewer mass shootings
Champion Briefs 158

Cook, Phillip J, and Jens Ludwig. “The Social Costs of Gun Ownership.” NBER,
www.nber.org/papers/w10736.
This paper provides new estimates of the effect of household gun prevalence on homicide
rates, and infers the marginal external cost of handgun ownership. The estimates utilize a
superior proxy for gun prevalence, the percentage of suicides committed with a gun,
which we validate. Using county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the
elasticity of homicide with respect to gun prevalence as between +.1 and +.3. All of the
effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates. Under certain reasonable assumptions,
the average annual marginal social cost of household gun ownership is in the range $100
to $600.
Impact: Fewer guns in circulation means less youth violence
Blumstein, Alfred. Linking Gun Availability to Youth Violence. Duke University, 1996,
scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4309&context=lcp.
In the United States, opinion polls over the last several years have consistently placed
violence near the top of the public's list of concerns. This seems to happen regardless of
whether homicide rates are climbing or falling. In this paper, we examine the time trends
in homicide rates in the United States, and find that the fears are not totally inappropriate,
even in the recent years when homicide rates have been falling. We find that, while there
has been a significant decline in homicides committed by older offenders, homicides
committed by younger offenders grew dramatically beginning in 1985. An important
factor in that growth has been a significant increase in the availability of guns to young
people. By examining time trends in age-specific arrest rates for homicide (gun homicide
compared to non-gun homicide) and similar trends in drug-related arrest rates (juveniles
compared to adults), the role of gun availability, especially as it has risen through the
recruitment of young people into drug markets, is identified as a probable cause of these
homicide trends. Further examination of mortality rates-due to gun homicides compared
Champion Briefs 159

to nongun homicides as well as gun suicides compared to non-gun suicides-for various

age and race groups also implicates gun availability as a key contributing factor to the
growth in youth homicide.
Analysis: This argument is strategic because even if the con team ends up proving that
background checks do not do a good job of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous
individuals, you can simply say that fewer guns in anyone’s hands is a good thing. This gives
you a very easy and clean link into many very weighable impact. This gives you options when
debating in round about what to go for and it also allows you to sidestep many potential
responses and arguments from the con.
Champion Briefs 160

A/2: Background Checks Decrease the Number of Guns
Answer: Reducing the availability of guns is not an effective method of stopping gun violence.
Warrant: It is correlation not causation.
Webster, Daniel W., and Jon S. Vernick. Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing
Policy with Evidence and Analysis. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013.
Cook (1979) conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 50 large cities in the United States to
explore the relationship between gun availability and robbery, including. robbery-murder.
Using data on the number of robberies in 1975, Cook examined how firearm availability
(as proxied by Cook’s index) was related to robbery and robbery-murder rates,
controlling for measures of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, population
density, and other regional and state differences. Increased gun availability was not
associated with overall robbery rates, but it was positively associated with the proportion
of robberies that involved a gun—and with the per capita robbery-murder rate, through an
increased rate of gun robbery
Warrant: It has been empirically proven.
Economist John Lott did extensive work on this question in the late 1990s, culminating in
his 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime. He studied the effect of right-to-carry laws by
examining violent crime rates before and after they were implemented in various states,
up until 1992, and concluded that such laws decreased homicides by an average of 8%.
Champion Briefs 161

Lott's data and methods have been extensively reviewed since then. A massive 2004
report by a 16-member panel of the National Research Council found that there was not
enough evidence to say either way whether right-to-carry laws affected violence. In 2010,
different researchers re-examined Lott's work, the NRC report, and additional data up
through 2006, and reaffirmed that there is no evidence that right-to-carry laws reduce
crime.
Analysis: Even if the pro wins the link and the impact of the argument, you can say that the
reduction in crime is entirely alternately causal. This response is strategic because you can be
extremely charitable to your opponents and still win. Not only does this make you seem level-
headed and reasonable but it is also a very compelling argument to make.
Answer: Background checks will not limit the number of guns sold
Warrant: It is easy to lie on background checks.
Sullivan, Bob. “It's Easier to Lie & Get a Gun Than Lie & Get a Credit Card.”
Credit.com, 28 June 2016, blog.credit.com/2016/06/its-easier-to-lie-get-a-gun-
than-lie-get-a-credit-card-148282/.
The simple form requires purchasers to declare who they are, that they have no criminal felony
record, and that they are not purchasing the gun for someone who does. Some kind of ID is
required, and purchasers generally use a driver’s license, but the rules give dealers flexibility.
And while dealers then contact either the FBI or a state agency to see if the purchaser has a
felony record, there is no system in place to verify the identity of the purchaser. It’s easy to lie on
the application. In many cases, only a shop owner’s intuition stands between a would-be felon
committing identity theft, and a gun.
Warrant: People can simply get others to buy guns for them
Champion Briefs 162

C. D. Michel, adjunct professor, Chapman University School of Law. “Why Universal

Background Checks Won't Work.”TheHill, 3 Feb. 2016,
thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/294213-why-universal-background-
checks-wont-work.
The story gets worse. The same study notes that just as many crime guns were acquired
by acquaintances, be they family or friends (this rather lose category also includes fellow
criminals, who are equally unlikely to participate in “universal” background checks).
Totaled, nearly 80 percent of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution
channels (which are 14 percent of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by
the law abiding folks who would participate in “universal” background checks at gun
shows (0.7 percent).
Analysis: If people can lie on background checks or simply get someone else to buy their guns
for them, it would stand to reason that background checks would not do much to reduce gun
sales. This is a good response because you can illustrate how gun sales play out in the real
world, which proves that you have a very deep understanding of the topic and it brings your
opponents to a part of the debate they are probably unprepared to have.
Answer: People can turn to the black market.
Warrant: Background checks encourage a black market of gun sales.
CD Michel. “Why Universal Background Checks Won't Work.” TheHill, 3 Feb. 2016,
thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/294213-why-universal-background-
checks-wont-work.
Most important is that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme Court
in their Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a report titled
“Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40 percent of
Champion Briefs 163

all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black
market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns. Standing alone, this shows that
“universal” background checks would have an incomplete effect on guns used in crimes.
Warrant: Criminals already do this in Europe.
Tuccile, jd. “In Europe, Terrorists Arm Themselves on the Black Market While Populists
Champion Self-Defense Rights.” Reason.com, 23 Aug. 2016,
reason.com/archives/2016/08/23/in-europe-terrorists-arm-themselves-on-t.

Those restrictive European gun laws touted by gun control advocates in the United
States have done exactly nothing to disarm criminals and terrorists in the countries
where they've been implemented. As always, restrictive laws have bred black
markets and inconvenienced only the law-abiding. Smart politicians might respond
to public fears of crime and terrorism by acknowledging that they have no ability to
disarm the predators in their society, and by empowering people to defend
themselves without fear of prosecution. Smart officials would concede that the
restrictive path they've chosen has failed and that the American model that they've
ridiculed for so long, under which people are entitled to own the means for self-
defense, may well be preferable. Dumb ones would leave the issue to be wrapped up
in a bow by their country's own Donald Trump.
Warrant: The black market is harder to regulate than the private market.
Polsby, Daniel D. “The False Promise of Gun Control.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media
Company, 1 Mar. 1994, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/03/the-
false-promise-of-gun-control/306744/.
Why, though, would one think that federal policing of illegal firearms would be better
than local policing? The logic of that argument is far from clear. Cities, after all, are
Champion Briefs 164

comparatively small places. Washington, D.C. for example, has an area of less than
45,000 acres. Yet local officers have had little luck repressing the illegal firearms trade
there. Why should federal officers do any better watching the United States’ 12,000 miles
of coastline and millions of square miles of interior? Criminals should be able to frustrate
federal police forces just as well as they can local ones. Ten years of increasingly
stringent federal efforts to abate cocaine trafficking, for example, have not succeeded in
raising the street price of the drug.
Analysis: In the best case scenario for the pro this is a link take out and in the worst case
scenario for them this response can function as a turn. At the very least if people are buying
guns from the black market it means that a background check will not reduce gun sales. Instead,
it will only displace them to the illicit market. Here’s where the turn comes in: insofar as the
only difference in sales is where they are made, we would prefer to have as many sales as
possible in the legal market so that the government can monitor the sales at least a small amount.

Champion Briefs 165

Pro: Background Checks Facilitate Gun Tracking
Argument: Universal Background Checks allow the government to be better able to keep track
of where the guns are, what types of people have them, and what they might be used for. This
kind of information is very important when it comes to preventing possible attacks and the
misuse of firearms.
Warrant: Gaps exist within the current database of gunsales and ownership without universal
background checks.
Martinez, Michael. “'Universal Background Check:' What Does It Mean?” CNN, Cable
News Network, 28 Jan. 2013, www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/us/universal-
background-checks/index.html.
One problem with the systems is that many states don't report the names of people who've
been legally labeled dangerously mentally ill. Improving the accuracy and availability of
information about these people, Keene said, is one possible area for agreement. He
suggested "tightening up on putting information in the database. It's school security. It's
beefing up the way we deal with the mentally ill." Nichols said "huge gaps" exist in the
database, which is called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or
NICS. For example, the Virginia Tech shooter, who killed 33 people and himself in 2007,
had passed two background checks because Virginia didn't submit his mentally ill status
to the database, Nichols said.
Warrant: Universal Background Checks will help create a database of gun ownership and sales.
Koenig, Brian. “Background Checks Open Door to National Gun Registry.” The New
American, 16 Apr. 2013,
www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/15117-background-checks-
open-door-to-national-gun-registry.
Champion Briefs 166

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) warned last week on the Senate floor that universal background
checks will undoubtedly open the door to a gun registry system, leading to a scenario
where the federal government will “surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their
Constitutional rights.” Lee noted that the Manchin-Toomey provision would allow U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder to enact regulations that could very easily establish a
national registry for guns. "You see, the federal government has no business monitoring
when or how often you go to church; what books and newspapers you read; who you vote
for; your health conditions; what you eat for breakfast; and the details of your private
life,” the Utah lawmaker affirmed. This, he added, includes not only Americans’ rights
protected by the Second Amendment but other provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Warrant: A database of information helps the police.
“Why America Doesn't Have Universal Background Checks for Gun-Buyers.” The
Economist, The Economist Newspaper, 6 Nov. 2015,
www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/11/economist-explains-0.
The police bosses are on the president’s side. Their job would be much easier if fewer
guns were in circulation and if all buyers of guns were to undergo checks of their
background, especially their criminal and mental-health history. The proliferation of guns
is one of the reasons for the substantial rise in violent crime in many American cities this
year, they say. Current rules on background checks apply only to licensed gun dealers but
up to 40% of gun sales take place at gun fairs or over the internet, which do not require
such checks. The American public is overwhelmingly on the president’s side too.
According to a poll published in August by the Pew Research Centre, 85% of those
surveyed are in favour of expanded background checks for gun owners. Almost 80%
support laws to prevent people with a mental illness from buying a gun and 70% back the
creation of a federal database to track all gun sales. So why is there still no federal law on
background checks?
Champion Briefs 167

Impact: Information collected through background checks help the government know when a
crime is likely to have a gun on site and respond effectively.
“Maintaining Records of Gun Sales.” Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,

smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/maintaining-records-of-gun-
sales/.
Centralized records of gun ownership would greatly increase the efficiency of the tracing
process. These records would also help law enforcement retrieve firearms from persons
who have become legally prohibited from possessing them, and they could be used to
alert law enforcement to the presence of guns at a private residence when they are
responding to an emergency call. In order for law enforcement to have complete
information about gun ownership, however, Congress would need to close the private
sale loophole, which allows guns to be sold by individuals who are not licensed firearms
dealers.
Impact: Information collected through background checks help the government solve crimes
that have already occurred, enabling the enforcement of justice.
“Maintaining Records of Gun Sales.” Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,

smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/maintaining-records-of-gun-
sales/.
As detailed in our summary on Universal Background Checks, unlicensed, private sellers

may legally sell guns under federal law and are not required to maintain any records. As a
result, collecting sales information from dealers falls short of a complete repository,
except in jurisdictions that require private, unlicensed sellers to conduct transfers through
licensed dealers. In a 2007 report, the International Association of Chiefs of Police
Champion Briefs 168

(IACP) found that the absence of a recordkeeping requirement for private sales means
that guns sold through such sales “become more difficult to trace if lost, stolen or
criminally misused, making crimes involving them more difficult to solve.”
Analysis: Many of the con teams on this topic will argue that background checks do not work to
keep criminals from obtaining guns. This argument is strategic because even if criminals end up
getting guns, having information on who they are, what kinds of guns they own, where they live,
etc. will greatly help stop crimes nonetheless. And even if crimes are not stopped, at least
background checks can help enforce justice afterwards.
Champion Briefs 169

A/2: Background Checks Facilitate Gun Tracking
Answer: Information collected through background checks is hard to manage
Warrant: Information gathered is too inclusive, which makes it hard to distill information to a
useful amount that can be put into practice.
Ferris, Sarah. “Lack of Data Makes It Hard for Background Checks System to Work
Properly.”The Washington Post, WP Company, 28 Aug. 2014,
www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lack-of-data-makes-it-hard-
for-background-checks-system-to-work-properly/2014/08/28/d166c1b4-2ed8-
11e4-be9e-60cc44c01e7f_story.html?utm_term=.d477ff5011b9.
The system is also vastly overinclusive, six public health experts said in interviews. People’s
names are kept in the database based on a decades-old definition of “mentally defective,” which
relies on court decisions rather than doctors’ orders. Under federal law, individuals with histories
of violent psychotic episodes can buy guns as long as they never set foot in a courtroom. Every
one of the country’s mass shooters since January 2009 could have slipped through NICS,
according to a July 2014 study by the gun control organization Everytown for Gun Safety.
Warrant: States often do not report information to the federal government.
York Times, The New York Times, 10 Apr. 2013,
www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-skirt-
background-checks.html.
There are problems with the background check system. Gaps in the F.B.I.‘s database of
criminal and mental health records, which are consulted during background checks, have
allowed thousands of people to buy firearms who should have been barred. Many states
Champion Briefs 170

fail to send the federal government comprehensive data on people with mental illness.
Before the mass shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007, for example, a Virginia state judge
had declared the gunman mentally ill. But the record was not sent to the F.B.I., so the
gunman was able to pass a background check and buy the weapons he used to kill 32
people. (Virginia now submits more data to the F.B.I.)
Analysis: If there is too much information or the information is never sent to the federal
government, it doesn’t matter if we collect enough correct information to enact policy or stop
crimes because it becomes impossible to sift through the information in an effective and
meaningful way. This essentially means that the pro team loses all offense on this argument
because even if the prove the link that more information is collected, the ultimate impact can
never materialize due to problems within the system.
Answer: Information collected is often false
Warrant: Medical records are often incomplete or false.
York Times, The New York Times, 10 Apr. 2013,
www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-skirt-
background-checks.html.
Florida, which has received $8.6 million since 2007, has retroactively collected more
than 60,000 mental health records since it was blasted in a report from Mayors Against
Illegal Guns that showed the state had far fewer records than less-populated states such as
Pennsylvania. As the Florida Department of Law Enforcement began educating clerks
from the state’s 67 counties and offering funds to help address the backlog, most
complied. Still, the recordkeeping is imperfect. A 2014 internal audit of the data found
4,000 records took more than a year. Additionally, nearly 200 records had incorrect
birthdates, making it difficult for the system to identify disqualified people.
Champion Briefs 171

Warrant: Criminal records are often incorrect or incomplete.
Ahearn, Thomas. “Government Oversight and Enforcement of Accuracy in

Background Check Industry to Increase in 2016.” ESR News Blog,
www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2015/12/29/government-oversight-and-
enforcement-of-accuracy-in-background-check-industry-to-increase-in-
2016/.

“Issues relating to background checks have become something clearly in the public
eye, either because people think they are not extensive enough or conversely that
they go overboard and are unfair to ex-offenders,” says Rosen, author of ‘The Safe
Hiring Manual’ and a frequent speaker on background check issues. “However, what
everyone agrees about is the need for accuracy and the government agencies are
now squarely focused on accuracy issues.”
Rosen says the focus on accuracy primarily involves criminal records. Regulators,
legislators, and advocacy groups are concerned about both “false positives” and
“false negatives.” A false positive is misreporting a criminal record based on a
database search or a name match where there are not sufficient indicators that the
record is associated with the subject of the background check report, or where a
record has been expunged or set aside and should not have been reported, says
Rosen.
On the other hand, Rosen says false negative is a criminal record that is missed that
should have been reported. Under a federal law called the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), a background check firm has a duty utilize reasonable procedures to obtain
maximum possible accuracy. If a background check company does not attempt to
ensure “maximum possible accuracy,” they could find themselves in non-compliance
with the FCRA and other governmental institutions, Rosen says.
Champion Briefs 172

Analysis: If the information gathered through the process of background checks is false then it is
essentially useless. Even if we are able to know who owns guns, where the guns are, and a
variety of other factors, if the information is false then pursuing action based on it would be
fruitless. Thus, the argument is taken out because the pro team cannot access the impact of
information being used to stop crimes if the information is false.
Champion Briefs 173

Champion Briefs
November 2017
Public Forum Brief
Con Arguments with

Pro Responses
Con Arguments with Pro Responses Nov/Dec 2017
Con: Universal background checks don’t deter those that intend to

commit violence

Argument: Universal background checks don’t address the problem of criminals obtaining
firearms illegally, or of criminals that can buy guns legally and pass background checks as
eligible buyers.

Warrant: Background checks don’t necessarily prohibit criminals with violent intentions
from obtaining guns.

MacBradaigh, Matt. "6 Biggest Problems With Mandatory Gun Background Checks."
Mic. Mic Network Inc., 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<https://mic.com/articles/27309/6-biggest-problems-with-mandatory-gun-
background-checks#.8L6XNxC8K>.

Advocating universal background checks may leave the uninformed with the
impression that this measure would solve the issue of criminals obtaining
guns; it doesn't. According to a 2001 Department of Justice study, 78.8% of
criminals get their guns from sources outside of retail store purchases. 39.6%
get guns from friends or family while another 39.2% get guns from the street
or other illegal means. Universal background checks don't address illegal
trafficking. Trafficking has been a huge problem in Australia and in the UK since
their respective gun bans. Here in the United States, we have serious issues with
border security. The FBI states gangs - which boast 1.2 million active members as of
2011 - engage in illegal guns trafficking, as well as narcotics. Universal background
checks for purchases could easily be circumvented through illegal trafficking. This is
not to say that legal purchases shouldn't have a check, but to demonstrate that this
measure doesn't solve illegal gun possession.

Warrant: Criminals can purchase firearms online to avoid background checks.
Champion Briefs 175

Richinick, Michele. "How Gun Background Checks Get Bypassed." MSNBC.

NBCUniversal News Group, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-gun-report-details-reality-criminals-
bypassing-system#53923>.

Everytown for Gun Safety on Wednesday published the results of an investigation in
Washington that show most of the criminals in the state purchase firearms from the
online marketplace to avoid background checks. Of the identified people seeking
guns in unlicensed sales over the Internet, nearly one in 10 had been
convicted of crimes that prevented them from legally possessing firearms,
including rape domestic abuse, and assaulting police officers. The
investigation also found that 44,000 guns are posted for sale annually on the
Internet.
Warrant: Unlicensed private sellers would never have to enforce federal background checks.
Richinick, Michele. "How Gun Background Checks Get Bypassed." MSNBC.

NBCUniversal News Group, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/new-gun-report-details-reality-criminals-
bypassing-system#53923>.

Federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to perform background checks on
prospective purchasers and to maintain records of the sales. But unlicensed
private sellers — online and at gun shows, for example — are not required to
observe the same policies. About 40% of firearms sold in the country are
transferred by such private sellers, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Warrant: Since 2000, mass shooters have obtained weapons without using private
transfers.
Champion Briefs 176


Lott, John. "Background Checks Do Not Diminish Crime Rates, but Can Increase
Them." TheHill. N.p., 05 Oct. 2017. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/353893-background-checks-
do-not-diminish-crime-rates-but-can-increase-them>.

Kristof and Blumenthal aren’t alone. Democrats made a big push for this after the
2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. But such expanded background
checks wouldn’t have stopped any of these attacks. Since 2000, all of our mass
shooters obtained their weapons without using private transfers. Attacks such
as the San Bernardino massacre in California and the Umpqua Community College
shooting in Oregon occurred in states that already have universal background
checks. Indeed, mass public shootings have recently occurred in France,
Belgium, Norway, Germany and other European countries where these
background checks also exist.

Warrant: Despite public favor for background checks, such checks would not have
prevented some recent mass shootings since 2011.

Johns, Joe. "Would Background Checks Have Stopped Mass Shootings? Probably Not
- CNNPolitics." CNN. Cable News Network, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-mass-
shootings/index.html>.

According to recent polls, more than 90% of Americans favor some form of
background checks for firearm purchases, particularly at gun shows, but the
efficacy of the measure remains dubious by both law enforcement and gun
control advocates. But, as Congress wrestles with what new measures -- if any --
should be passed to control gun purchases, one question looms:
Champion Briefs 177

In those and other mass shootings, would background checks have made any
difference? Looking back, background checks did not stop three mass
shootings that claimed more than 40 lives since 2011.

Warrant: At the shootings at Sandy Hook, Aurora and Tucson, the weapons used were all
purchased legally by eligible buyers.

Johns, Joe. "Would Background Checks Have Stopped Mass Shootings? Probably Not
- CNNPolitics." CNN. Cable News Network, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-mass-
shootings/index.html>.

In the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, where 26 people, mostly children,
were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Adam Lanza used two
semi-automatic handguns and a semi-automatic rifle. He didn't get a
background check for those weapons. They were legally purchased and
registered to his mother, Nancy Lanza, who was his first victim.
Last July, James Holmes walked into a crowded theater in Aurora, Colorado,
and began shooting. His AR-15, two 9 mm Glocks, .40 caliber pistol and 12-
guage shotgun were all purchased legally, after his name was submitted to the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Twelve people
were killed. The same is true with Jared Loughner, who shot then-Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords and 19 other people, killing six, in Tucson in January 2011. His application
was never flagged when run through NICS -- the database from which potential
firearms buyers are determined legally eligible to purchase a gun.

Analysis: There are two parts to this argument-that obtaining guns illegally is still possible
and can still be used in crimes in a world with required background checks, and that recent
mass shootings have been carried out using guns that were either stolen or by people that
have passed background checks. This argument can be used to demonstrate the flaw in the
Champion Briefs 178

fundamental assumption about background checks reducing violent crimes using guns.
Teams can point out how trafficked guns are still accessible, and that eligible buyers could
still carry out violent acts.

Champion Briefs 179

A/2: Universal background checks don’t deter those that intend to

commit violence

Answer: Guns used in violent crimes are disproportionately trafficked or obtained through
illegal transfers, and background checks can be effective in reducing this factor in gun
violence.

Warrant: A federal law is required to reduce the disparity between states with weaker and
stronger gun laws that facilitate trafficking.

Kessler, Jim. "Would Universal Background Checks Make a Difference?" Third Way.
N.p., 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.thirdway.org/memo/would-universal-background-checks-
make-a-difference>.

In a typical year there are roughly 500,000 crimes committed with firearms. In
about 145,000 of these crimes, a firearm is recovered by police and successfully
traced for investigative purposes. In 9 out of 10 gun crimes in which there was a
trace, the person using the gun in the crime was not the person who originally
bought it. In 1 out of 3 gun crimes, the crime was committed in one state but the
gun was originally bought in another. (It is illegal to purchase guns out-of-state.)
The typical age of a person arrested for a crime with a firearm is 19. (The legal age
to purchase a handgun is 21.) Taken together, these facts point to a massive web
of gun trafficking that ferries guns from the legal market to the shadow black
market. And it indicates that much of that black market is supplied through
person-to-person sales that are practically unfettered under federal law.

Warrant: Universal background checks would make selling firearms to unlicensed
individuals illegal, striking a huge blow to the trafficking of guns across states.

Champion Briefs 180

N.p., 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
make-a-difference>.

A universal background check law would make the sale of a firearm from an
unlicensed individual to a criminal illegal and prosecutable. This alone would
have a huge impact on “gun trafficking”—which is a term of art but not
currently an actual federal crime. It would help dry up the shadow market by
requiring background checks for those who seek to stockpile firearms (perhaps
purchased through gun shows, the internet, newspaper want ads, and elsewhere)
for the purposes of selling to criminals and minors.

Analysis: Universal background checks would have a huge impact on the problem of gun
trafficking that can often lead to guns being used in violent crime. While teams can argue
that it is impossible to predict the intentions of criminals themselves, and that some
criminals may actually be able to pass background checks, the availability of guns for those
with criminal records drastically decreases with the reduction of gun trafficking.

Answer: States with federally required background checks experience less gun based
violence.

Warrant: States with required background checks saw 52% fewer mass shootings than
states without checks.

Jeltsen, Melissa. "Study Finds States With Background Checks Have Fewer Mass
Shootings." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 Nov. 2015. Web.
08 Oct. 2017. <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/background-checks-
mass-shootings_us_5644aab1e4b045bf3dedebfd>.

Champion Briefs 181

Between January 2009 and July 2015, Everytown identified 133 mass shootings in
the U.S. — defined as as incidents in which at least four people were killed with a
gun. Controlling for population, states that required background checks saw 52
percent fewer mass shootings than those without them. Not that surprisingly,
states with mandated background checks also saw 63 percent fewer mass
shootings committed by individuals barred from gun ownership. Nationally
during that period, nearly 40 percent of mass shootings were perpetrated by people
prohibited by federal law from possessing guns.

Warrant: States with more expansive background check laws experience less gun
trafficking and guns in violent incidents.

Volsky, Igor. "This New Study Proves That Background Checks Save Lives."
ThinkProgress. N.p., 15 Feb. 2014. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<https://thinkprogress.org/this-new-study-proves-that-background-checks-
save-lives-b93944151276/>.

Federal law only requires background checks and record-keeping for sales by
federally licensed firearms dealers, but 14 states and Washington D.C. also mandate
checks for private handgun sales (10 of these states require that the buyers obtain a
permit-to-purchase license). Research has found that states with more
expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking,
38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent
fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.

Analysis: This answer speaks to the impact of the argument about deterring criminals
from committing violent acts-teams can use this answer to prove that the expansion of
background checks directly impacts the prevalence of gun violence in states with such laws.
Teams can argue that this is the most important impact in the round, and that even if
background checks don’t solve the problem of gun violence entirely, they have a serious
effect on reducing it across the board.
Champion Briefs 182

Con: A universal gun registry would expand the surveillance state

Argument: A universal background check system would entail a gun registry that would
expand the already omnipresent surveillance state.

Warrant: A chief proponent of background checks admitted that universal registration
would be a requirement

C. D. Michel “Why universal background checks won't work” The Hill. 4/17/13.
<http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/294213-why-universal-

Though 80 percent of crime guns already bypass the new system. To achieve any
degree of success, the “universal” background check system would require
universal gun registration. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) has already
acknowledged this, which doomed the bill before it was drafted. Despite
denials by some politicians, registration has already led to gun confiscation in the
United States – in New York, California, Chicago, District of Columbia. Voters are
wary of repeating the same process in their home towns. National registration to
support “universal” background checks is almost universally repugnant. This is the
insurmountable hill representatives and senators face. Universal background checks
aren’t. Voters are anxious and willing to control violence. But controlling guns
doesn’t control criminals and lunatics. Cops and counseling do.

Warrant: A national gun registry would expand the surveillance state

Chris Good “The Case Against Gun Background Checks” ABC News. 4/10/13.
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/the-case-against-gun-
background-checks/>

Champion Briefs 183

They're an invasion of privacy. As opponents of gun control warn about privacy

issues, background checks are tangled up with another proposal, that records
of gun sales must be kept. In a March 22 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, six GOP senators, led by Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, warned
that they would oppose any measures that involved "government surveillance."
While it's not entirely clear what policy those senators had in mind, the American
Civil Liberties Union has raised concerns about both records and background
checks. "You just worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and
an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was
collected," Chris Calabrese, an ACLU privacy lobbyist, told The Daily Caller last
week. Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has made it clear that a "national gun
registry" is illegal and won't be part of any Democratic gun bill.

Impact: Expansion of the surveillance state is accompanied with strengthened institutional
racism

Deepa Kumar “Race, surveillance, and empire” International Socialist Review. 5/09. <
https://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire>

In the twelve years leading up to 1993, the rate of incarceration of Black
Americans tripled,54 establishing the system of mass incarceration that
Michelle Alexander refers to as the new Jim Crow.55 And yet those in prison were
only a quarter of those subject to supervision by the criminal justice system, with its
attendant mechanisms of routine surveillance and “intermediate sanctions,” such as
house arrests, boot camps, intensive supervision, day reporting, community service,
and electronic tagging. Criminal records databases, which are easily accessible to
potential employers, now hold files on around one-third of the adult male
population.56 Alice Goffman has written of the ways that mass incarceration is not
just a matter of imprisonment itself but also the systems of policing and surveillance
that track young Black men and label them as would-be criminals before and after
Champion Briefs 184

their time in prison. From stops on the street to probation meetings, these systems,
she says, have transformed
poor Black neighborhoods into communities of suspects and fugitives. A climate of
fear and suspicion pervades everyday life, and many residents live with the daily
concern that the authorities will seize them and take them away.57 A predictable
outcome of such systems of classification and criminalization is the routine
racist violence carried out by police forces and the regular occurrences of
police killings of Black people, such as Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri,
on August 9, 2014.

Impact: Black Americans are exponentially more likely to be incarcerated as a result of
surveillance

Malkia Cyril “Race, surveillance, and empire” International Socialist Review. 5/09.
<https://isreview.org/issue/96/race-surveillance-and-empire>

Today, media reporting on government surveillance is laser-focused on the
revelations by Edward Snowden that millions of Americans were being spied on by
the NSA. Yet my mother’s visit from the FBI reminds me that, from the slave pass
system to laws that deputized white civilians as enforcers of Jim Crow, black
people and other people of color have lived for centuries with surveillance
practices aimed at maintaining a racial hierarchy. It’s time for journalists to tell
a new story that does not start the clock when privileged classes learn they are
targets of surveillance. We need to understand that data has historically been
overused to repress dissidence, monitor perceived criminality, and perpetually
maintain an impoverished underclass. In an era of big data, the Internet has
increased the speed and secrecy of data collection. Thanks to new surveillance
technologies, law enforcement agencies are now able to collect massive
amounts of indiscriminate data. Yet legal protections and policies have not
caught up to this technological advance.
Champion Briefs 185


Analysis: This argument functions as more of a deontological or ethical argument than one
with consequentialist impacts. The link debate isn’t too difficult to win, as the Good
evidence makes it clear that any viable proposal for universal background checks would go
hand in hand with one for a gun registry. The impact level is where the material gets
interesting. The Kumar and Cyril articles go hand-in-hand, reminding us that expansions of
the surveillance state only help law enforcement disproportionately target African
Americans, assigning them perceived criminality. One would argue that such an increase in
discrimination ought to be rejected a priori, before anything else. At the risk of getting too
political, this is a good argument to run in more liberal circuits where judges would
otherwise have a tacit affirmative bias.

Note: The Good evidence does seem to delink the argument at the very end, so instead of
clipping that sentence out, I thought it would be better to explain how to argue through
such a response. It is true that Schumer is opposed to the registry, but coupled with the
Michel evidence above, the affirmative is placed into a double bind. Either the registry is
enacted and it violates privacy or the registry isn’t enacted, background checks fail, and the
affirmative generates no offense.

Champion Briefs 186

A/2: A universal gun registry would expand the surveillance state

Answer: A national gun registry would simply not happen.

Warrant: It is an explicit FBI policy that all records generated by background checks must
be destroyed.

Eugene Kiely “NRA Misfires on Federal Gun Registry” The Wire. 1/25/13.
<http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/nra-misfires-on-federal-gun-registry/>
It’s simply not accurate to suggest that Obama’s plan for universal background checks
would result in a “massive federal registry” — which is currently barred by law. The Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which was enacted in 1993, created the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System. On its website, the FBI says that “more than
100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000
denials.” The vast majority of those subject to background checks pass, and the records
generated by those NICS checks are ultimately destroyed, as required by law and
explained by the FBI in a fact sheet on the law. FBI: The NICS is not to be used to
establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed
transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations.

Warrant: Even if Congress could change the laws, the process of buying a gun is too
inefficient to make a registry practical

Sarah Trumble “Why Universal Background Checks Can’t Lead to a Federal Gun
Registry” Third Way. 2/14/13. <http://www.thirdway.org/memo/why-
universal-background-checks-cant-lead-to-a-federal-gun-registry>

It is, by intentional legal design, the most inefficient and diffuse record-
keeping system in the government. The universal background check proposals
Champion Briefs 187

currently before Congress would place the exact same restrictions on private sales,
and these sales would mostly be conducted through the very same licensed firearms
dealers. Given the way the recordkeeping system works, it would be
impossible to create a federal database of gun owners based on background
check records. If background checks are made universal, even more 4473 forms
will be filled out every year, and they will be kept by each individual seller or by the
dealer who helped them access the NICS system. There will still only be one record
of a private gun sale, and as long as the gun store stays open or the private seller is
alive, the government will never have access to it. Even if the form is eventually sent
to the federal warehouse and entered into its 4473 database, the information will
still be unsearchable and fail to serve in any way as a registry of gun owners. And
the record of the background check itself would still be destroyed within 24 hours.
Given the operation of the system, there is simply no practical way to use
background checks to create a federal registry of gun owners.

Warrant: It is a political non-starter in the status quo

Sarah Trumble “Why Universal Background Checks Can’t Lead to a Federal Gun
Registry” Third Way. 2/14/13. <http://www.thirdway.org/memo/why-
universal-background-checks-cant-lead-to-a-federal-gun-registry>

Finally, a registry would also be a political nonstarter. Even policymakers on
the far left are not calling for a federal registry of gun owners, and if anyone
were to do so, the proposal would never even get a vote, much less have a
chance of passage. Perhaps that is why registration is not on anyone’s agenda—
except opponents of gun safety measures. The President did not propose
registration as a policy solution.21 Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
has entertained no hearings on registration. The Democratic House Task Force did
not recommend registration.22 The assault weapons ban bills introduced by
Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Congresswoman
Champion Briefs 188

Carolyn McCarthy contain no registration.23 And of course, the bipartisan Senate bill
on background checks for private gun sales will contain no whiff of registration. It’s
a pretend issue.

Analysis: This three-pronged analysis as to why a gun registry would either never happen
or never work should be enough to shut down the link portion of this argument. First, it is
explicitly in federal regulations that all information from a background check must be
destroyed. Thus, a change to this regulation would need to take place for a registry to be
created. Second, even if the regulation was repealed, the process by which guns are bought
and sold is intentionally far too inefficient to allow for such record-keeping. Third, even if it
were possible to make this work, there is no political impetus for it to happen in the status
quo.

Answer: A registry wouldn’t increase racial inequality in surveillance.

Warrant: White males make up a disproportionate amount of gun ownership.

Dara Lind “Who owns guns in America? White men, mostly.” Vox. 12/4/15.
<https://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9849524/gun-race-statistics>
This isn't a lament about how there isn't real debate in America anymore. It's a
simple fact. Gun owners are more likely to be white, male, and rural. People who
don't own guns — and even more so, people who are uncomfortable with them —
are more likely to be nonwhite, female, and urban or suburban. A Pew Research
Center report from 2013 compiled in-depth statistics on people who said they
owned guns or had guns in the household. It found that white males make up the
bulk of America's gun owners. The chart below shows one way to look at this
discrepancy: 31 percent of whites own guns, and white men make up a much larger
share of that than white women. Another way to look at it is to think about how the
population of all Americans compares to the population of Americans who own
Champion Briefs 189

guns: Only 32 percent of Americans are white men. But white males make up
61 percent of gun owners.

Analysis: This answer mitigates their impact and serves as a way to introduce some
weighing between your impact and theirs. Explain that the consequentialist lives that you
probably are going for are more important than an expansion of a sector of the surveillance
state that applies disproportionately more to white people than to people of color.

Champion Briefs 190

Con: NICS is structurally ineffective

Argument: The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, has serious
structural failures that make using background checks as a system to root out potentially
violent criminals ineffective in the long term.

Warrant: NICS has struggled to adapt to the number of gun purchases and transfers.

Johnson, Kevin. "FBI Official: 'Perfect Storm' Imperiling Gun Background Checks."
USA Today. N.p., 20 Jan. 2016. Web. 04 Oct. 2017.
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/01/19/fbi-guns-
background-checks/78752774/>.

The NICS system, mandated by Congress as part of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act, has for nearly 20 years been a centerpiece of the
government's effort to block criminals from obtaining firearms. Yet the
operation has largely struggled to keep pace with a steadily increasing number
of firearm transfers, while maintaining databases of criminal and mental
health records that rely solely on voluntary contributions from state and local
authorities. Those records are crucial to determining whether prospective gun
buyers are eligible to purchase firearms.

Warrant: If a suspicious background check is not resolved in three business days, a
purchase can proceed regardless of completion.

Yablon, Alex. "Congress Pledged More Than a Billion Dollars to Fix the Federal
Background Check System. But Only a Fraction of the Funds Have Been
Spent." The Trace. N.p., 27 July 2015. Web. 04 Oct. 2017.
<https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/nics-background-check-congress-
spending/>.
Champion Briefs 191


This summer’s mass shootings have provided indelible examples of the real-world
consequences of these reporting gaps. Overall, 90 percent of background checks
take less than two minutes to complete. But when the initial scan leaves the
buyer’s eligibility in doubt, the application is given a “yellow light,” and FBI
examiners have three business days to track down the information that will
resolve whether the sale should move forward; after that deadline, the
purchase can go through whether or even if the background check remains
incomplete. That’s how a gun store was legally allowed to sell Roof the handgun he
used to kill nine people in Charleston: An administrative error meant
NICS investigators couldn’t see the specifics of his local drug charge, pushing his
background check past the time limit.

Warrant: Over 200,000 checks exceeded the three day period in 2014, with 6000 gun sales
to buyers who were ineligible for ownership.

spending/>.

According to 2007 Congressional testimony by Campbell’s colleague Rachel Brand, 3
percent of checks take the FBI’s NICS division more than three business days to
complete, and thousands never receive any determination at all. With 8.2 million
background checks performed by NICS in 2014, even a small fraction
represents a significant number of default proceeds: 228,006 checks exceeded
the three-day period last year, resulting in at least 6,000 gun sales to buyers
later found ineligible for firearms ownership.

Champion Briefs 192

Warrant: Millions of criminal records are not accessible by the current NICS system.

spending/>.

In Campbell’s words, there is one reason the FBI allows default proceeds: “There are
certain local records that are not available to the system.” Each state has different
standards for what records it keeps, how it keeps them, and what it sends to the
background check system. Figuring out the dispositions of criminal charges
sometimes requires getting a local court clerk to dig through physical files. Mental
health and substance abuse records are often not reported at all, in any form, which
has only deepened the puzzle of Houser’s eligibility for gun ownership. In total,
Congress estimates nearly 21 million criminal records are not accessible by
NICS, and millions more are incomplete. Given this patchwork of rules and
resources, in some cases, it’s nearly impossible for the Bureau to get a
complete picture of who should be prohibited from buying a gun.

Warrant: NICS has cost taxpayers millions to maintain, but remains poorly designed at
rooting out violent criminals.

Ferris, Sarah. "Lack of Data Makes It Hard for Background Checks System to Work
Properly."The Washington Post. WP Company, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 04 Oct.
2017. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lack-of-
data-makes-it-hard-for-background-checks-system-to-work-
properly/2014/08/28/d166c1b4-2ed8-11e4-be9e-
60cc44c01e7f_story.html?utm_term=.51c2871bd90a>.

Champion Briefs 193

The White House describes the background check system, known as NICS, as its
“most important tool” to stopping gun crime. But more than a decade of data from
the FBI and public health research reveals broad failings of the system, which
has cost at least $650 million to maintain, a News21 investigation found. Nearly
all sides of the gun debate have devoted resources to strengthening the background
check system, confronting technology gaps, coordination failures and privacy
concerns. Thirty states have passed laws mandating mental health reporting to
NICS, four of which were added in the past six months. Yet no organization has
been able to address the larger concern that NICS is poorly designed to
identify those in society most likely to be violent.

Warrant: States are not required to submit mental health records to NICS, allowing for
potentially dangerous information gaps.

Ferris, Sarah. "Lack of Data Makes It Hard for Background Checks System to Work
Properly." The Washington Post. WP Company, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 04 Oct.
2017. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/lack-of-
data-makes-it-hard-for-background-checks-system-to-work-
properly/2014/08/28/d166c1b4-2ed8-11e4-be9e-
60cc44c01e7f_story.html?utm_term=.51c2871bd90a>.

Federally licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check, either
online or by phone, before each firearms sale. Within about 30 seconds, the system
searches for criminal convictions and in 38 states a history of severe mental illness
as judged by a court. But states are not required under federal law to submit
mental health records to NICS. There are no consequences if states choose not
to send records, resulting in major information gaps. Only about 30 percent of
the estimated 4.4 million mental health records in the United States over the
past two decades can be found in NICS, according to research compiled in
Champion Briefs 194

2012 by the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics and the
National Center for State Courts.

Analysis: The central point of this argument is that the tool with which background checks
are conducted is structurally inefficient, and may capitulate to its vulnerabilities if
overloaded with more requirements for background checks. Teams may also impact out
this argument to prove that relying on background checks is dangerous given the rate of
false-positives and arbitrary timelines that allow people with incomplete checks to
purchase guns. Teams can also point out that the efficacy of checks rely on the submission
of state records, federally requiring them may not solve the problem of gun violence at all.

Champion Briefs 195

A/2: NICS is structurally ineffective

Answer: Universal background checks would ultimately save lives.

Warrant: Universal background checks for all gun purchases may reduce gun violence by
61%

Chedekel, Lisa. "BU Study Measures Impact of Gun-Control Laws." BU Today. Boston
University, 24 Mar. 2016. Web. 04 Oct. 2017.
<https://www.bu.edu/today/2016/gun-control-laws/>

The study, published March 10 in The Lancet, suggests that three laws implemented
in some states could reduce gun deaths by more than 80 percent if they were
adopted nationwide. Laws requiring firearm identification through ballistic
imprinting or microstamping were found to reduce the projected mortality risk by
84 percent, ammunition background checks reduced it by 82 percent, and
universal background checks for all gun purchases reduced it by 61 percent.
Federal implementation of all three laws was projected to reduce the national
firearm death rate—10.1 per 100,000 people in 2010—to 0.16 per 100,000,
the study says.

Warrant: States with more expansive background check laws experience less gun violence
on average.

Volsky, Igor. "This New Study Proves That Background Checks Save Lives."
ThinkProgress. N.p., 15 Feb. 2014. Web. 04 Oct. 2017.
<https://thinkprogress.org/this-new-study-proves-that-background-checks-
save-lives-b93944151276/>.

Champion Briefs 196

Federal law only requires background checks and record-keeping for sales by
federally licensed firearms dealers, but 14 states and Washington D.C. also mandate
checks for private handgun sales (10 of these states require that the buyers obtain a
permit-to-purchase license). Research has found that states with more
expansive background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking,
38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent
fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.

Analysis: This answer directly speaks to the impact level debate of gun violence and lives.
Teams should point out that even with structural difficulties, the implementation of federal
laws requiring background checks is still proven to reduce violence in the long term, and
that impact scenario is the most important element of the round.

Answer: NICS becomes more effective with the passage of universal background checks.

Warrant: Current legislative proposals for universal background checks provide states
with incentives to increase reporting to NICS.

N.p., 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 4 Oct. 2017.
make-a-difference>.

States are supposed to supply disqualifying records to the federal database, but in
some cases they do a horrible job. Pennsylvania, for example, has only one
disqualifying mental health record in its database.28 Oklahoma has two.29 Virginia
recently improved its mental health record contributions, but only after a crazed
killer erroneously cleared a background check and purchased several firearms that
he used at Virginia Tech. But it’s worth noting that many of the current
legislative proposals for a universal background check requirement would
Champion Briefs 197

actually improve NICS as well, by incentivizing states to update their records

or providing them with additional funding to make such updates possible.

Warrant: States have made concerted efforts and demonstrated progress in reporting to
NICS in the past.

Harbitter, Kelly J. "NICS: Challenges to Mental Health Record Sharing and Recent
Congressional Activity." JRSA Forum. Justice Research and Statistics
Association, Sept. 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/forum/sep2013_31-3/nics.htm>.

According to a July 2012 Government Accountability Office Report: "From 2004 to
2011, the total number of mental health records that states made available to
the...(NICS) increased by approximately 800 percent - from about 126,000 to
1.2 million records - although a variety of challenges limited states' ability to share
such records." The report also attributes much of the progress to the work of 12
states. States have made concerted efforts in the past several years to improve
the system. In Washington State, for example, reporting of mental health
adjudications and involuntary commitments has occurred for a number of
years. To further enhance the system, the state passed a new law effective this year
that convenes law enforcement, mental health, courts and other agencies to develop
a proposal for consolidating statewide involuntary commitment information and to
deal with the privacy issues in doing so. The move is expected to make the reporting
in this area even more streamlined and effective. In Colorado, the Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) is developing technical solutions to accomplish real-time,
electronic transfer of mental health information from state justice agencies to
the CBI and NICS. Using federal funding for NICS enhancements, Alabama plans to
overhaul its criminal history system and include specific capabilities to
Champion Briefs 198

electronically collect mental commitment information from the local probate

judges.

Analysis: Teams can use this response to point out that the NICS system is set to
experience beneficial improvements with the passage of a federally required universal
background checks. Not only has state reporting improved, but legislation for universal
background checks provide incentives for states to improve their reporting process in the
long term. This directly answers any arguments about current NICS inefficiency, and teams
can demonstrate how the system becomes better with the requirement of background
checks.

Champion Briefs 199

Con: Background checks breed complacency

Argument: Requiring universal background checks creates a false sense of security and
subsequently prevents other forms of gun control that are more effective.

Warrant: Background checks provide an illusion of security without actually being
effective.

Gregory Korte “Senate appears ready to move on guns” USA Today. 4/10/13.
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/10/senate-guns-
background-check-filibuster/2070879/>

“The NRA did offer support for a second agreement Wednesday, worked out by
Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, to strengthen the penalties
for firearm trafficking and for people who buy guns for those banned from owning
them. Even Manchin and Toomey said their own amendment didn't guarantee they
would vote in favor of the bill, depending on what other language is included on
issues like banning assault weapons or limiting the capacity of ammunition
magazines — two issues currently not in the bill being offered by Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. — whom Manchin and
Toomey touted as giving "invaluable" input — said he didn't see how any
background-check provision could be effective. And Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-
S.C., said "expanding background checks is about the most false sense of
security you could provide to anybody." But the first debate Thursday will be the
threatened filibuster led by Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas and
Mike Lee of Utah. Lee said a filibuster would allow "three more days to assess how
the bill would impact the rights of law-abiding citizens."
American history, attacks in the 19th and 20th centuries had higher death tolls

Champion Briefs 200

Link: Background checks, by their very nature, are ineffective due to structural problems in
how they are enforced.

Garance Franke-Ruta “Why Mental-Health Background Checks Are Not the Solution
to Gun Violence” The Atlantic. 9/19/13.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/09/why-mental-health-
background-checks-are-not-the-solution-to-gun-violence/279781/>

“As gun rights advocates have been quick to point out, nothing in Congress's failed
spring effort to extend background checks would have stopped Alexis's ability
to purchase the weapon he used to launch the slaughter of 12 innocent people
starting their workday at a military installation. This is the great problem at the
heart of efforts to turn improved mental health reporting into our primary form of
gun control. More than half of Americans experience one or more mental
illnesses over the course of their lives, and around 26 percent of Americans over
age 18 each year experience at least one, primarily anxiety disorders and mood
disorders like depression. The overwhelming majority of them are no danger to
anyone at all. But with so substantial a portion of the country going through bouts
of one thing or another over the course of their lives, the idea that any federal
database could capture enough information to encompass every one who
might one day be a threat anywhere is akin to hoping for a government staff of
precogs. And that's not even getting into the highly problematic question of
whether the government should mark millions of people who will never hurt
anyone for a carve-out from the Second Amendment, and the privacy and
stigmatization issues involved in cataloging harmless people who suffer from
common mental illnesses in order to label them as potential threats in a federal
government database.”

Impact: More effective, realistic forms of gun control are stifled and never come to fruition.

Champion Briefs 201

Leah Libresco “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me
otherwise.” The Washington Post. 10/3/17.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-
the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-
11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.0f21193f388e>

“By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions
I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most
gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the
benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners
hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have
encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions.
Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept
up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different
protections. Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need
better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women
endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce
restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns.
Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or
lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate
conflicts. Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify
gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures,
wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be
identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally —
not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is
most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding
those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of
tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming
potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
Champion Briefs 202


Analysis: This argument is effective because it allows the negative to co-opt much of the
affirmative’s offense. By clarifying that background checks are unlikely to be effective due
to logistical and feasibility problems, the negative can argue that opting for background
checks precludes other solutions which are more effective and realistic.

Champion Briefs 203

A/2: Background checks breed complacency

Answer: The negative’s argument is non-unique. Complacency already exists in the real
world, and is unlikely to get any worse because of background checks. Instead, background
checks are the only real way to make gun violence any less severe.

Warrant: There is already complacency in regards to gun violence, resulting in almost no
chance at meaningful change absent an affirmative ballot.

Harry Cheadle “The Gun Laws America Should Pass but Won't” Vice. 10/3/17.
<https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne7ky7/the-gun-laws-america-should-
pass-but-wont>
“On Sunday, Americans were reminded that at nearly any time and in nearly any place,
there is the possibility that a man—almost always a man—will shoot and kill you. Most
mass shootings go relatively unremarked upon; what made Las Vegas so notable was the
terrible scale. Fifty-nine dead, 527 injured, a gunman with dozens of weapons and a
terrifyingly well-thought-out plan for how to inflict maximum damage on a crowd of
strangers. As of Tuesday morning, his motives were still unclear, providing no purchase
for any public debate about extremism or mental illness. The only thing that is clear is
that he was a man who wanted to kill people—and that guns gave him the ability to do
so. The relevant political question is whether the Republican Party, which currently
controls Congress and the White House, has any interest in trying to prevent this
sort of thing. Recent history tells us that it does not. The facts and figures of gun
violence are by now familiar, since they enter the public consciousness every time a mass
shooting is sufficiently horrific to become national news. Compared to other developed
countries, the US has far more guns and far more mass shootings and gun deaths,
including homicides, suicides, and accidents. In Nevada, more people die by gunfire than
die of car accidents. It's also incredibly easy to buy a gun in that state—thanks to the "gun
show loophole," you can purchase almost any kind of firearm you want without having to
Champion Briefs 204

undergo a background check, which the Vegas shooter, Stephen Paddock, had reportedly
passed anyway. No legal regime can prevent every determined madman from killing
people, especially someone like Paddock, who apparently didn't have a history of mental
illness or violence. But there are reforms that have become blindingly obvious to
both experts and regular citizens, making the last several years of congressional
inaction and complete surrender to the gun lobby all the more obscene.”

Warrant: Even in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, Republicans are unwilling to pass
meaningful reforms to gun control legislation. In fact, they are more likely to pass
legislation that eases restrictions.

Lisa Mascaro “GOP still plans to vote on NRA-backed legislation that eases gun
restrictions” Los Angeles Times. 10/2/17.
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-
congress-unable-to-pass-firearm-1506964271-htmlstory.html>

“Congress has been unable, or unwilling, to approve gun control legislation
after recent mass shootings — including one targeting lawmakers playing
baseball — and it is unlikely to consider new bills after the attack in Las Vegas.
To the contrary, House Republicans are on track to advance legislation easing
firearms rules, including a package of bills backed by the National Rifle Assn.
that would make it easier to purchase silencers. Opponents of the bill argue that
making silencers more prevalent could worsen the impact of mass shootings.
Supporters say silencers can prevent hearing damage among hunters. The
Sportsman's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (SHARE Act) was
introduced last month, and gun advocates hoped for swift passage. It would allow
gun owners to transport registered firearms across state lines, carry guns in
national parks and eliminate the $200 transfer tax on silencers.

Champion Briefs 205

Impact: Background checks can provide meaningful, tangible benefits. Namely,

background checks have been proven to prevent suicides in states where they were
adopted.

Weiss, Benitta, “Lower Suicide Rates Associated With Background Checks” Generation
Progress, August 31, 2015.
<http://genprogress.org/voices/2015/08/31/39334/lower-suicide-rates-
associated-with-background-checks/>

“The American Journal Public Health has published a new study that connects
thorough gun laws with a lower rates of suicide. The study examined waiting
periods, universal background checks, gun locks, and open carrying regulations for
impact on suicide rates. In 11 states with waiting periods, the longer the waiting
period, the lower the gun suicide rate. Compared with states without the waiting
periods, background checks were associated with a 53 percent lower gun
suicide rate, gun locks with a 68 percent lower rate, and restrictions on open
carrying a 42 percent lower rate, the New York Times reported. “When you make a
highly lethal method of suicide harder to access, you’re going to lower the suicide
rate,” said the lead author of the study, an assistant professor of Psychology at the
University of Southern Mississippi, Michael D. Anestis. “We need to emphasize
evidence-based gun safety among gun owners.” Background checks are the most
effective way to restrict access to firearms.”

Analysis: The best way to answer this argument is to contend that the negative is grasping
at straws. There seems to be very little momentum in the direction of stricter gun control
laws in the status quo, and the negative has no way to prove that any sort of real gun
control laws will be passed without affirming. On the contrary, the affirmative can point out
real, tangible benefits of background checks that are guaranteed to happen if the judge
affirms.

Champion Briefs 206

Con: Violating background checks isn’t widely prosecuted by the

Justice Department

Argument: The low prosecution rate of people who lie on their background checks makes the
requirement of universal background checks ineffective in the long term since the Justice
Department considers their cases low-priority.
Warrant: Most denied buyers escape punishment, making expanding background checks an
obsolete process.
Levy, Robert A. "Reflections on Gun Control by a Second Amendment Advocate." Cato

Institute. N.p., 11 Feb. 2013. Web. 8 Oct. 2017.
<https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reflections-gun-control-second-
amendment-advocated>.
Survey data indicate that less than 2 percent of guns used by criminals are bought at gun
shows and flea markets—and that includes sales through licensed dealers. Still, the New
York Times editorializes that background checks “prevented nearly two million gun
sales” over a 15-year period. Of course, that’s ridiculous; there is no way for the Times to
determine how many sales did not happen. Violence-prone buyers who do not pass the
background check go elsewhere for their purchases. Here are the figures for a recent year:
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) denied 79,000
would-be buyers. Of those, 105 were prosecuted and 43 were convicted. That’s a
conviction rate of 5/100ths of one percent. Either the remaining denials were false
positives — legitimate purchases unjustly blocked by NICS — or, if the denials were
proper, then 99.95 percent of the 79,000 rejected applicants escaped punishment.
Neither conclusion offers much hope for an expanded system of background checks.
Warrant: The Justice Department only pursues a fraction of 1% of cases of people lying on
background checks.
Champion Briefs 207



The Obama administration's Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing
prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The
FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to
buy guns in 2009, but the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a
fraction of 1%.

Warrant: In one year, only 44 people were prosecuted out of 76,000 instances of fraud
regarding background checks.

Chang, Ailsa. "Background Check Battle: More Prosecution Or More Checks?" NPR.
NPR, 16 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/16/177479675/back
ground-check-battle-more-prosecution-or-more-checks>.

Federal data show that in 2010, people lied on federal forms and failed
background checks more than 76,000 times. Only 44 of those people were
prosecuted, because law enforcement officials say it's a low-priority crime.
Proving that someone intended to lie on a federal form is often difficult, they
say, and sentences are usually light. That's appalling to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz
of Texas. He says the government needs to focus on getting more prosecutions
going, not on expanding background checks. "And I intend to introduce legislation to
increase the resources and direct the Department of Justice to start doing its job —
to start prosecuting felons and fugitives who are trying to illegally purchase guns,"
he says.
Champion Briefs 208


Warrant: The prosecution process suffers from evidence hurdles and sentencing issues.

Schmidt, Michael S. "Both Sides in Gun Debate Agree: Punish Background-Check
Liars." The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Oct.
2017. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/us/politics/us-may-focus-
more-on-gun-background-checks.html>.

The low number of prosecutions in 2010, the most recent year for which data are
available, is consistent with other years. Prosecuting these cases has proved
challenging because to get a conviction “you have to prove that the person knew
they were lying when they tried to purchase the firearm,” said a senior Justice
Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss matters related
to gun control before Mr. Biden’s proposals are announced. A conviction usually carries
a maximum sentence of just six months, the official said, adding that with a limited
number of federal prosecutors the government has to prioritize its use of resources.
Warrant: A stronger prosecution process is necessary to deter criminals.

With such a low number of prosecutions, Mr. Arulanandam of the N.R.A. said there is
no deterrent for criminals who take their chances by trying to buy a weapon from a
gun dealer. “If the Justice Department started prosecuting these people, it will send
a message that if you are disqualified we are sending you to jail,” he said. “It’s a
pretty good message to send to criminals.”
Champion Briefs 209

Warrant: Fixing the problem with prosecution is critical to reducing violent crime.


Another study backed by the Justice Department found that people who are
denied the right to buy a firearm are much more likely than the average
person to commit a violent crime even after being denied. The study, released in
2008, revealed that people who are denied a gun are 28 percent more likely to be
arrested in the five years after they failed their background check compared with
the previous five years.

Analysis: The point of this argument is to demonstrate that even if background checks
become federally required, they aren’t an absolute guarantee that people who violate them
by committing fraud are ever prosecuted. The lack of effective prosecution mitigates the
long-term effectiveness of such a requirement in the first place, and minimizes the
deterrent effect of universal checks.

Champion Briefs 210

A/2: Violating background checks isn’t widely prosecuted by the

Justice Department

Answer: Denied buyers still face arrest for violating background checks.

Warrant: The number of state and local arrests is much higher for those that commit fraud
on background check forms.

Berry, Jake. "Most People Trying to Buy a Gun Illegally Are Never Prosecuted, U.S.
Senator Kelly Ayotte Says." Politifact. N.p., 22 Mar. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.politifact.com/new-
hampshire/statements/2013/mar/22/kelly-ayotte/most-people-trying-buy-
gun-illegally-us-senator-ke/>.

The 44 charges, 13 of which were still pending at the end of 2011, reflect only those
cases brought by federal prosecutors and does not consider charges filed by state or
local police agencies, Frandsen noted. In his research, Frandsen tracks those local
cases reported voluntarily by states. In 2010, four states -- Colorado, Oregon,
Pennsylvania and Virginia -- reported 1,520 arrests. That count does not include any
arrests made that year in the remaining 17 states that conduct at least some
background checks themselves.

Analysis: This answer points out that even though federal prosecutions of fraudulent
denied buyers is low, the actual number of arrests on a state-by-state basis is still high.
Teams can argue that the prospect of arrest is still enough to serve as a deterrent against
would-be criminals looking to obtain a gun by lying on a background check.

Answer: Expanding universal background checks can still promote a deterrent effect and
reduce violence overall.

Champion Briefs 211

Warrant: Laws requiring background checks deter the diversion of guns to criminals.

Webster, Daniel. "Guns Kill People. And If We Had Universal Background Checks,
They Wouldn’t Kill So Many." New Republic. N.p., 25 June 2014. Web. 08 Oct.
2017. <https://newrepublic.com/article/118286/facts-about-gun-control-
and-universal-background-checks>.

When criminals get guns, they get them from friends, family, or from an underground
market source. Without universal background check requirements, there is little
deterrent to selling guns to criminals or gun traffickers. State laws mandating
universal background checks deter the diversion of guns to criminals. The most
comprehensive screening and background check processes, where potential gun
purchasers apply in person for permits to purchase handguns, are associated with
lower homicide and suicide rates.

Warrant: Improved background check systems would have prevented recent mass
shootings.

Donohue, John. "Improved Gun Buyer Background Checks Would Impede Some
Mass Shootings, Stanford Expert Says." Stanford News. Stanford University,
31 Dec. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://news.stanford.edu/2015/12/31/guns-donohue-law-121915/>.

Gun policy should not be made based on a single incident but rather from a careful
evaluation of the costs and benefits of particular legal interventions in light of all the
evidence on mass shootings, on ordinary crime, as well as data on gun suicides and
accidents. Since it has been federal policy for decades to try to keep guns out of
the hands of criminals and the severely mentally ill, universal background
checks are an obvious first step. Indeed, looking at recent episodes of mass
shootings, one sees time and again that a background check system that was
Champion Briefs 212

universal and effectively operated would impede gun acquisition by the mass
shooters. For example, Dylan Roof should have been precluded by virtue of a
recent drug arrest from buying the gun he used shortly thereafter to kill nine
church members in South Carolina in June 2015. But gun lobby pressure has led to
the unwise rule that forces the sale to proceed after three days, even if that has been
an inadequate time to validate whether the purchase is lawful. Aaron Alexis, who
killed 12 in 2013 at the Washington Navy Yard, had a record of criminal
misconduct and mental illness that easily would have been disqualifying with
a strengthened background check system that captured the relevant data
known to police prior to his rampage. The same can be said about the recent
crazed shooter at the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs. Thirty-three
died at Virginia Tech in 2007 after the state’s database failed to reflect the serious
mental illness of Seung-Hui Cho. Current law clearly prohibited him from
purchasing guns, but without an effectively functioning background check system
such laws are useless.

Analysis: This answer demonstrates that requiring background checks are enough to deter
criminals either through diversion of guns to ineligible buyers or reducing trafficking. It
also points out how an improved system of checks would have stopped mass shooters in
recent incidents, and that a system of universal checks is necessary for the improvement of
the overall process.

Champion Briefs 213

Con: Universal background checks limit second amendment rights

Argument: The implementation of federally required background checks limits the access of
Second Amendment rights.
Warrant: The Second Amendment has been upheld repeatedly in Supreme Court cases.

"Protecting Second Amendment Rights." Heritage Foundation. Solutions 2016:
Expert Analysis, Powerful Messages, Winning Policies, 2016. Web. 08 Oct.
2017. <http://solutions.heritage.org/constitutionalism/protecting-second-
amendment-rights/>.

The Second Amendment right of Americans to “keep and bear Arms” has been
recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in two recent and
significant cases: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of
Chicago (2010). Those decisions declared unconstitutional the virtual ban on
the ownership of handguns imposed by Washington, DC, and Chicago, Illinois,
making clear that the Second Amendment grants an individual the right to
bear arms in defense of one’s home, and that this right applies against federal,
state, and local governments.

Warrant: Governments can’t impose unreasonable limits on the Second Amendment.

"Protecting Second Amendment Rights." Heritage Foundation. Solutions 2016:
Expert Analysis, Powerful Messages, Winning Policies, 2016. Web. 08 Oct.
2017. <http://solutions.heritage.org/constitutionalism/protecting-second-
amendment-rights/>.

Although the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right of the government to
impose reasonable regulations on the ownership and use of firearms, the federal
Champion Briefs 214

government’s role must be limited and constrained by constitutional

principles. Moreover, federal, state, and local governments have a
constitutional obligation not to restrict Second Amendment rights
unreasonably by making it unduly expensive or burdensome for ordinary
Americans to purchase, own, carry, or use a firearm. Citizens have the right to
defend themselves, their families, and their property.

Warrant: Background checks fail to stop criminals from purchasing firearms and
disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens.

Messer, Luke. "More Background Checks Are No Answer to Gun Violence." US News.
N.p., 24 May 2013. Web. 8 Oct. 2017.
<https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/05/24/limiting-second-
amendment-rights-wont-keep-people-safer>.

The Aurora movie theater shooter and the gunman who shot former Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords both passed background checks. Sen. Joe Manchin, lead sponsor of a
recently rejected Senate background check amendment, admitted that the families
of the Newtown victims knew that "this legislation … would not have saved their
little babies" because the shooter stole the gun he used. Supporters of expanded
background checks have failed to acknowledge the obvious: Law-abiding
citizens already comply with existing restrictions, and most criminals don't.
Many criminals obtain guns through theft or unlawful straw purchases, where
someone legally obtains a firearm and illegally transfers it to someone else.
Thus, any new restriction is more likely to limit purchases by law-abiding
citizens, not criminals.

Warrant: Background checks imply the retention of sales and information that may violate
the right to privacy.

Champion Briefs 215

Good, Chris. "The Case Against Gun Background Checks." ABC News. ABC News
Network, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
background-checks/>.

As opponents of gun control warn about privacy issues, background checks are
tangled up with another proposal, that records of gun sales must be kept. In a
March 22 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, six GOP senators, led by
Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, warned that they would oppose
any measures that involved "government surveillance." While it's not entirely
clear what policy those senators had in mind, the American Civil Liberties
Union has raised concerns about both records and background checks. "You
just worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for
purposes that were not intended when the information was collected," Chris
Calabrese, an ACLU privacy lobbyist, told The Daily Caller last week. Meanwhile, Sen.
Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has made it clear that a "national gun registry" is illegal and
won't be part of any Democratic gun bill.

Warrant: Studies have proven that criminals mostly get their firearms illegally and that
those arms have been involved in fatal crimes.

Good, Chris. "The Case Against Gun Background Checks." ABC News. ABC News
Network, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
background-checks/>.

This argument sounds a bit tautological, but the NRA argues that most criminals
don't get their guns from stores, but on a black market. "My problem with
background checks is, you're never going to get criminals to go through
universal background checks," the NRA's LaPierre said at the February hearing of
Champion Briefs 216

the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Gun shows … are not a source of crime guns,
anyway. It's 1.7 percent." The Washington Post's fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, notes
that this figure comes from Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins
Center for Gun Policy and Research, who cites a 2004 survey of incarcerated
gun-violence convicts about where they got their guns, in his new book
"Reducing Gun Violence in America." A Johns Hopkins spokeswoman said the
figure is probably higher, as some "friends and family members" who give
guns to criminals (40 percent of inmates surveyed said they obtained their
guns this way) likely get them from gun shows in the first place. The Brady
Center has argued that surveys of prisoners underestimate how many
criminals get their guns from private sellers and gun shows, and the center
has chronicled cases in which criminals bought guns from private sellers and
used them to kill people.

Warrant: It’s important to protect Second Amendment rights from government overreach.

Speaker Ryan Press Office. "Statement on Potential Executive Action to Restrict 2nd
Amendment Rights." Speaker Paul Ryan. N.p., 4 Jan. 2016. Web. 9 Oct. 2017.
<https://www.speaker.gov/press-release/speaker-ryan-potential-executive-
action-restrict-2nd-amendment-rights>.

"While we don’t yet know the details of the plan, the president is at minimum
subverting the legislative branch, and potentially overturning its will. His proposals
to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were
rejected. No president should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat,
not even incrementally. The American people deserve a president who will
respect their constitutional rights – all of them. This is a dangerous level of
executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it."

Champion Briefs 217

Analysis: This argument can be used as a foundation for more complex arguments about
rights violations and the implications of the Second Amendment. Teams can start at the link
about guns used in crimes being obtained by criminals illegally, and that the realm of
required background checks would mostly affect law-abiding citizens. Teams can then use
this as a jumping off point to evaluate the value of constitutional rights and how their
regulation functions in the status quo.

Champion Briefs 218

A/2: Universal background checks limit Second Amendment rights

Answer: Like most rights afforded to American citizens, the right to bear arms is not
absolute.

Warrant: Recent court cases have upheld reasonable limits on the Second Amendment,
including background checks.

Stachelberg, Winnie. "Constitutionality of Proposed Firearms Legislation." Center for
American Progress. N.p., 12 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
2833/constitutionality-of-proposed-firearms-legislation/>.

The proposed expansions to the existing background check system are also
consistent with the Second Amendment. Heller made clear that the individual
right to bear arms does not extend to felons or the mentally ill. Such
“longstanding prohibitions” have been uniformly upheld in post-Heller cases
in the federal courts. Both United States v. Barton and United States v.
Smoot upheld the federal ban on possession of a firearm by convicted felons. If
Congress may prohibit felons, the mentally ill, and other unfit persons from
possessing firearms, it follows that Congress may also take reasonable measures to
enforce the prohibition such as background checks at the point of sale.
Indeed, Heller specifically observed that firearm sales would continue to be
subject to reasonable “conditions and qualifications” enacted by legislators.
The Court in Heller assumed that such regulations would exist when it ruled
that the District of Columbia was required to pemit the plaintiff to own a
handgun, “assuming that [he] is not disqualified from the exercise of Second
Amendment rights.”

Champion Briefs 219

Warrant: Background checks can be effective at reducing crime without limiting the rights
of law-abiding citizens.

Stachelberg, Winnie. "Constitutionality of Proposed Firearms Legislation." Center for
American Progress. N.p., 12 Feb. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
2833/constitutionality-of-proposed-firearms-legislation/>.

Experience with the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check Systebm
has demonstrated that background checks can be effective at reducing violent
crime without burdening the ability of law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms.
The national background check system has proven to be a meaningful check on
access to firearms by convicted felons and other “prohibited persons.” Since 1999
the system has blocked prohibited purchasers from buying firearms at
federally licensed dealers more than 1.9 million times. The most common
reason for denial was a prior felony conviction. In 2009 alone approximately
150,000 applications for a permit to transfer or purchase a firearm were denied as a
result of background checks. Here again, the most common reason for denial was a
prior felony conviction. Given the efficacy of the system, a court would be
unlikely to conclude that expanded background checks during firearm sales
would unduly burden the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to
obtain firearms.

Warrant: All rights afforded to citizens are subjected to limits within reason.

Sargent, Greg. "Forget about Changing the Second Amendment. And Stop Focusing
on Mass Killings." The Washington Post. WP Company, 05 Oct. 2015. Web. 08
Oct. 2017. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-
line/wp/2015/10/05/forget-about-changing-the-second-amendment-and-
stop-focusing-on-mass-killings/?utm_term=.46a718c28f8c>.
Champion Briefs 220


No right is free from minimal burdens. If you want to exercise the fundamental
right to vote, you have to register. This idea — that minimal burdens that don’t
prevent any law-abiding person from getting a gun is a violation of the Second
Amendment — is just wrong. We have a long history and tradition of gun regulation.
And it’s hard to say that background checks really inhibit anyone’s right to
bear arms when we’ve had background checks, and we have 300 million guns
and any law-abiding person can easily obtain one.

Analysis: This answer directly points out that at it’s most basic core, the right to bear arms
can be subject to laws and limitations, as does everything within the Bill of Rights. Teams
can also point out that empirical studies show that background checks reduce gun violence
without unduly limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Answer: Limits on the Second Amendment are aimed at preventing the possession of
firearms by felons or the mentally ill.

Warrant: Longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms are an important part of
the functionality and historical importance of the Second Amendment.

Gertz, Matt. "Seven Media Myths About The Gun Background Check System." Media
Matters for America. N.p., 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2013/04/11/seven-media-
myths-about-the-gun-background-chec/193588>.

In the 2008 Supreme Court case, District Of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin
Scalia wrote for the majority that the Second Amendment is "not unlimited"
as "commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right
to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose." Justice Scalia continued: [N]othing in our opinion should be
Champion Briefs 221

taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms

by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize
another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States
v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
"in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the
historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual
weapons." [District of Columbia v. Heller, 6/26/08, via Google Scholar, emphasis
added]

Warrant: State universal background checks have been proven to reduce gun availability
to high risk groups.

Sargent, Greg. "Why Expanding Background Checks Would, in Fact, Reduce Gun
Crime." The Washington Post. WP Company, 03 Apr. 2013. Web. 08 Oct.
2017. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-
line/wp/2013/04/03/why-expanding-background-checks-would-in-fact-
reduce-gun-crime/?utm_term=.67364a892d88>.

Quite often not. Certainly some will find ways to get guns even with background
checks. But the studies cited above show that state universal background checks,
and state laws that prohibit criminals and other high risk groups from
purchasing guns, reduce gun availability of guns to high risk groups. This
question also implies that criminals can always find a gun, no matter what we do,
which is also inconsistent with the facts. Although a gun is an excellent tool to use if
you are a robber for increasing compliance of victims, only 29 percent of robberies
reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey involved the robber’s use of a
firearm. Data from in an in-depth study of the underground gun market in
Chicago found that only twenty percent of male arrestees who participated in
Champion Briefs 222

an anonymous survey reported that they had owned a handgun. Sixty percent
of those who did own one reported that it had taken them more than a week to
search for and obtain a handgun. Criminals were wary of purchasing firearms
from sellers they did not know or trust, often reported difficulty finding a trusted
supplier of guns, and faced considerable mark-ups in price from the legal market.

Analysis: This answer can be weighed against the argument that background checks limit
Second Amendment rights by pointing out that there is a demonstrated risk of firearm
accessibility for certain groups to begin with. Teams can point out that these well-founded
and longstanding prohibitions in combination with background checks create the safest
outcome possible.
Champion Briefs 223

Con: Background checks encourage criminals to buy unlicensed

guns

Argument: Rather than having a notable effect on gun possessions, background checks will
merely encourage criminals to seek out guns through illicit means.

Warrant: A substantial black market for guns already exists.

C.D Michel “Why universal background checks won't work” The Hill. 4/17/13.

“There are three basic problems with universal background checks; it will
have no effect, the numbers don’t prove the case, and the only way to make the
scheme remotely effective is repugnant to the people. Those are three big hills
to climb. That’s why few politicians seem ready to take the hike. Most important is
that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme Court in their
Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a report titled
“Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40
percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are
criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns.
Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an
incomplete effect on guns used in crimes. The story gets worse. The same study
notes that just as many crime guns were acquired by acquaintances, be they
family or friends (this rather lose category also includes fellow criminals, who are
equally unlikely to participate in “universal” background checks). Totaled, nearly
80 percent of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution channels
(which are 14 percent of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by
the law abiding folks who would participate in “universal” background checks
at gun shows (0.7 percent).”
Champion Briefs 224


Link: Historically and across the world, rather than causing the black market to shrink.

J.D. Tuccille “Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets” Reason.
12/22/12. <http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-
always-bred-defian/1>

“In fact, New York City’s situation with guns is mirrored in Europe, where
countries with tight restrictions also find themselves awash in illegal firearms
without any clear parallels for the relatively liberal laws of Virginia or South
Carolina to blame. According to the Small Arms Survey (PDF) at the Graduate
Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland: Contrary to widely-
accepted national myths, public gun ownership is commonplace in most
European states. It may appear to some outside observers—especially
Americans—that Europeans have blindly surrendered their gun rights (Heston,
2002). The reality is that the citizens of most European countries are better
armed than they realize. ... Regulations tightly control gun ownership in only a
few European countries like the Netherlands, Poland, and the United
Kingdom. In much of the rest of the continent, public officials readily admit
that unlicensed owners and unregistered guns greatly outnumber legal ones.
... "Greatly outnumber?” Just how greatly? Well, says the Small Arms Survey, a
research outfit established by the Swiss government, the United Kingdom, with just
shy of 1.8 million legal firearms, has about four million illegal guns. Belgium, with
about 458,000 legal firearms, has roughly two million illegal guns. In Germany, the
number is 7.2 million legal guns and between 17 and 20 million off-the-books
examples of things that go “bang” (a figure with which the German Police Union very
publicly agrees). France, says the Survey, has 15-17 million unlawful firearms in a
nation where 2.8 million weapons are held in compliance with the law.

Champion Briefs 225

Warrant: Stricter gun control policies only provide another reason for the black
market to expand.

Even those numbers may understate the case. While the 2003 Small Arms Survey
report put the number of legal guns in Greece at 805,000 and illegal guns at
350,000, just two years later, the Greek government itself nudged those figures up,
just a tad, to one million legal guns and 1.5 million illegal ones. So New Yorkers
aren’t alone in being armed to the teeth outside the law. It’s not that governments
haven’t tried to grab those guns. One government after another has
implemented schemes for registration, licensing, and even confiscation. But
those programs have met with … less than universal respect. In a white paper
on the results of gun control efforts around the world, Gun Control and the
Reduction of the Number of Arms, Franz Csaszar, a professor of criminology at
the University of Vienna, Austria, wrote, “non-compliance with harsher gun
laws is a common event.”

Impact: Further criminalizing guns and expanding the black market results in the
unnecessary marginalization and criminalization of poor and minority communities.

Leah Libresco “I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me
otherwise.” The Washington Post. 10/3/17.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-
the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-
11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.0f21193f388e>

“While it is commonly assumed that the drug war is to blame for all this, work by
scholars like Benjamin Levin and Jeff Fagan demonstrates that already
existing gun control efforts also play an important role. One of the most
notorious areas of policing, the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk program, was justified
as a gun control rather than a drug war measure. In the name of preventing
Champion Briefs 226

violence, hundreds of thousands of poor minorities are subject to searches

without probable cause each year. Further, a range of Supreme Court-authorized
exceptions to standard Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and
seizure derive from a concern with gun violence. This invasiveness is a necessary
feature of criminalized gun possession. After all, policing guns is just like policing
drugs. Like drugs, there are a vast number of guns. Possession is far more
widespread than can possibly be policed so decisions have to be made about where
to devote resources. Furthermore, since possession itself is the crime, the only
way to police that crime is to shift from actual harm to identifying and
preventing risks. As legal scholar Benjamin Levin argues in a forthcoming
piece “Searching for guns – like searching for drugs – can easily become
pretextual, a proxy for some general prediction of risk, danger, or
lawlessness.”

Impact: When Australia implemented its harsh gun policies, there was a rise in black
market activity.

Tuccile, J D. “Australia's Gun 'Buyback' Created a Violent Firearms Black Market.
Why Should the U.S. Do the Same?” Reason.com, 22 Mar. 2016,
<www.reason.com/archives/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-
a-violent/1>.

“If Australia's gun policy has coincided with a continuing "modest decline" in its
homicide rate, it has had more dramatic results elsewhere. The confiscation
drove many of the country's peaceful gun owners underground. It also—and this
is important if America's Prohibition-era experience is any guide—empowered a
growing organized crime network that is enriched by the trade in guns, drugs, and
other goods that people desire and that governments vainly tries to keep out of their
hands. That crime network has developed international contacts, and grown
wealthy and dangerous. Investigative journalists suggest the organized black
Champion Briefs 227

market in firearms is fueling a surge in crime that has yet to appear in statistics.
Australia will have to live with the rise in organized crime for years to come. “

Analysis: This argument allows you to mitigate much of the affirmative’s offense by
proving that very few guns are acquired legally to begin with. From there, you can provide
a number of offensive impacts of an expanding black market. Namely, a greater number of
unlicensed guns would make it more difficult for law enforcement to enforce existing gun
laws and force the expansion of racist searches in an attempt to find more unlicensed guns.

Champion Briefs 228

A/2: Background checks encourage criminals to buy unlicensed

guns

Answer: Although the affirmative can’t prove that background checks will be 100%
effective, universal background checks are an important step forward that will produce
some meaningful results.

Warrant: Background checks actually make guns more difficult to obtain on the black
market.

Whet Moser “How Gun Control (and Isolation) Makes Illegal Guns More Expensive”
Chicago Magazine. 2/18/13. <http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-
Magazine/The-312/February-2013/How-Gun-Control-and-Isolation-Makes-
Illegal-Guns-More-Expensive/>
“The path is interesting, but so are the prices. There’s no information on the original price
of the guns as sold by Individual A, the original Indiana gun seller, but by the time they
make it to Chicago, we get some numbers: first, $2,300 for three .45-caliber Glock
pistols sold to a government agent on the 6800 block of South Langley Avenue.
That’s about $770 per gun. The article doesn’t say whether the guns are new or used,
but a brand-new .45 Glock at Cabela’s is $650. Of course, that’s if you’re paying retail.
You can save $100 at GlockStore.com, and another hundred by going used, if not more.
$770 represents a big markup, anywhere from 15 to 100 percent depending on how
you figure it. The informant then bought four more guns: two FNH 5.7x28 guns (“a 20-
round pistol that fires a 5.7mm bullet that will defeat most body armor“), another .45
Glock, and a Velocity Firearms 9mm pistol. The last of these is an intimidating-looking
gun in the MAC-10 family, but comparatively inexpensive, in the $350-$400 range. The
FNH is considerably more expensive, over $1000—but those four went for $5,300 a
piece, or $1,325 per gun. Again, a big markup on the black market. Which turns out
to be pretty typical. In 2007, four academics—Philip J. Cook of Duke, Jens Ludwig of
Champion Briefs 229

the University of Chicago, Sudhir Venkatesh (now of Columbia) and Anthony Braga
(now of Rutgers)—studied Chicago’s underground gun market and found that “the
illegality of the gun market increases search costs for prospective trading partners”
(PDF): Interviews by SV with 116 gun-owning non-gang affiliated youths (age 18–21)
reveal prices paid that range between $250 and $400. Interviews with 11 local gun
brokers, who handle a large share of retail transactions on behalf of importers, suggest
most of their guns are sold for between $150 and $350. These prices are typically for
guns of low quality, manufactured by companies such as Lorcin, Raven and Bryco. These
names were often mentioned to SV in interviews and as noted above also show up
frequently in administrative data on confiscated crime guns maintained by ATF. While
SV’s interviews do not include information on the condition of the gun, it is noteworthy
that most pistols from these manufacturers listed on websites (such as gunsamerica.com)
sell for between $50 and $100 (with a $10 mailing/transaction fee), even for those used
guns that are reported to be in ‘excellent condition’. Of course, people are still able to
obtain guns; they’re just expensive and more difficult to find.”

Answer: Although some criminals will continue to procure guns illegally, background
checks still are the most effective way to make it harder.

Lisa Mascaro “GOP still plans to vote on NRA-backed legislation that eases gun
restrictions” Los Angeles Times. 10/2/17.
<http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-
congress-unable-to-pass-firearm-1506964271-htmlstory.html>

“Criminals don’t respect the law,” John Boehner said recently, discussing universal
background checks. “It will have no effect on them.” As we’ve written before, this
makes literally no sense. The background check system doesn’t ask criminals to
operate on the honor system. It puts the onus on gun dealers — law-abiding
business owners who don’t want to break the law by selling a gun to someone
who’s not allowed to own one. Another way of interpreting Boehner’s remark is
Champion Briefs 230

that a criminal who wants a gun will find a way to acquire one outside of the
scope of the background check system. That may be true in many cases, but
does that mean we should make it easier for them? A terrorist may be able to
procure anthrax on the black market, but it’s a lot harder than buying it with a credit
card at the local biological warfare show. Implicit in Boehner’s theory that
criminals will just find a different way to acquire guns is that criminals right
now are buying guns at gun shows and from private sellers. That seems like a
pretty good argument for expanding background checks to cover those
sources.”

Impact: Other forms of gun deaths are prevented by background checks, such as suicide.
This is true empirically, and makes sense because populations that are at-risk for suicide
are not criminals in the conventional sense.

Weiss, Benitta, “Lower Suicide Rates Associated With Background Checks”
Generation Progress, August 31, 2015.
associated-with-background-checks/>

carrying a 42 percent lower rate, the New York Times reported. “When you make a
highly lethal method of suicide harder to access, you’re going to lower the suicide
rate,” said the lead author of the study, an assistant professor of Psychology at the
University of Southern Mississippi, Michael D. Anestis. “We need to emphasize
Champion Briefs 231

evidence-based gun safety among gun owners.” Background checks are the most
effective way to restrict access to firearms.”

Analysis: The best way to answer this argument is to contend that the negative’s standards
are unrealistic and that we should instead focus on the most effective way to limit access to
guns. Although some criminals may still be able to find guns, background checks make it
more difficult and also prevent gun deaths in other meaningful areas.

Champion Briefs 232

Con: Universal background checks can’t prevent straw purchases

Argument: Universal background checks still allow straw purchasing of weapons to occur,
where buyers that can pass background checks purchase weapons with the intent of selling
or transferring them to ineligible buyers.

Warrant: Universal background checks wouldn’t be effective at stopping straw purchase.


Another issue unaddressed by universal background checks is the straw man
purchase, the act of illegally acquiring a firearm through a third party. The
ATF defines straw man as using another person to acquire a firearm when the end
user is specifically prohibited from acquiring the firearm. "That is to say, the actual
purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons
who may not lawfully acquire firearms." The straw purchaser violates federal law by
making false statements on Form 4473. Criminals could circumvent universal
checks by having another person with a "clean" record purchase the gun for
them. This is already illegal, but that doesn't stop it. Criminals could also
borrow, buy, or otherwise take illegal possession of a gun, even if the gun
wasn't originally purchased with straw man intent. There is no logical,
credible reason why universal checks would be any more effective in stopping
either already illegal activity. Combine this with the fact the Justice Department
doesn't prosecute referred fraud cases, and it's a loser solution to stopping guns
from getting into the the wrong hands.

Warrant: Persecuting straw purchases is already not a priority for the Justice Department.
Champion Briefs 233


Wang, Hansi Lo. "'Straw Buyers' Of Guns Break The Law - And Often Get Away With
It." NPR. NPR, 09 Dec. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459053141/straw-buyers-of-guns-
break-the-law-and-often-get-away-with-it>.

Buying guns from licensed dealers for someone else is illegal. "Straw purchasers"
break the law by fraudulently filling out a form that says they're the actual
buyer, but they're actually buying the gun for another person — someone who
might be avoiding a background check. "The law says that somebody could go to
jail for up to 10 years and face a fine of up to $250,000. Why that doesn't happen
more often is a question for, you know, the federal judiciary and the Department of
Justice," Keane says. Bouchard, who retired from the ATF in 2007, admits charging
straw buyers falls towards the bottom of federal prosecutors' priority lists. He
says the cases are difficult to win and resources are limited. That's why some
states have moved to pass their own straw purchasing bans to supplement the
federal one. For example, in California, even gifts have to be documented.
Warrant: Straw purchases represent a large part of the problem with overall crime and gun
sales.
"Straw Purchases Policy Summary." Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. N.p., 21
May 2012. Web. 08 Oct. 2017. <http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-
policy-summary/>.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), straw
purchasers “represent a significant overall crime and public safety problem.”
When a person with a clean background intentionally buys firearms for
prohibited persons, she or he thwarts the background check requirement and
allows firearms to be funneled to criminals, domestic abusers and gangs.
Champion Briefs 234


Warrant: A study proved that straw purchases were involved in 46% of gun trafficking
cases.
“Trafficking & Straw Purchasing." Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. N.p., n.d. Web.
08 Oct. 2017. <http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/crime-
guns/trafficking-straw-purchasing/>.

A “straw purchase” occurs when the actual buyer of a firearm uses another
person, a “straw purchaser,” to execute the paperwork necessary to purchase
a firearm from a firearms dealer. People who are prohibited from purchasing
firearms and people who do not want to be identified through crime gun tracing
often obtain firearms through straw purchases. By intentionally buying firearms
for someone else, straw purchasers undermine background checks and gun
safety laws and allow firearms to be funneled to violent criminals, domestic
abusers, and other prohibited people. An ATF study of 1,530 gun trafficking
cases determined that straw purchasers were involved in almost one-half
(46%) of the investigations, and were associated with nearly 26,000 illegally
trafficked firearms.

Warrant: Over 60% of guns used in crimes in two states originated out of state.

"Inside Straw Purchasing: How Criminals Get Guns Illegally."
EverytownResearch.org. N.p., 15 Apr. 2008. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<https://everytownresearch.org/reports/inside-straw-purchasing-
criminals-get-guns-illegally/>.

After acquiring firearms, traffickers told us that they often resold them in
other states where it was harder to buy guns. One trafficker bought guns in
Georgia, then resold them in Maryland. “There is substantial interstate smuggling of
Champion Briefs 235

handguns,” according to a statistical analysis of ATF trace data from 1989 to 1997
by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) submitted on behalf of the
plaintiffs in Hamilton v. Accu-Tek. “Most of this smuggling is from states with
relatively weak controls over handgun sales, such as Florida, to states with
relatively strict controls, such as New York.” More recent trace data supports
NERA’s conclusions. In 2006, 71 percent of New York State’s and 66 percent of
Massachusetts’s crime guns originated out of state, according to ATF trace
data.

Analysis: This argument demonstrates how universal checks can’t serve as an ultimate
strategy to reduce gun sales and subsequent violence; the possibility of eligible buyers, or
buyers who can pass background checks, of acquiring weapons to sell to ineligible buyers
or dealers to traffick guns on the black market and across state lines remains very
prevalent. Teams can argue that this undermines the overall efficacy of universal
background checks and subsequently minimize the magnitude of their opponent’s impacts.

Champion Briefs 236

A/2: Universal background checks can’t prevent straw purchases

Answer: The states are effective at enforcing straw purchasing laws and can be greatly
aided by federal efforts.

Warrant: U.S. Attorney offices aren’t interested in investigating and prosecuting straw
purchase cases.

Yablon, Alex. "Amid Lack of Federal Action on Straw Purchases, States Take Matters
Into Their Own Hands." The Trace. N.p., 21 Aug. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<https://www.thetrace.org/2015/08/straw-purchases-law-atf-gun/>.

The upshot is that the ATF rarely investigates straw purchasers on their own, a
spokesperson tells The Trace. U.S. Attorneys offices aren’t interested in them
because the act of straw purchasing can be difficult to prove and judges
rarely issue severe punishment. Instead, the agency tends to add the charge when
it’s uncovered in larger cases, like those that involve gun trafficking. In 2014, the
ATF prosecuted 125 cases with a charge of straw purchasing.

Warrant: States have led the charge on prosecuting straw buyers.


A small number of states have laws that allow the prosecution of the actual
buyer in a straw purchase situation, even if the straw purchase was ultimately
unsuccessful. Connecticut and Virginia penalize any ineligible buyer who solicits
another person to purchase a firearm on behalf of that person. Maryland penalizes
Champion Briefs 237

any willing participant in a straw purchase, as defined above. New Jersey prohibits
causing someone else to give false information when acquiring a firearm. Other
states, including Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia, penalize a person who
willfully procures another person to entice a firearm seller to transfer a firearm
knowing the transfer is illegal.

Warrant: Seven states facilitate the prosecution of individuals who aid in firearms
trafficking and transfers.


Seven states (California, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island) have laws that may facilitate prosecution of
individuals who transfer firearms to traffickers under certain circumstances.
Maryland prohibits any person from transferring a handgun or assault weapon to a
transferee that the transferor has reasonable cause to believe is a participant in a
“straw purchase,” as defined above. California prohibits a person from transferring a
firearm to any person he or she has cause to believe is not the actual transferee of
the firearm, provided he or she knows that the firearm is to be subsequently
transferred illegally. Rhode Island prohibits any person from selling a handgun
to someone whom he or she has reasonable cause to believe is providing false
information. Minnesota has a similar law that applies to handguns and assault
weapons. Pennsylvania penalizes any seller who knowingly or intentionally sells,
delivers or transfers a firearm “under circumstances intended to provide a firearm
to” any person who is ineligible to possess a firearm under Pennsylvania law.
Connecticut law prohibits a person from directly or indirectly causing a
firearm to come into the possession of another individual that the transferor
knows or has reason to believe is prohibited from possessing a firearm under
Champion Briefs 238

state or federal law. New Jersey enacted a law in 2013 that prohibits a licensed
dealer from selling or transferring a firearm to a person knowing that the person
intends to sell, transfer, assign, or otherwise dispose of that firearm to a person who
is disqualified from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.

Analysis: This answer demonstrates that the most effective way to address straw buying is
to introduce better federal regulations or coherent federal laws since solely states have led
the charge thus far.

Answer: Gun trafficking increases in the absence of background checks.

Warrant: Guns are trafficked from states with weaker gun laws to those with stronger
laws.

"Reducing Gun Trafficking: Cracking Down on the Illegal Gun Trade." (n.d.): n. pag.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Americans for Responsible Solutions,
May 2017. Web. 8 Oct. 2017.
<http://www.americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/05/Firearms-Trafficking-Factsheet.pdf>.

Many of the guns used in crimes in states with strong gun laws originate in states
with weaker gun laws. For example, 50% of Chicago’s crime guns are purchased
out of state, largely in Indiana, which lacks universal background checks.4
Closing the loophole in our federal background checks law is essential to
ensuring guns aren’t sold to dangerous people and is the first line of defense
to stopping trafficking

Warrant: Trafficking increased empirically in states that have repealed background check
requirements.

Champion Briefs 239

"Lessons from Missouri: The Cost of Eliminating Background Checks." Every Town
for Gun Safety. EverytownResearch.org, Apr. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<https://everytownresearch.org/evidence-from-missouri-that-background-
checks-work/>.

A key indicator of illegal gun trafficking is a “time to crime” – how long it takes
after a retail gun sale for the weapon to turn up at a crime scene. A gun with a
time to crime of under two years is more likely to have been trafficked. After the
repeal of Missouri’s background check requirement, the share of guns
recovered at Missouri crime scenes within two years of their retail sale nearly
doubled.

Warrant: The absence of background checks in the environment of trafficked guns led to a
25% increase in the gun homicide rate in Missouri.

"Lessons from Missouri: The Cost of Eliminating Background Checks." Every Town
for Gun Safety. EverytownResearch.org, Apr. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2017.
<https://everytownresearch.org/evidence-from-missouri-that-background-
checks-work/>.

Johns Hopkins University researchers showed that after controlling for other
factors, repeal of the background check requirement was associated with a 25
percent increase in the gun homicide rate, or 68 additional firearm homicides
each year.3 Missouri’s gun homicide rate is now the fifth highest in the nation, and
43 percent higher than the national average.

Analysis: This answer addresses the impact of gun trafficking as a result of straw
purchasing. Teams can prove that background checks are an essential tool to stop gun
trafficking and crack down in states that make purchasing a gun easier for otherwise
Champion Briefs 240

ineligible buyers. Background checks can have a serious effect on gun trafficking, making
straw purchasing less of a lucrative process for criminals.

Champion Briefs 241

Con: Universal background checks would encourage lobbyist

backlash

Argument: By implementing Background Checks, the NRA would respond by encouraging
the repeal of other gun regulations that already exist.

Warrant: Background Checks pose a threat to NRA by reducing gun sales

Hoee, Sang. “Why the NRA Really Hates Background Checks.” Daily Kos, Daily Kos,
25 Apr. 2013, <www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/4/25/1204841/-Why-the-
NRA-Really-Hates-Background-Checks>.

“Given all this, who in their right mind would oppose a system to prevent that? The
NRA, and not because background checks don't work, but because Wayne LaPierre
and Co. are afraid that they might. For one thing, if background checks are
effective, then toughening them up could lead to fewer gun sales, which would
hurt the NRA's shadow constituency of gun manufacturers. That part is easy to
spot. The other part, however, is the dirty secret that the NRA does not want us to
guess. Successful background checks could also mean greater safety for
Americans and therefore less opposition to gun ownership in the nation. That,
in turn, would make the NRA obsolete.”

Warrant: The NRA has a powerful hand in policymaking.

Draper, Robert. “Inside the Power of the N.R.A.” The New York Times, The New York
Times, 14 Dec. 2013, <www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-
the-power-of-the-nra.html>.

“The N.R.A. prefers quashing a bill it doesn’t like or pushing a favored bill
through Congress with traditional arm twisting. But if it can’t do that, the
Champion Briefs 242

organization strives to be in the room while legislation is being hashed out;

and once there, it will cut deals with any ally it can find, including Democrats.
This is the way of all lobbying organizations, of course. As David Keene, the former
N.R.A. president, put it: “Our effectiveness is totally dependent on the fact that we
reward our friends, and we stand with them. Our goal isn’t to elect Republicans. It’s
to support people who support the Second Amendment.”

Warrant: The NRA has a lot of power in the status quo.

Lytton, Tim D. “The NRA and the Brady Campaign.” University of Michigan Law,
<www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472115103-ch6.pdf>.

The NRA’s many members are perhaps the most impassioned of any interest
group, and its reputation for swinging elections is, if somewhat innate, well
deserved. Its allies include many powerful legislators at both the state and
federal levels, as well as many governors and, depending upon who is sitting
in the White House, cabinet members and the president himself. While this
formidable power does account for its per- sistent legislative successes, it does not,
however, make a particularly strong case for denouncing this influence as undue or
illegitimate.

Warrant: In the past, when the NRA was weakened, it responded with a more hardline
governing board.

Lewis, Neil A. “Hurt in Gun-Control War, N.R.A. Rejects Retreat.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 11 Mar. 1992,
<www.nytimes.com/1992/03/12/us/hurt-in-gun-control-war-nra-rejects-
retreat.html?pagewanted=all>.

Champion Briefs 243

“Now, after a period of convulsions, the hard-line faction opposing gun control
has gained undisputed dominance. Last year a new governing board, far more
dedicated to the battle against gun restrictions than to promoting sporting activities,
forced out its top hired official in Washington because he was regarded as tilting
toward compromise. Heading the organization now is Wayne R. LaPierre Jr., the
chief executive, and James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist, both of whom are of the take-no-
prisoners school of legislative dealing. "People join this organization for a strident
defense of the right to keep and bear arms, and I plan on giving them what they're
paying for," Mr. Baker said in a recent interview. The turn in favor of the hard-
liners comes as the rifle association, once seemingly invincible, finds itself in
the unaccustomed position of winning some important battles by the
narrowest of margins and losing others outright. Maryland, New Jersey and
California recently enacted bans on some kinds of semiautomatic weapons
despite well-financed campaigns by the rifle association. Even some
congressmen from rural districts have begun to see political profit in taking
on the gun lobby. “

Impact: Stricter gun control policies correlate to lower rates of violence.

Lichtblau, Eric. “Gun-Control Groups Push Growing Evidence That Laws Reduce
Violence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Oct. 2016,
<www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/gun-control-national-rifle-
association.html?_r=1>.

The findings indicated a “strong” correlation between stricter gun laws and
lower rates of violence, said Chelsea Parsons, one of the report’s authors.
States with relatively tough gun laws, including Connecticut, Massachusetts,
New Jersey and New York, generally had much lower rates of gun violence,
while those with looser gun laws — including Alaska, Louisiana and
Mississippi — had higher rates, the study found. While the center is unabashedly
Champion Briefs 244

in favor of tougher gun measures, Daniel Webster, an expert on gun violence at

Johns Hopkins University, who reviewed the findings, said its methods were
scientifically sound and expanded on previous research on the issue.

Champion Briefs 245

A/2: Universal background checks would encourage lobbyist

backlash

Answer: NRA is losing power

Warrant: It is unlikely this will matter at all in the future as the amount of individuals who
actually own guns in the US is decreasing.

Draper, Robert. “Inside the Power of the N.R.A.” The New York Times, The New York
Times, 14 Dec. 2013, <www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/magazine/inside-
the-power-of-the-nra.html>.

“Yet even as the votes in the chambers still favor the N.R.A., gun-control advocates
have some cause for optimism. Time does not seem to be on the N.R.A.'s side.
According to data compiled by the nonpartisan National Opinion Research
Center, between 1977 and 2012 the percentage of American households
possessing one or more guns declined by 36 percent. “

Analysis: NRA backlash is will not last long as the individuals who own guns are
decreasing. This makes their argument at best short term.

Answer: NRA’s position has changed in recent years

Warrant: Most NRA members want universal background checks.

Kertzher , Tom. “Lena Taylor: Most NRA Members Back Background Checks on All
Gun Purchases.” Politifact, 18 Mar. 2015,
<www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/mar/18/lena-
taylor/most-nra-members-back-background-checks-all-gun-pu/>.

Champion Briefs 246

“The key evidence was an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine
on a poll done in January 2013 by two entities at Johns Hopkins University -- the
Department of Health Policy and Management and the Center for Gun Policy and
Research. The poll was conducted online among 2,703 adults -- including 169 NRA
members -- through GfK Knowledge Networks, which specializes in working with
academic and government researchers to do polling online. It recruits participants
randomly via mail and telephone. The poll found that 74 percent (to be precise,
73.7 percent) of NRA members supported requiring background checks for all
gun sales. (The margin of error was seven points.)”

Warrant: NRA is supportive of some forms of background checks

Kim, Seung Min, et al. “Cornyn Introduces NRA-Supported Background-Check Bill.”
POLITICO, 6 Aug. 2015, <www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nra-supported-
background-gun-check-john-cornyn-121035>.

“The Senate’s second most powerful Republican is pitching his own plan to
prevent the mentally ill from obtaining firearms — and he’s gotten the
National Rifle Association to endorse the measure. The new legislation from
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn tries to patch some holes in the current
national background checks system by encouraging states, through the
promise of federal funding, to send more information on mental-health
records to the national database. Still, under Cornyn’s legislation, the person
getting treatment wouldn’t be officially determined to be mentally ill and could, in
theory, still purchase firearms. Under current law, a person would have to be
adjudicated as mentally ill in order to be barred from purchasing a gun. In a small
roundtable with reporters on Wednesday, Cornyn said the issue of gun control had
been “politicized so much” and that his legislation tries to strike a middle ground.
Aside from the powerful NRA, which helped quash a background-checks bill two
Champion Briefs 247

years ago, Cornyn’s legislation is also endorsed by the National Alliance on Mental
Illness and the National Association on Police Organizations.”

Analysis: With the NRA on the side of background checks, their argument can not
materialize. Taking out their link by proving the NRA is in favor of backgrounds will catch
your opponents off guard and make you look perceptually dominant in round.

Champion Briefs 248

Con: Guns are beneficial to our protection

Argument: Universal background checks would reduce civilian gun ownership, increasing
the likelihood of successful attacks.

Warrant: Background checks have removed a considerable number of guns from play

Danielle Kurtzleben “Research Suggests Gun Background Checks Work, But They're
Not Everything” NPR. 1/9/16.
background-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything>

One other thing recent shootings say is that the current background-check system
has some gaping holes in it. For example, FBI Director James Comey said in July
2015 that Dylann Roof, who is accused of killing nine at a South Carolina church last
year, should not have passed a background check. Because information about his
admission to a narcotics charge never reached an FBI examiner handling his check,
as the Washington Post reported, Roof was able to buy his gun. In addition, some
states are doing a poor job of submitting mental health records to NICS, as
Politico's Kevin Cirilli writes, allowing some sick people to obtain guns. Cirilli points
to Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, who had a history of mental illness before
he killed 32 people in 2007. As it stands, around 1.6 percent of 148 million
background checks (that is, more than 2 million) between 1994 and 2012
were denied, according to federal statistics.

Warrant: Guns deter crime – Canada/US case studies confirm this

John Stossel “Why Guns are Good” Fox News. 6/23/10.
<http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/23/john-stossel-guns-good-save-
lives-criminals-lubys-cafeteria-texas-handgun.html>
Champion Briefs 249


In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, almost half of all
burglaries occur when residents are home. But in the United States, where
many households contain guns, only 13 percent of burglaries happen when
someone's at home. Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in the Heller case that
Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. District
politicians then loosened the law but still have so many restrictions that there are
no gun shops in the city and just 800 people have received permits. Nevertheless,
contrary to the mayor's prediction, robbery and other violent crime are down.
Because Heller applied only to Washington, that case was not the big one.
"McDonald v. Chicago" is the big one, and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on
that next week. Otis McDonald is a 76-year-old man who lives in a dangerous
neighborhood on Chicago's South Side. He wants to buy a handgun, but Chicago
forbids it.

Warrant: Harvard study finds a negative correlation between handgun ownership and
crime

Don B. Kates “WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? ”
Harvard University. 1/1/07.
<http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseron
line.pdf>

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of
international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the
very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence
cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical
sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more
guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear
Champion Briefs 250

that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations
with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun
controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But
those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world. Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the
University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study
comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s
more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published
his results it was with the admonition: If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so
[are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate”
handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding
is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public
health resources.

Impact: Concealed carry laws decreased gun crimes by 10% because of deterrence

John Stossel “Why Guns are Good” Fox News. 6/23/10.
<http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/23/john-stossel-guns-good-save-
lives-criminals-lubys-cafeteria-texas-handgun.html>

Today, 40 states issue permits to competent, law-abiding adults to carry
concealed handguns (Vermont and Alaska have the most libertarian approach: no
permit needed. Arizona is about to join that exclusive club.) Every time a carry law
was debated, anti-gun activists predicted outbreaks of gun violence after fender-
benders, card games and domestic quarrels. What happened? John Lott, in his book
"More Guns, Less Crime," explains that crime fell by 10 percent in the year after
the laws were passed . A reason for the drop in crime may have been that
criminals suddenly worried that their next victim might be armed. Indeed,
criminals in states with high civilian gun ownership were the most worried about
encountering armed victims.
Champion Briefs 251


Analysis: This argument ought to be the most stock argument on the admittedly skinny
ground negative teams have on the topic. The first part of the link chain is intuitive and
should be more or less conceded to by affirmative teams. Universal background checks
would, overall, reduce the amount of guns in circulation. The next part of the link chain is
where the real debate lies – are guns good or are they bad? The Stossel evidence presents a
variety of analyses and statistics that warrant for us why guns reduce crime. However, the
best evidence here is definitely the Harvard study, which concludes that countries with
higher rates of gun ownership have seen lower rates of crime and suicide in recent years. I
would recommend reading through the study, as it is one of the most conclusive analyses
negative teams will find in the literature.

Champion Briefs 252

A/2: Guns are beneficial to our protection

Answer: Background checks have no effect on gun ownership.

Warrant: 80% of prison inmates reported buying guns from third-party sellers


One of the most important questions to this discussion is impossible to answer
precisely: how many guns are obtained without background checks? While
there aren't exact numbers on this, the figure could still be substantial. Using 2004
data, around 18 percent of gun transactions involved private sellers, buyers' family
members or friends or "other" sources, as the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler
found last year. A majority of those sources were not licensed dealers (and therefore
were not required to conduct background checks).According to the figures cited by
Kessler, 7 percent of guns were obtained from gun shows (and many of those sales
probably underwent background checks). But data suggests that gun shows don't
directly supply many of the guns used in crimes. Spokespeople from the National
Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for gun
sellers, both also pointed NPR to government data showing that less than 1 percent
of prison inmates in 1997 said they got their guns from gun shows. Meanwhile,
nearly 80 percent obtained their guns from friends, family or "street" (illegal)
sources. All of this very well may mean that, as gun-rights advocates like Florida
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio often point out, criminals will simply obtain guns
through some avenue other than stores. That would mean that background checks
don't deter those people, and, therefore, that expanding them to more online or
private or gun show sales would do little.
Champion Briefs 253


Impact: The problem isn’t properly addressed by new legislation, even if enforced properly

C.D. Michel “Why universal background checks won't work” The Hill. 4/17/13.

Most important is that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme
Court in their Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a
report titled “Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted
that nearly 40 percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers,
who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled
guns. Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an
incomplete effect on guns used in crimes. The story gets worse. The same study
notes that just as many crime guns were acquired by acquaintances, be they family
or friends (this rather lose category also includes fellow criminals, who are equally
unlikely to participate in “universal” background checks). Totaled, nearly 80 percent
of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution channels (which are 14
percent of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by the law abiding
folks who would participate in “universal” background checks at gun shows (0.7
percent). When 80 percent of the problem is not addressed by legislation, even
if the law was enforced it would be nearly useless.

Analysis: A potential response is grabbing a page out of the negative side’s playbook and
arguing that rates of ownership wouldn’t change even if universal background checks were
enacted. This would allow you to scoop up a large portion of their defense, use it to your
advantage, and then go for arguments that don’t depend on actual tangible changes in gun
ownership. Be wary of delinking your own arguments though.

Answer: Guns increase rates of violent crime.
Champion Briefs 254


Warrant: Decreased rates of gun ownership are linked with decreased crime


State laws prohibiting high-risk groups — perpetrators of domestic violence, violent
misdemeanants and the severely mentally ill — from possessing firearms have been
shown to reduce violence. [1, 2] One of my studies found that a number of state
laws prohibiting individuals under a domestic violence restraining order from
owning guns produced an overall 19 percent reduction in intimate partner
homicides. [3] Meanwhile, my research has shown that state universal
background checks — along with other state laws designed to increase gun seller
and purchaser accountability — significantly reduce the number of guns
diverted to the illegal market, where the above high risk groups often get their
guns [4, 5]. At the same time, the success of these state gun laws in reducing the
diversion of guns to criminals is undermined by gaps in federal laws which facilitate
interstate gun trafficking from states with the weakest gun laws to those with the
strongest gun laws. [6, 7] For example, we found that states without universal
background check laws had 30 percent higher levels of exporting across state
lines guns that were later recovered from criminals. [5]

Warrant: RTC states have 13% higher rates of violent crime

Milenko Martinovich “States with right-to-carry concealed handgun laws experience
increases in violent crime, according to Stanford scholar” Stanford University.
6/21/17. < http://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-
right-carry-states/>
Champion Briefs 255


States that have enacted right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws have
experienced higher rates of violent crime than states that did not adopt those
laws, according to a Stanford scholar. Examining decades of crime data, Stanford
Law Professor John Donohue’s analysis shows that violent crime in RTC states
was estimated to be 13 to 15 percent higher – over a period of 10 years – than it
would have been had the state not adopted the law. The working paper, released
this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research, challenges the
effectiveness of RTC laws and could have a significant impact on pending litigation
between the National Rifle Association and the state of California.

Analysis: The other, more common, response is the impact turn that argues gun ownership
is indeed harmful and increases crime. The warranting is intuitive – more guns on the
streets removes the psychological check on openly using them. The Martinovich and
Kurtzleben studies are especially compelling, giving us a quantified decreases in violence in
states with various forms of gun restrictions.

Champion Briefs 256

Con: Background checks set a dangerous precedent

Argument: Allowing for a background check on guns could potentially lead to more gun
restrictions in the future.

Warrant: Allowing for gun control policies risks potential 2nd amendment right violations
in the future.

Bell, Larry.” The Slippery Slope Of Gun Control: Time To Stand On Firm Ground”
Forbes, 15 Jan. 2013 Web. 10/2/17
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/15/the-slippery-slope-
of-gun-control-time-to-stand-on-firm-ground/#327610f07621>.

“Let’s face reality. Those who are determined to replace our historically successful
and constitutionally-guaranteed American freedoms with government nanny state
authoritarian control are a determined lot who aren’t ever going to quit. Each new
attempted squeeze on our individual liberties is as predictable as the next
isolated tragedy that provides an emotional excuse as a crisis not to be
wasted. Gun control is but a single staging arena among many for such tactics,
but an important one where the outcome will reflect much about what the
future has in store for us and future generations. The choice for those who
truly care, is either to stand passively by on the edge of a very slippery slope
and watch legitimate rights continually eroded by floods of activists claiming
moral superiority and ever-expanding executive privilege, or to stand
defiantly, and aggressively defend them on sound legal grounds. Beware that
while “reasonable compromises” proffered by gun control proponents may sound
disarmingly well-intentioned, many of these are certain to establish precedents for
private gun ownership restrictions which are literally disarming.”

Champion Briefs 257

Impact: Restricting individuals from being able to get weapons due to background checks
risks eventual disarmament.

Hawkins, Awr. “Universal Background Checks Equal Universal Gun Control”
Breitbart, 18 Feb. 2013. Web. 10/2/17 <http://www.breitbart.com/big-
government/2013/02/18/universal-background-checks-equal-universal-
gun-control/>.

Which brings us to our second point: universal background checks will end private
sales, period. No more sales to neighbors, no more sales between a father and his
son or a mother and her daughter. No more sales between friends. Once guns are
registered, and private sales have been ended, the door will be opened for
taxes allocated per number of guns owned, forced liability insurance payable
based on number of guns owned, and for outright gun confiscation. The NRA
has warned about the confiscation that usually follows registration,
historically speaking, and the Democrats themselves are already promoting
per-gun taxes and liability insurance. The bottom line: Universal background
checks represent the crest of the hill atop the slippery slope. We must contact
our Reps. and Sens. and demand that they say no to this insidious gun control
measure. It has nothing to with Sandy Hook Elementary, but everything to do with
helping Democrats realize their dreams of crushing the 2nd Amendment.

Impact: After the implementation of universal background checks for guns in California,
numerous other gun control legislation was created since there was now a database of gun
owners, making gun control more enforceable.

Hawkins, Awr. “Universal Background Checks Unenforceable Without Gun Registry”
America 1st Freedom. June 6, 2017 Web. 10/2/17
Champion Briefs 258

<https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2017/6/6/universal-
background-checks-unenforceable-without-gun-registry/>.

Consider the example of California, a state that adopted universal background
checks in the 1990s. They followed those checks with numerous other gun
controls, a gun registry chief among them. It is the registry that makes
universal background checks enforceable, because it is the registry that tells
the government the name of every gun owner and the guns that owner
possesses. By the way, in addition to adding registration to universal background
checks, California also added firearm confiscation laws. Some of the laws allow for
permanent confiscation and others for temporary confiscation via Gun Violence
Restraining Orders (GVROs), but all ultimately revolve around confiscation.

Analysis: This argument can be extremely persuasive as it explains the idea that through
the implementation of background checks, politicians may be more willing and able to
implement other forms of gun regulations that are against the best interests of the
American people. This allows for you to impact into long-term irreversible impacts. Once,
this precedent is set it will affect future generations and will be difficult to reverse as it is
more difficult to gain political capital to repeal than it is to implement.

Champion Briefs 259

A/2: Background checks set dangerous precedents

Answer: A form of national registry already exists in the status quo

Warrant: Licensed dealers are required to keep the record of their sales.

Mason, John “Gun bill backers try to quell ‘registry’ concerns as Senate debate
begins” Fox News. 15. April 2013. Web. 10/2/17
<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/15/gun-bill-backers-try-to-
ease-registry-concerns-as-senate-debate-begins.html>.

“But the language was not enough. Some gun-rights supporters continue to
worry about a slippery-slope scenario, where a background check expansion
sets the stage for a national registry -- which could then be exploited to seize
weapons from individuals. Despite the fact that licensed dealers already keep
records of their sales and a national registry has not yet been created, the
Second Amendment nightmare scenario has lived on. "Once you get these lists
out there, once you have a gun dealer keeping lists for lots of other people, the only
way that works, frankly I think, is if you keep the paper," Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., told
Fox News on Monday. "And if you keep the paper, eventually, somebody's going to
ask for it."”

Analysis: This shows that the argument is non unique and will unlikely really cause any
actual change in the status quo.

Answer: A national registry can prevent suicide

Warrant: When a state implements a background check, their suicide rate generally
decreases. This is because it makes it harder for people to get weapons.

Champion Briefs 260

Weiss, Benitta, “Lower Suicide Rates Associated With Background Checks”

Generation Progress, August 31, 2015
associated-with-background-checks/>.

carrying a 42 percent lower rate, the New York Times reported. “When you
make a highly lethal method of suicide harder to access, you’re going to lower
the suicide rate,” said the lead author of the study, an assistant professor of
Psychology at the University of Southern Mississippi, Michael D. Anestis. “We need
to emphasize evidence-based gun safety among gun owners.” Background checks
are the most effective way to restrict access to firearms. “

Analysis: This advantage allows you to outweigh the speculative and immaterial impact of
a dangerous precedent. This is strategic as extending this argument will help you win the
round without having to answer the link chain.

Answer: The slippery slope argument is a myth

Warrant: Confiscation does not follow national registries. Look to states that have
implemented background checks.

Champion Briefs 261

Henigan, Denis. “The 3 Worst Arguments Against Gun Control” Daily Beast. 7/30/16
Web. 10/2/17 <https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-3-worst-arguments-
against-gun-control>.

Even as a historical matter, there is no basis to believe that enacting some gun
regulation leads inevitably to broad gun bans. Take the idea of registering guns like
we register cars. Gun partisans have an intense fear of registration because they
regard it as a slippery slope to confiscation; once the government knows who owns
the guns, it will be nicely positioned to confiscate them. But the State of
Pennsylvania, for example, has maintained a database of persons who lawfully
purchased handguns since 1931, and there is no reason to believe that the
authorities are likely to start knocking on the doors of Pennsylvania gun
owners, demanding surrender of their guns.

Warrant: The Brady bill saved millions of lives after its implementation. There impacts
have not materialized after this form of background check was implemented.

Henigan, Denis. “The 3 Worst Arguments Against Gun Control” Daily Beast. 7/30/16
Web. 10/2/17 <https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-3-worst-arguments-
against-gun-control>.

The fact is that the slippery slope argument is, at its core, nothing but uninformed
speculation. There is, however, a steep social cost to that speculation if we allow it to
block enactment of sensible policies, like universal background checks, that help to
prevent dangerous people from getting guns. If Congress had been persuaded by
the slippery slope argument during the Brady Bill debate, since 1994 we
would have allowed more than two million legally prohibited gun buyers to
buy guns over-the-counter that were, instead, blocked by Brady background
checks.

Champion Briefs 262

Analysis: This is strategic as it forces your opponents to answer two separate warrants
before being able to access their actual argument. Poking holes in their link chain will force
them to engage with your individual responses.
Champion Briefs 263

Con: Background checks harm the rights of minorities

Argument: Background Checks discriminate against minorities putting them greater at
risk in times of danger

Warrant: Minorities are often mistakenly denied from background checks due their names.

“Do Democrats want to disarm minorities?” Fox News, FOX News Network,
<www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/30/do-democrats-want-to-disarm-
minorities.html>.

“Instead of additional background checks and creating problems for more law-
abiding citizens, let's acknowledge and fix the broken system that we already have.
Virtually everyone who fails a background check is someone who is legally
eligible to buy a gun. Law-abiding minorities, particularly blacks, are the ones
most likely to be stopped from buying guns. Hillary Clinton claims that
background checks have stopped 2.4 million dangerous or prohibited people
from buying a gun. But what she ought to say is that there were 2.4 million
“initial denials.” These initial denials are akin to being stopped from flying
because your name is similar that of someone on the No Fly list. “

Warrant: Hispanics due to their names may be discriminated against when it comes to
buying a gun.

Jr., John R. Lott. “It’s already too late for gun control to work.” The Washington Post,
WP Company, 8 Nov. 2016,
<www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/08/its-already-
too-late-for-gun-control-to-work/?utm_term=.7f5ed05891af>.

Champion Briefs 264

Meanwhile, other law-abiding citizens are left in a lurch. People who have been
mistakenly stopped from buying guns are forced into a costly appeals process that
frequently requires them to hire lawyers. These “initial denials” affect certain racial
groups more than others. Hispanics are more likely to share names with other
Hispanics, and the same is true of blacks. Because 30 percent of black males
are forbidden to buy guns because of their criminal records, law-abiding black
males are especially likely to have their names confused with those of
prohibited people.

Warrant: The fees of background checks make weapons more expensive

Sherfinski, David. “Gun dealers say expanded background checks would drive up
costs.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 14 Apr. 2013,
<www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/14/gun-dealers-say-
expanded-background-checks-would-d/>.

“The deal senators have struck to expand firearm background checks to all
Internet and gun show sales will drive up prices for consumers, weapons
retailers say. Manufacturers say the deal, which is the crux of the gun bill that
senators will begin debating this week, also includes language that gives
background checks for sales at gun shows priority over in-store purchases
something their top trade group says is unfair. Under current law, background
checks are required for sales only by licensed retailers. The director of the top trade
group for gun retailers said expanding checks to include Internet and gun show
purchases will drive up prices and push business to federally licensed firearms
retailers, who in many cases will perform the checks for private sellers. “You’re
going to have a lot more people paying a lot more money,” said Andrew Molchan,
director of the Florida-based Professional Gun Retailers Association Inc.”

Champion Briefs 265

Warrant: Expensive legal fees hurt minorities ability to be able to argue for their rights in
case of a possible rejection.

“Do Democrats want to disarm minorities?” Fox News, FOX News Network,
<www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/30/do-democrats-want-to-disarm-
minorities.html>.

“The Obama administration hasn't done anything to fix this system. Indeed, it has
pulled everyone off of checking for mistakes. It is difficult to appeal denials
without the help of a lawyer, and few poor minorities can afford to pay
thousands of dollars in legal fees. Gun buyers and sellers are stuck with all of
the fees for universal background checks. In New York City and D.C., these fees
are at least $125. In Washington state and Oregon, the costs of transferring a
gun are about $60 and $55, respectively. But background checks are supposed to
benefit everyone, so why not pay for them out of general revenue? It isn’t as if gang
members are the ones paying the fees. These are law-abiding citizens who may
really need a gun for protection. Some of them are poor people living in high-crime
urban areas. Often, the most likely victims of violent crime can least afford these
costs.”

Impact: Background Checks put individuals at risk who require weapons for self defense

Lott, John. “Sorry, Hillary: Trump’s policies are clearly better for blacks.” New York
Post, New York Post, 25 Aug. 2016, <www.nypost.com/2016/08/25/sorry-
hillary-trumps-policies-are-clearly-better-for-blacks/>.

About 96 percent of “initial denials” are dropped after the first two stages of
review. Many more are dropped during the three remaining stages. But the
Obama administration no longer conducts those reviews, which means nearly all
Champion Briefs 266

initial denials are likely still mistakes — they’re just never corrected. Eventually
applicants used to be able to get their gun, though the delay could be
dangerous for someone who needs a gun for self-defense

Analysis: Focusing on how minorities are negatively affected due to background checks
can create a very persuasive narrative. Stressing the fact that these individuals are often
the most prone to violence can prove that any form of discrimination when it comes to
access to weapons would put them at extreme risk.

Champion Briefs 267

A/2: Background checks harm the rights of minorities

Answer: Having a weapon makes you more prone to be shot

Warrant: Individuals with weapons are more likely to overreact putting them in harms
way.
Grimes, David Robert. “Guns don't offer protection – whatever the National Rifle
Association says.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 25 Mar. 2013,
<www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-
association>.
“They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than
those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra. The reasons for this, the
authors suggest, are manifold. "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact,
instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons”

Warrant: Individuals with guns are more likely to enter dangerous environments they
would usually avoid, putting them further in harms way.

Grimes, David Robert. “Guns don't offer protection – whatever the National Rifle
Association says.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 25 Mar. 2013,
<www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-
national-rifle-association>.

“Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase
their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would
have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an
otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on
them." This result is not particularly unexpected. Prof David Hemenway of Harvard
school of public health has published numerous academic investigations in this area
Champion Briefs 268

and found that such claims are rooted far more in myth than fact. While defensive
gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception –
it doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases
the risk of being shot.”

Impact: Individuals are more at risk to being shot when they are armed.

“Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed.” New Scientist,
<www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-
getting-shot-and-killed/>.

“Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the
industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly
understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led
to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings. Overall, Branas’s study found that
people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as
likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at
shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting
shot were even higher.”

Analysis: These psychological warrants are more difficult to answer as they have to do
with general human interaction. Using more intuitive warrants, makes arguments more
difficult to answer.

Answer: Less gun control increases the amount of gun related deaths

Tavernise, Sabrina. “In Missouri, Fewer Gun Restrictions and More Gun Killings.”
The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Dec. 2015,
<www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/health/in-missouri-fewer-gun-
restrictions-and-more-gun-killings.html>.
Champion Briefs 269


“Research by Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun
Policy and Research, found that in the first six years after the state repealed
the requirement for comprehensive background checks and purchase
permits, the gun homicide rate was 16 percent higher than it was the six years
before. During the same period, the national rate declined by 11 percent. After
Professor Webster controlled for poverty and other factors that could influence the
homicide rate, and took into account homicide rates in other states, the result was
slightly higher, rising by 18 percent in Missouri.

Analysis: Having weapons, makes it easier for individuals to commit suicide or attack
other people. This is extremely dangerous.

Champion Briefs 270

Con: NICS Background Checks Are Based on an Inadequate

Amount of Data

Argument: The system used for background checks has one large flaw that cannot be
overlooked: the database used is insufficient. With a limited scope of data, the amount of
background checks doesn’t matter because the check in and of itself is faulty.

Warrant: Holistically, the NICS draws on incomplete data.
Kohrman, Miles. "Everything You Need to Know About Federal Background Checks.”
The Trace. The Trace, 14 March 2017. Web. 11 October 2017.
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nics-guns-dylann-
roof-charleston-church-shooting/

To ascertain whether an applicant should be disqualified from owning a gun,
the FBI draws from three databases: The NICS Index, which includes records
contributed by federal and state agencies identifying individuals prohibited from
buying a gun, for reasons ranging from criminal history to severe mental illness; the
Interstate Identification Index, a database of criminal histories; and the National
Crime Information Center, or NCIC, an “electronic clearinghouse” of criminal
records. Records reporting to NICS by state and local agencies is notoriously spotty.
According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report published in February, at the end
of 2014 there were 7.8 million active-warrant records in state warrant
databases, but only about 2.1 million such records in the NCIC database. NICS
also consults mental health records submitted by each state. According to a 2013
congressional report, these records can show whether someone has been
“adjudicated as a mental defective” by a “court, board, commission, or other lawful
authority,” or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution — both
circumstances would bar someone from purchasing a firearm. However, federal
Champion Briefs 271

law does not require states to forward mental health records to NICS, and
some states are resistant, citing privacy laws. As of March 2017, several states
have submitted only a handful of disqualifying mental health records to NICS.
No. In addition to NICS, states can also run their own background checks, which
query local databases, but only 21 choose to do so. “When a state relies on NICS,
they’re not getting the full picture,” Mike McLively, a staff attorney at Law Center
to Prevent Gun Violence, told the Charlotte Observer last year. “State databases
include arrest records, mental health records. You’re checking a wider range of
sources.”
Warrant: States aren’t mandated or encouraged to submit enough records.
Groppe, Maureen. "Checking gun buyers for mental illness hinges on states.” Gannett
Washington Bureau, USA Today, 28 March 2013. Web. 11 October 2017.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/28/gun-control-
background-checks-mentally-ill/2028689/

About 4,000 Hoosiers could not pass a federal background check to buy a gun
because of mental illness. In Delaware, a state about one-seventh the size of
Indiana, a background check would block nearly 19,000 people with mental
illness records from getting a gun. In Massachusetts, a state similar in size to
Indiana, only one person would be stopped. Even as the Senate prepares to take
up legislation next month to include private sales among the types of gun purchases
that require a background check, there remains a great variation among states
on the submission of mental health records to the federal background-check
database. Indiana's numbers are low because — unlike states such as Texas — the
2009 Indiana law mandating the state report people found to be mentally ill to a
national database didn't require court officials to search past records. Even the
National Rifle Association — which opposes expanding background checks —
Champion Briefs 272

says there are too many holes in the system. "We have a mental health system in
this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database
of these lunatics," NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre told NBC after the Dec. 14 mass
shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. "Twenty-three states
are still putting only a small number of records into the system, and a lot of states
are putting none."

Warrant: States are only encouraged after tragedies, which shouldn’t be what the government
relies on for records.
Groppe, Maureen. "Checking gun buyers for mental illness hinges on states.” Gannett
Washington Bureau, USA Today, 28 March 2013. Web. 11 October 2017.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/28/gun-control-
background-checks-mentally-ill/2028689/

The federal government can't require states to submit records to the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). But many stepped up efforts
after a student at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute shot and killed 32 people and
wounded 17 others in 2007, the deadliest school shooting incident by a single gunman in
U.S. history. A Virginia judge had found the shooter, Seung Hui Cho, mentally ill in
2005. But that court record was not submitted to NICS, enabling Cho to pass background
checks to purchase the handguns he used. At the time, only 22 states submitted mental
health records to NICS and only four states had laws requiring it. Although Virginia had
been sharing some records as early as 2002, it increased its efforts after the mass
shooting. As of October, Virginia had submitted 180,338 records, the most per capita of
any state, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of more than 900 mayors
co-chaired by New York's Michael Bloomberg that pushes for stricter gun laws. Overall,
Indiana is among the second-worst performing group of states in the per capita records
submitted to NICS, according to the mayors' group. "Many states, unfortunately, have not
followed Virginia's lead," U.S. Attorney Timothy Heaphy of the Western District of
Champion Briefs 273

Virginia testified at a Senate hearing in February. "So that's one of the holes in the
background checks." For Indiana to do as well as the best states, the mayors' group
estimates, the state would have to submit 12 times as many mental health records.

Warrant: NICS is over inclusive in the wrong areas, and the lack of information is represented
in the small amount of rejections.
Ferris, Sarah. "Lack of data makes it hard for background checks system to work
properly." Washington Post, Washington Post, 28 August 2014. Web. 11
October 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/lack-of-data-makes-it-hard-for-background-checks-system-to-
work-properly/2014/08/28/d166c1b4-2ed8-11e4-be9e-
60cc44c01e7f_story.html

Federally licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check, either
online or by phone, before each firearms sale. Within about 30 seconds, the
system searches for criminal convictions and in 38 states a history of severe
mental illness as judged by a court. But states are not required under federal law
to submit mental health records to NICS. There are no consequences if states choose
not to send records, resulting in major information gaps. Only about 30 percent of
the estimated 4.4 million mental health records in the United States over the
past two decades can be found in NICS, according to research compiled in 2012 by
the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics and the National
Center for State Courts. Out of all gun purchases blocked by the FBI over the past
16 years, fewer than 2 percent were because of mental health status. That
amounts to 14,613 blocked sales since 1998. The files are costly to locate and store,
according to interviews with officials from 10 states. There were 2,083 agencies
responsible for providing information for background checks across the country in
2010, including courts, state health departments and psychiatric hospitals, according
to the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report. The system is also vastly
Champion Briefs 274

overinclusive, six public health experts said in interviews. People’s names are
kept in the database based on a decades-old definition of “mentally defective,”
which relies on court decisions rather than doctors’ orders. Under federal law,
individuals with histories of violent psychotic episodes can buy guns as long as they
never set foot in a courtroom. Every one of the country’s mass shooters since
January 2009 could have slipped through NICS, according to a July 2014 study by
the gun control organization Everytown for Gun Safety.
Warrant: Legislation cannot fix the problems that exist within NICS.

Schmitt, Rick. "Badly flawed background check system fails to contain firearm sales.”
The Center for Public Integrity, The Center for Public Integrity, 19 May 2014.
Web. 11 October 2017.

The data gap that Geisel exploited should have been closed by now. Four years
ago, after the massacre at Virginia Tech exposed gaps in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS), Congress and the Bush administration
took decisive action to shore up the joint state-federal operation, which is supposed
to keep guns away from the deranged and the dangerous. But the so-called NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 has clearly not improved things much
at all, an iWatch News investigation found. And that’s far from the only problem.
The federal background check system, conceived as a first line of defense against
gun crime, remains riddled with data gaps, loopholes and disputes over just who
should be barred – a troubling conclusion brought into sharp relief by the January
shooting spree in Arizona that killed six and wounded 13 others, including Rep.
Gabrielle Giffords. A dozen years after it went fully operational, NICS is still a
patchwork operation that, despite a huge data base, often relies on massively
incomplete information. Millions of pertinent documents – from mental health and
Champion Briefs 275

drug abuse records to the case records of accused felons – remain outside the
system, in boxes in courthouse basements or in legal limbo because of state and
local laws that prohibit sharing with the feds. As a result, guns are getting into the
hands of people who should never possess them. The mess reflects policy
differences with states over which records should be supplied as well as a lack
of money and political will and computer prowess to hook up aging state and
federal networks.

Warrant: Fixing the system should be the first step.

Kliff, Sarah. "The NRA wants an ‘active’ mental illness database. Thirty-eight states
have that now.” Washington Post, Washington Post, 21 December 2012. Web.
11 October 2017.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/12/21/the-nra-
wants-an-active-mental-illness-database-thirty-eight-states-have-that-
now/>.

Creating a national database, Nichols says, would be a difficult task to pull off,
and not just because of the "nation's refusal" that LaPierre cited. The federal
government does not have the constitutional authority to require state agencies to
report data. The most it can do is offer funding — or withhold dollars — in an
attempt to entice states to participate, just as they did with the law after the Virginia
Tech shooting. Many anti-gun advocates push for better mental health reporting,
including Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It recommended in a November 2011 report
that "Congress should significantly increase both the federal funding available to
assist record sharing and the penalties for states that do not comply, and tie them to
far more ambitious reporting targets." Nichols too believes that better state
tracking of mental health records, and stronger reporting to the federal
government, would be a positive step for gun control. "State legislators need to
Champion Briefs 276

pay great attention to this," she says. "They need to have the capacity to manage
their own affairs and help enforce these prohibitions."

Analysis: It is important to note that the United States background check system already is
lacking information. To expand background checks seems beneficial on face, but the reality
is that these checks would be useless. The first step should be to increase the data that is
sent to the NICS. However, this seems to be an incredibly difficult process, and until this
kind of fix can be made, the system should not be expanded universally.
Champion Briefs 277

A/2: NICS Background Checks Are Based on an Inadequate

Amount of Data

Answer: There are potential solutions for NICS.

Warrant: There are certain records that should be encouraged to be reported.
"Improve gun background checks: our view.” Editorial Board, USA Today, 27 July
2015. Web. 11 October 2017.
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/27/guns-
background-checks-nics-dylann-roof-fbi-editorials-debates/30199637/>

Too many records — mental treatment, domestic violence convictions,
restraining orders — still don’t get into the database. That has to change. The
story of how Dylann Roof got his gun is especially vexing. When Roof was arrested
for drug possession on March 1, a county clerk in South Carolina entered the
information incorrectly. When an FBI background check analyst went looking for
Roof’s record, she couldn’t find it. By law, a store can sell a gun if there’s no answer
on a background check after three days. Many stores wait (as they should) for a
definitive answer. Roof’s didn’t, and he got his gun. This kind of foul-up isn’t
unusual. Last year, 228,000 of the checks the FBI handled took longer than three
days. The FBI says it gives "priority" to these transactions, but the
agency clearly needs a better system. Missing the three-day deadline can cause
serious trouble. Chances rise sharply that people who get their guns after that aren't
legally qualified to buy them. In many cases, the FBI belatedly figures that out. Then
it's up to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to go get the guns
back. Last year, the FBI handed 2,511 "firearm retrieval actions" to ATF. Gun rights
advocates claim that the whole background check system is flawed beyond
repair. Quite the contrary. The latest spate of tragedies shows how it needs to be
Champion Briefs 278

fixed. The FBI ought to get five or seven days to complete a check; sales at gun
shows and over the Internet should be included; and states have to do a better job of
forwarding restraining and involuntary commitment orders to the database. Lives
depend on it.
Warrant: There are technological ways to improve the background check system.
Yablon, Alex. "Obama Is Asking the Team That Fixed Healthcare.gov to Work Its
Magic on the Gun Background Check System.” The Trace, The Trace, 6
January 2016. Web. 11 October 2017.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/obama-executive-action-fbi-nics/

Campbell’s criticism of the administration’s actions toward the nuts and bolts of gun
violence prevention vaguely echoes the reaction many had to the troubled launch of
Healthcare.gov, the public interface of the president’s Affordable Healthcare Act.
Perhaps it’s fitting, then, that Obama has brought in the US Digital
Service (USDS), the team that was convened to fix the health insurance
platform, to optimize NICS. The FBI has promised a serious upgrade of NICS’
backend since at least February 2014, but its launch has been repeatedly delayed.
The USDS should speed that up. The all-purpose public services A-Team will work
with the FBI to ensure the system is capable of completing all background checks,
even troublesome ones like Roof’s, within three business days, after which sales
are allowed to go through in what’s called a “default proceed.” As things stand now,
the FBI asks the ATF to retrieve guns in approximately 3,000 such cases per year
where it believes a delayed background check allowed dealers to transfer guns to
people who should have been denied. The upgrade to NICS will also improve
investigators’ ability to notify local law enforcement when prohibited
purchasers try to get their hands on a gun. While lying on a background check
form is itself a crime, it’s rarely prosecuted; federal law enforcement usually only
pursues these cases when they involve fugitives. Since NICS launched in 1998,
Champion Briefs 279

more than 650,000 people have been turned down for gun purchases for
having a criminal record, but a study by Syracuse University found that U.S.
attorneys only pursue 100 to 200 cases per year with lying to acquire a gun as
the lead charge.

Warrant: There have been improvements in the NICS reporting system.
"State Reporting For Background Checks (NICS).” Smart Gun Laws, Law Center to
Prevent Gun Violence, April 2017. Web. 11 October 2017.
<http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/NICS-Factsheet-
2015.pdf>

Federal law prohibits convicted felons, certain domestic abusers, illegal drug
abusers, and dangerously mentally ill people from purchasing or possessing
firearms. However, federal law cannot require states to provide the information
identifying these people to NICS databases. Consequently, many states still fail to
report the records necessary to determine whether a particular person is
eligible to buy a gun. This problem applies to many kinds of records, including
records regarding criminal histories, drug abuse, domestic violence, and mental
illness. Significant progress has been made in state reporting of mental health
records. Federal funding and new federal and state laws have resulted in an
eightfold increase in the number of such records in NICS since President Bush
signed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act in 2008. That act provided financial
rewards and penalties to encourage states to submit relevant records to NICS, and
provided grants to assist states in establishing and upgrading their reporting and
background check systems. Many states have adopted NICS reporting laws in
recent years and, as of today, only four states (MT, NH, NM, and WY) still lack
any law on this topic. In spite of this progress, NICS is still missing many essential
mental health records. Despite large gains overall, some states have reported mental
health records to NICS at eight times the rate of other states. These differences are
Champion Briefs 280

due in part to loopholes in many states’ laws identifying which records must be
reported. In addition, many states that have enacted strong NICS reporting laws
have still failed to report people previously committed or adjudicated because of
mental illness before the reporting law’s enactment.

Warrant: Certain states have helped make up for a lack of progress.
Goggins, Becki. "State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related

Background Checks: Protection Order Submissions.” National Center for
State Courts, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 2016. Web. 11 October 2017.
<https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249864.pdf >

New York is an example of a court system that has partnered with the state
police to submit protection orders to NCIC. New York’s strategy employs an
automated central searchable repository. They have also been successful in sending
state disqualifying protection orders to the NICS Index, which is a unique strategy.
Since 1996, New York has ensured that protection orders are registered in the court
system’s statewide domestic violence registry database. These orders are
transmitted in real-time to the State Police repository which then transmits to the
NCIC Protection Order File (POF), thus providing all law enforcement nationally
with access to New York protection orders. This was primarily accomplished
through the implementation of a statewide portal—known as WebDVS—that allows
all court clerks to generate protection orders and simultaneously register them into
a single, searchable repository. Prior to the implementation of the portal, the
New York Office of Court Administration (OCA) employed a team of
approximately 20 data entry specialists to process the registration of 300,000+
protection orders issued annually. Today, with statewide implementation of
WebDVS, only a single data entry person is needed to keep up with the
remaining paper submissions in the state. Local police agencies are provided
access to all orders entered into NCIC, and they assist the courts by providing the
Champion Briefs 281

majority of hit confirmations. Along with the NCIC POF transmissions, New York
contributed nearly 174,000 firearms-disqualifying orders to the NICS Index in
2014, the highest of any state. Of these, approximately 39%, or 68,000, were
federally disqualifying protection orders and the remaining 61%, or 106,000 orders,
were state disqualifying. This effort was supported by NARIP grant funding
which allowed OCA to automate the federal and state eligibility calculation for
protection orders issued in family and criminal courts statewide. This required
modifications to WebDVS to capture relationship information as a required field for
any protection order entered into the system, as well as careful analysis of the state
terms, conditions, and service requirements of orders to match up with the federal
definitions for protection order firearms prohibitions.
Analysis: Although it is typically strategic to have multiple responses of various breadth,

this should be one response to disprove the negative claims. There are ways that the NICS
has been improved, which can be shown through states like New York. These example are
important in order to identify the changes that could be possibly made to the system. By
showing the massive improvements and the lack of attempts thus far, it helps disprove the
theory that the system is broken beyond repair.

Champion Briefs 282

Con: Universal Background Checks Give False Hope

Argument: The general feeling of safety associated with universal background checks
proves to provide only false hope if the system falls through. False hope creates distrust in
the government and discourages possible future solutions.

Warrant: Faith in the government is already extremely low.
McCarthy, Justin. "Everything You Need to Know About Federal Background

Checks.” The Trace. The Trace, 14 March 2017. Web. 11 October 2017.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/171992/americans-losing-confidence-
branches-gov.aspx

Americans' confidence in all three branches of the U.S. government has fallen,
reaching record lows for the Supreme Court (30%) and Congress (7%), and a six-
year low for the presidency (29%). The presidency had the largest drop of the three
branches this year, down seven percentage points from its previous rating of 36%.
These data come from a June 5-8 Gallup poll asking Americans about their
confidence in 16 U.S. institutions -- within government, business, and society --
that they either read about or interact with. While Gallup recently reported
a historically low rating of Congress, Americans have always had less confidence
in Congress than in the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court
and the presidency have alternated being the most trusted branch of government
since 1991, the first year Gallup began asking regularly about all three branches. But
on a relative basis, Americans' confidence in all three is eroding. Since June 2013,
confidence has fallen seven points for the presidency, four points for the Supreme
Court, and three points for Congress. Confidence in each of the three branches of
government had already fallen from 2012 to 2013.
Champion Briefs 283

Warrant: People already believe the democratic process is flawed.
Boerma, Lindsey. "Americans enter 2014 with plunging faith in government.” CBS
News, CBS, 2 January 2014. Web. 11 October 2017.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans-enter-2014-with-plunging-
faith-in-government/

Two months after a Congress mired in partisan congestion gave way to the first
government shutdown in 17 years, a mere one in 20 Americans believe the U.S.
system of democracy works well and needs no changes, according to an AP-
NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll out Thursday. Heading into the new
year with a grotesquely pessimistic outlook on their country’s government,
half of Americans said it needs either “a lot of changes” or a complete
overhaul. And 70 percent said they’re not confident lawmakers will manage to
“make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014.”
Those problems, respondents suggested, are topped by health care reform, jobs and
the economy and the country’s debt, respectively. Eighty percent of Americans said
they hope the government focuses substantial energy on those issues in the coming
year, but only 76 percent said they expect to see real progress. When it comes to the
economy in particular, the last best hope, respondents suggested, is Americans
themselves. Though a majority said they’re not optimistic about their chances of
grasping the American Dream, most qualified that they have at least some faith in
their abilities to handle their own problems in 2014. Still, more than half of those
polled said they want a strong government hand helping them sort out “today’s
complex economic problems.” In general, the population remains split on how active
the government should be in the lives of citizens: half said “the less government the
better,” and 48 percent said “there are more things that government should be
doing.” Sloping faith in government is an aging trend: the percentage of Americans
who think the United States governing system is heading in the right direction
hasn’t topped 50 in almost 10 years. What’s more, few express hope that it can
Champion Briefs 284

improve, with half saying they’re pessimistic about the United States’ ability to
produce strong leaders, and 61 percent doubting the effectiveness of the way
leaders are chosen.

Warrant: It is not politically possible to pass new gun laws due to lack of political capital and
motivation.
Lexington. "Why gun control is doomed.” Economist, Economist, 19 June 2015. Web.
11 October 2017.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/charlest
on-and-public-policy

No new laws restricting access to guns will be passed as a result of
Wednesday’s racist shooting rampage, which left nine dead at the Emanuel African
Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Americans can be
confident this is true for several reasons. For starters, Barack Obama more or less
admitted it. Americans need to reckon with the fact that other advanced countries
do not have to face this sort of mass violence, the president said in a sombre
statement at the White House on Thursday. “It is in our power to do something
about it. I say that recognising the politics in this town foreclose a lot of the
avenues just now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it,” he said,
with visible frustration. The president knows that if it were politically possible
to pass new gun laws in Washington, it would have happened after the
December 2012 massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. It is hard to imagine a tragedy
more calculated to shock American consciences: 20 small children and six staff were
gunned down in their elementary school in a quaint New England community by a
disturbed young man, wielding a rifle from his mother’s gun collection. Various
marginal tweaks to gun laws were tried and failed to gain traction in Congress.
Finally, a bipartisan push was made to merely enforce existing laws better.
Champion Briefs 285

This would have expanded the number of gun-buyers checked for histories of crime
or severe mental illness. It failed, too.

Warrant: Congress is known for creating this kind of false hope with legislation.
Beamon, Todd. "Ex-Sen. Tom Coburn Slams ‘Cruz Efect’ For Creating False Hopes
About Congress." Newsmax, Newsmax, 16 October 2015. Web. 11 October
2017. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/tom-coburn-rips-ted-cruz-
effect/2015/10/16/id/696627/

"Well, that's one thing to tell 'em that," Coburn continued. "It's a whole other thing
to be able to accomplish that, and build a coalition that once you shut it, that it
doesn't get opened up till you win." In 2013, Cruz spoke for 21 hours and 19
minutes against Obamacare during a Senate floor debate and the skirmish over
extending the nation's debt ceiling. The impasse led to a 16-day partial federal
government shutdown that October that cost taxpayers $1.4 billion. Coburn told
Dominick that Cruz's actions in the Obamacare fight created "a false hope" among
those living "in the hinterlands." "So what happens to that is, once you've told
people that, and you've put your finger — 'everybody that doesn't believe exactly
like I believe, you're not a patriot, you don't care about the country' — what you do
is you create greater disappointment in the hinterlands, because you gave
them a false hope, knowing that you couldn't accomplish it, but it was about yelling,
and screaming, and waving the flag," he said. "And, so what happens is, there
becomes less confidence in the Congress and its ability to do its job." The
retired senator noted his ability to work across the aisle during his tenure on Capitol
Hill. "I came out of the Senate with one of the most conservative ratings ever in the
history of the Senate," Coburn said. "It was like 98.8 percent in terms of conservative.
"And yet, I compromised all the time to accomplish things that were good for the
country."
Champion Briefs 286

Warrant: False hope leads to distrust toward the government.

Thompson, Derek. "80 Percent of Americans Don’t Trust the Government. Here’s
Why.” Atlantic; Atlantic, 19 April 2010. Web. 11 October 2017.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/80-percent-of-
americans-dont-trust-the-government-heres-why/39148/

Public trust of government is near its all-time low according to the Pew
Research Center, which finds a perfect storm of factors -- including a deep
recession, high unemployment and polarized Congress -- are driving distrust near
an all-time high of 80%. What accounts for this outpouring of discontent? After all,
the recession is over, the economy is growing, and job losses have slowed
dramatically in the last year. But overall distrust has been permanently scared
since the early 1970s, and periods of recession and high unemployment depress
public trust in government. Here are three key lessons from the Pew poll. The
United States government suffers from not seasonal, but structural
disapproval. This poll isn't an outlying data point. It's part of an overall decline in
government trust since the mid-1960s. The only time since 1975 that government
trust broke 50% was in the months following 9/11. After the tumultuous
assassinations of the 1960s, the Vietnam War, the resignation of President Nixon,
and the stagflation of the late 1970s, public trust fell from 80% in 1966 to about
25% in 1981. Since then it's only peaked over 50% once, after 9/11. Nixon's scandal,
the regularity of hyperpartisanship, the rise of cable news, and the annual parade
of government frustrations that belie the quixotic campaign promises
Americans now expect from outside candidates has permanently eroded faith
in the US government.

Analysis: It is important for the negative to first establish that this universal background
check system would fail to create the kind of success that the affirmative is hoping for. Once
Champion Briefs 287

that happens, then the false hope argument can be built on top of that. If the NICS
background system is going to fail to provide real results, then it is yet another campaign
promise that is being paraded through Congress. When the system eventually fails, it will
raise the structural distrust that exists, and discourage people from trusting in the
government.
Champion Briefs 288

A/2: Universal Background Checks Give False Hope

Answer: Policymakers should trust the public in order to improve their relationship.

Warrant: The public supports increased background checks.
Barry, Colleen L., et al. “After Newtown â ” Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental
Illness.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 368, no. 12, 2013, pp. 1077–
1081., doi:10.1056/nejmp1300512.

As policymakers consider options to reduce gun violence, they should understand
public attitudes about various violence-prevention proposals, including policies
affecting persons with mental illness; past research findings on Americans' attitudes
about policies for curbing gun violence1-3 need to be updated. In the aftermath of
Sandy Hook, it's also important to understand how Americans view mental illness.
To examine these issues, we conducted two national public opinion surveys
between January 2 and January 14, 2013, with the survey research firm GfK
Knowledge Networks, using equal-probability sampling from a sample frame of
residential addresses covering 97% of U.S. households. The surveys were pilot-
tested December 28 through December 31, 2012. The order of the survey items was
randomized. We fielded the gun-policy survey (n=2703) and the mental illness
survey (n=1530) using different respondents to avoid priming effects. Survey
completion rates were 69% and 70%, respectively. For the gun-policy survey, to
report national rates of policy support and compare rates stratified according to
respondents' gun-ownership status, we oversampled both gun-owners and non-
owners living in households with guns. We reported the gun-policy results at the
Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America at Johns Hopkins University on
January 15, 2013. Some 33% of respondents reported having a gun in their home or
garage, an estimate that's consistent with recent data from the General Social Survey
and other surveys,4,5 though somewhat lower than a few 2013 polls have reported.
Champion Briefs 289

Twenty-two percent of respondents identified the guns as personally belonging to

them (“gun-owners”), and 11% identified themselves as non–gun-owners living in a
household with a gun. Among gun-owners, 71% reported owning a handgun, 62%
reported owning a shotgun, and 61% reported owning a rifle. The remaining 67% of
respondents identified themselves as non–gun-owners living in households without
guns (“non–gun-owners”). Majorities of the respondents supported all but 4 of 31
gun policies. Public support was particularly high for measures prohibiting
certain persons from having guns, enhancing background checks, and
instituting greater oversight of gun dealers. Even policies banning the sale of
military-style semiautomatic weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines
were supported by more than 65% of the general public. We found smaller
differences than we anticipated between gun-owners and non–gun-owners. All
policies bolstering background checks and oversight of gun dealers were
supported by majorities of gun-owners, as were most policies prohibiting
certain persons from having guns.
Warrant: More of the population supports this than any other gun control policy.
Barry, Colleen L., et al. “After Newtown â ” Public Opinion on Gun Policy and Mental
Illness.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 368, no. 12, 2013, pp. 1077–
1081., doi:10.1056/nejmp1300512.

Most policies regarding persons with mental illness were popular with both
non–gun-owners and gun-owners. Eighty-five percent of respondents
supported requiring states to report to the national background-check system
persons who are prohibited from having guns because they have either been
involuntarily committed to a hospital for psychiatric treatment or been
declared mentally incompetent by a court. Although this requirement has been
in place since before the background-check system was implemented in 1998, many
states do not report mental health records. Of the policies regarding persons with
Champion Briefs 290

mental illness included in the survey, the one that had the least public support was
allowing people who have lost the right to have a gun because of mental illness to
have that right restored if they are determined not to be dangerous. Overall,
respondents expressed ambivalence about mental illness. Almost half of
respondents believed that people with serious mental illness are more dangerous
than members of the general population, but less than a third believed that locating
a group residence for people with mental illness in a residential neighborhood
would endanger area residents. Most said they were unwilling to have a person with
a serious mental illness as a coworker or a neighbor. However, 69% favored
requiring insurance companies to offer benefits for mental health and drug and
alcohol abuse services that are equivalent to benefits for other medical services.
Such equity was the core idea behind a federal parity law that took effect in 2010.
Fifty-nine percent of respondents supported increased government spending
on mental health care, and 61% favored greater spending on such care as a
strategy for reducing gun violence.

Analysis: It is one thing to parade a policy through Washington, but it is another thing to
base policies off of the democratic process. Most people within the United States support
expanded background checks over other processes. If we follow what the people want, they
are more likely to trust their Congress because it is fulfilling the way our government is
supposed to work.

Answer: Background systems are proven to work.

Warrant: People believe in a policy that works.
Swanson, Jeffrey. “Law & Psychiatry: Gun Laws and Mental Illness: How Sensible Are
the Current Restrictions?” Psychiatric Services, Duke University, July 2010,
ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ps.2010.61.7.652.

Champion Briefs 291

As of January 2008, in the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech, the Brady Act was
amended by the NICS Improvement Act (NICSIA) to encourage states to report to
the federal registry all persons disqualified from possessing or purchasing a
handgun. States that comply with the statute are eligible for a partial waiver of the
matching requirement for particular federal criminal justice grant programs and can
receive federal funding to improve their reporting and querying capabilities. The
NICSIA also requires states to create relief-from-disabilities programs, providing
people excluded from firearms purchase because of "mental defect" the opportunity
to apply for relief from that exclusion, which previously was more difficult to obtain.
In addition to the national registry, many states have developed their own
databases to implement local restrictions on firearms access. But state
firearms laws differ significantly in their disqualifying criteria related to
mental illness, the types of restrictions they impose, the management of
otherwise confidential medical records, and their appeals processes ( 5 ).
States also differ in their civil commitment statutes and related judicial procedures,
which may create ambiguity about whether certain procedures—such as temporary
detention orders and court-ordered outpatient treatment in some states—fall under
state or federal firearms laws' definitions of disqualifying mental health
adjudications. Criteria for exclusion from firearms ownership range broadly
across the states, including histories of voluntary or mandatory outpatient
psychiatric treatment, treatment for mental illness that requires medication or
supervision, any psychiatric hospitalization, involuntary civil commitment or other
mental health adjudication, and voluntary or court-ordered substance abuse
treatment ( 6 ). Moreover, state registries list only disqualifying episodes that
occurred within that state, imposing no effective restrictions on persons who
cross state lines to purchase firearms. Thus only a national database is likely to
achieve comprehensive coverage.

Analysis: Even if a national system currently isn’t perfect, is is the best possible solution. It
is better to work toward what we know should be the best rather than settle for mediocre
Champion Briefs 292

that cannot be improved. When the states have failed on such a large issue, the federal
government is responsible for stepping in. The people trust this policy, and the government
should trust the research and the people.

Champion Briefs 293

Con: Universal Background Checks Exacerbate Backlog

Argument: Currently, the NICS system used to do background checks is severely
backlogged. Adding more cases won’t improve background checks, but will allow less cases
to be checked by the FBI due to this backlog.

Warrant: The FBI was overwhelmed with gun purchases with the already-existing minimal
background check.
White, Martha. "America’s Gun-Buying Binge Is Overwhelming the FBI.” Time.. Time
Money, 20 January 2016. Web. 9 October 2017.
http://time.com/money/4186657/guns-america-fbi-background-checks/

“Americans have been buying guns in spades lately, with a record-breaking 185,345
background check requests filed on Black Friday alone. The month of December and the
year 2015 both broke records, and the government is scrambling to stay on top of the
paperwork. According to USA Today, roughly 70 FBI employees tasked with
reviewing appeals from people who were turned down for firearm purchased after
criminal background checks have had their duties temporarily shifted just to keep
up with the flood of new background check requests pouring in every day. The
agency's assistant director Stephen Morris called it a "perfect storm" that's been growing
over the past several months, and the backlog is only growing. As part of his gun-control
push earlier this month, President Obama laid out a plan to hire another 230 FBI staffers
to help process background checks. Although plenty of his proposals aimed at reducing
gun violence have been criticized, even Republican lawmakers and the National Rifle
Association are voicing cautious support to the idea of adding to the ranks of the
overwhelmed National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the division
of the FBI that processes background checks, USA Today said.”
Champion Briefs 294

Warrant: As a result, the system is overwhelmingly accepted as a flawed background check

process.
Yablon, Alex. "Trump’s New FBI Director Will Inherit a Gun Background-Check
System Marred by Missing Records and Manpower Shortages.” The Trace,
The Trace, 22 May 2017. Web. 9 October 2017.
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/05/trump-new-fbi-director-flawed-gun-
background-check-system/

While the volume of gun sales — and background checks — surged to
unprecedented heights during President Obama’s administration, the number of
people tasked with completing checks held level. NICS has employed 230 examiners
since at least 2012. That year, examiners processed 16.5 million background checks.
The same number of employees completed 27.5 million checks in 2016. In January
2016, Stephen Morris, the FBI’s assistant director, described the situation as “a perfect
storm.” The demand for checks was so high, and the level of staffing so low, that the FBI
was cancelling NICS employees’ leave, he said. That same month, President Obama
requested that Congress authorize funds for 230 more NICS examiners to ease the
burden. But the Republican-controlled Congress did not grant the request when it
funded the FBI for fiscal year 2017. As examiners’ workloads increased without relief,
the conditions became ripe for more errors or incomplete checks, which resulted in more
default proceeds. The added workload also meant that checks took much longer to
process. In 2015, it took NICS an average 281 seconds to complete a check, up from
32 seconds in 2012.

Warrant: High backlogs leads to NICS shutdown.
Ricker, Nok-Noi. "Call volume shuts down FBI’s firearm background checks, stops
Maine sales on Black Friday." Bangor Daily News Business, Bangod Daily
News, 23 November 2012. Web. 9 October 2017.
Champion Briefs 295

<http://bangordailynews.com/2012/11/23/business/high-volume-of-calls-
shuts-down-fbis-background-check-system-for-firearms-sales-costs-bangor-
area-gun-dealers-business/>.

Sometime early on Black Friday, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background
Check System, or NICS, went down and stopped all gun sales, Bangor-area gun
dealers said. High call volumes caused “intermittent outages” in the system, an FBI
spokesman confirmed Friday afternoon. “It means we can’t sell no damn guns,” Rick
Lozier, a manager at Van Raymond Outfitters in Brewer, said at about 1:15 p.m. “NICS is
down, which means nobody is selling guns right now, on Black Friday,” said Ralph
McLeod, owner of Buyers Guns in Holden. Those who want to purchase a gun in the U.S.
must fill out and sign FBI paperwork. The gun dealer then calls NICS to see if the buyer is
barred by federal law from possessing firearms. “The message is they are going to be
down for a few hours,” McLeod said at about noon Friday. Black Friday sales played a
role in the problems with NICS, the director of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information
Services Division said, responding to an email from the Bangor Daily News. “The NICS
has experienced intermittent outages today due to high call volumes,” Stephen G.
Fischer Jr. said at about 2:15 p.m. Lozier, who has worked at Van Raymond’s for more
than a decade, said the outages cost him at least half a dozen customers by the time the
business day was only half over. “If we can’t call it in, we can’t sell a gun,” Lozier said.
“It’s cost us some money.”
Warrant: High backlogs leads to less completed background checks.

Eaton, Joshua. "EXCLUSIVE: In 2016, the FBI allowed 300,000 gun sales before
completing a background check.” Think Progress, Think Progress, 15 June
2017., Web. 9 October 2017. < https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-the-fbi-
allowed-over-300-000-gun-purchases-last-year-before-completing-a-
background-9d380d53aa1d/>.

Champion Briefs 296

And so, a few days later, Roof walked out of Shooter’s Choice with a .45-caliber Glock
41 Gen4 handgun. Two months later, he used it to shoot and kill nine black churchgoers
after a Bible study at a historic black church in Charleston. In that wake of the shooting,
then–FBI Director James Comey ordered a review of why the FBI couldn’t complete
Roof’s background check within the three-business-day deadline. Speaking to reporters at
FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., that July, he said that he wanted to find out how,
in the future, the agency could complete more background checks on time. Despite
promises to fix the system, however, new data the FBI shared with
ThinkProgress shows that there were more than 300,000 default proceeds in 2016.
Of all background checks performed that year, 3.24 percent resulted in default
proceeds. That figure is up from 3.02 percent in 2015 and 2.76 percent in 2014. Gun
dealers don’t have to notify the FBI when they proceed with a sale after the three-
business-day deadline, so it’s unclear how many of those default proceeds resulted in an
actual sale without a background check. Government data also shows that many of these
cases are associated with misdemeanor domestic violence charges. States do not always
share related records, and often domestic violence charges aren’t easily identifiable in
FBI databases. That raises concerns that firearms could get into the hands of convicted
abusers.

Warrant: The Supreme Court has widened the definition of police-created exigencies, and
have made it easier for searches without warrants to occur.

Givens, Ann. "Gun Background Check Change Could Put Weapons in Fugitives’’
Hands.” The Trace, The Trace, 13 March 2017. Web. 9 October 2017.
<https://www.thetrace.org/2017/03/gun-background-check-change-
fugitives/>.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has removed more than 500,000 records
identifying people with outstanding criminal arrest warrants from a database of
prohibited gun purchasers, following a Department of Justice ruling last month that
Champion Briefs 297

sought to settle an interagency dispute over who qualifies as a “fugitive.” The records
were deleted from the National Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Index, a
point-of-sale instant-check database that includes about 16 million records of people who
authorities have determined are not legally allowed to own firearms. The removal of the
records came with new standards that raise the bar for qualifying as a fugitive, requiring
that persons knowingly flee an open warrant across state lines before a gun ban kicks in.
The DOJ order does not necessarily mean that all of the more than 500,000 people
deleted from NICS can now go out and legally purchase a gun. Federal investigators
check would-be gun buyers against three different databases in order to prevent sales to
convicted felons and other people who are barred by statute from owning firearms, and
some of the removed names — it is not clear how many — also appear in one of the other
databases, and could trigger a rejection. But even though some of the records that used
to be in the NICS Index exist elsewhere in the background check system, the
changes could slow the process of flagging individuals with outstanding warrants,
allowing some sales to go through. Law enforcement experts say that the upshot of
the changes, which came over the objections of the FBI, is clear: more people with
outstanding arrest warrants for serious crimes will be given a green light to buy a
gun, should they try to do so.
Analysis: Although it could be argued by the affirmative that all sales should undergo
background checks, the negative should also attempt to prove why the system would fail
even if that first claim is true. In this case, it is critical to look toward the system itself. In
this case, the NICS has a massive backlog. When there are high amounts of gun sales, it puts
the FBI into overdrive. Either the overworked caseworkers make mistakes or they don’t
check the sale. If a sale isn’t checked in three days, it proceeds by default, which means
anyone could get their hands on a gun in a default sale. The last card shows that when more
checks and people are added to the system, the system cannot withhold all of the
information, and thus, it fails.
Champion Briefs 298

A/2: Universal Background Checks Exacerbate Backlog

Answer: There is a push for universal background checks that will eventually force the
system to adapt.

Warrant: There is a support among Americans for universal background checks.
Richards, Sara. "Why background checks for gun purchases have gun-owner
support.” John Hopkins Magazine, John Hopkins University, Fall 2015. Web. 9
October 2017. <https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2015/fall/background-
checks-guns/ >

In a new survey conducted by Webster's research center and published online
in Preventive Medicine, 85 percent of gun owners said there should be
background checks for every individual seeking to buy a gun, regardless of who
wants to sell the weapon or where the transaction takes place. That's 2 percentage
points higher than for non-gun owners asked the same question. This echoes
what Webster and his colleagues found two years ago, shortly after the mass
shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that left 20 students and
six teachers dead. "The idea that we want to keep guns from dangerous people
is common sense, whether you are a lifetime member of the NRA and grew up
with guns or you're a pacifist," says Webster. Currently under federal law, all
licensed firearms dealers must do background checks on anyone seeking to buy a
gun. But if a person buys a firearm through a private seller—either online, through a
classified ad, or at a gun show—depending on where they live, there's a good chance
they won't be subject to a check. Only six states require a background check for any
purchase of a gun, regardless of the manner of sale. Emma McGinty, an assistant
professor of health policy and management in the Bloomberg School of Public
Health who worked on the survey, says she was surprised at how similar the
results were in the 2013 and 2015 polls, even though she cautions against
Champion Briefs 299

reading too much into a statistical comparison between the two because of survey
sample variations. One reason this most recent survey was undertaken was in
response to critics who argued that results from the first were skewed because the
research had been conducted only two months after the Sandy Hook killings. "The
criticism we always got was, 'You fielded this survey in this unique window in time,
right after this horrific elementary school shooting, and those numbers were very
misleading as a result,'" explains McGinty. "Really, that's not the case."

Warrant: The system has slowly been shifting towards universal background checks.
Cook, Philip. "A Smaller Private Sale Loophole Suggests We’re Closer to Universal
Background Checks Than We Thought.” The Trace, The Trace, 12 January
2017. Web. 9 October 2017. https://www.thetrace.org/2017/01/smaller-
private-sale-loophole-gun-background-checks/

Just how large is that loophole? The answer: Smaller than we thought. For nearly
two decades, the best estimate was that 40 percent of gun transfers did not involve a
background check. But a new, larger study puts that number at only 22 percent. The
estimate comes from a new national survey reported in the January issue of The Annals of
Internal Medicine. And, perhaps unexpectedly, the updated figure actually strengthens
the case for a national, universal background check law. The private sale loophole, often
misleadingly referred to as the “gun-show” loophole, was a byproduct of the 1993 Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The law imposed a federal requirement on retail gun
dealers that they conduct a criminal background check before transferring a gun to a
customer. Since the full implementation of background checks in 1998, it has blocked
upwards of 3 million sales to would-be buyers who were found to have a felony
conviction or other disqualifying condition. But the background check requirement does
not extend to private transactions, and currently only 19 states have background check
laws that go beyond the federal minimum. Advocates for a federal universal
background check law have been handicapped by lack of data on the firearms
Champion Briefs 300

market. The last time there was a national survey that asked about gun transactions was
in 1994 — before background checks were fully implemented. It was known as the
National Survey on the Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF), and I ran the study and
analyzed the resulting data with Jens Ludwig, now director of the Chicago Crime Lab.
Analysis: The system in the United States used to have 40 percent of gun sales not
overseen by background checks. However, the system has been adapting and changing, and
now only 22% aren’t covered. As the system has expanded, it has had to adapt. Thus, if
there are no loopholes and all sales are overseen, the system would simply have to adapt
again in order to handle the load.

Answer: Background checks have still had success despite troubles, and closing the gap on
background checks proves to be even more successful.

Warrant: Background checks have been successful up to this point.
Lowery, Wesley. "2.1 million gun sales stopped by background checks in 20 years,
Brady report finds.” Washington Post, Washington Post, 28 February 2014.
Web. 9 October 2017. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
politics/wp/2014/02/28/2-1-million-gun-sales-stopped-by-background-
checks-in-20-years-brady-report-finds/>

More than 2.1 million illegal firearms sales -- including 1 million attempted
purchases by convicted felons -- have been stopped in the 20 years since the
enactment of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, according to a new
report. But the report released Friday by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun
Violence also stresses that millions of weapons are still being sold to buyers who are
prohibited from owning them. Roughly 40 percent of gun purchases, including guns
sold online and at gun shows by unlicensed sellers, are not subject to the
background checks. “It is clear Brady background checks work. Lives have been
Champion Briefs 301

saved by the Brady law as we have seen the undeniable evidence showing gun
homicides have decreased since the law took effect 20 years ago,” said Dan
Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “We need
Congress to expand Brady background checks to make it harder for criminals
and other dangerous people to get guns online, in classified advertisements or at
gun shows.” Despite widespread public support for universal background checks,
Congress has been unable to pass a bill implementing universal background checks.
House Democrats pledged Friday to renew the push for a bipartisan universal
background check bill. "We need to pass that bill... it's pro-Second Amendment, it
doesn't take anybody's guns away. It just requires that people who purchase a
firearm through commercial sale have to have a background check.... How anyone
can be against that is completely beyond me." said Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.),
who co-authored the universal background check bill currently being considered by
the House. "If the speaker would put our bill on the floor, it would take one vote to
pass it." Thompson said that 12,000 Americans have been killed by firearms since
the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012 -- roughly 30 a day. Despite
national outcry for new gun control measures following the school shooting in
Newtown, Conn., Congress did not pass any meaningful firearms measures last
session and only four states -- Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware and New York -
- enacted new background check measures.

Warrant: Colorado’s new background check law has shown more success.
"Background Checks Kept 72 Criminals From Buying a Gun in Colorado.” Huffington

Post, Huffington Post, 23 January 2014. Web. 9 October 2017.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/colorado-background-
check-law-private-sale_n_4428828.html>

Colorado’s new background checks law is working, according to recent stats
released by the state’s Department of Public Safety. The latest data published on
Champion Briefs 302

the Colorado House Democrats website Wednesday shows that of the 4,792
background checks on private sales that were performed since the law went into
effect, “72 sales were blocked because the would-be buyer was convicted of or
charged with a serious crime, or was under a domestic restraining order.”
Colorado’s expanded background checks law closed a loophole that previously
allowed gun buyers to purchase a weapon without having to undergo a
background check if they bought it through a private sale. It was one of the
contentious gun bills that passed and prompted the successful recalls of two state
Senators, the resignation of a third and lawsuits by gun groups and most of the
state’s elected sheriffs. Not one Republican voted for the expanded background
checks bill, the bill limiting ammunition magazines to 15 rounds, or the bill
requiring gun buyers to pay their own background check fees. Only one gun-control
bill out of the seven that were originally proposed by the Democrats this
year, received any Republican backing — a bill requiring in-person handgun
training for applicants seeking a concealed carry permit. Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-
Aurora) sponsored the bill with now-Senate President Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora)
and Rep. Beth McCann (D-Denver), ultimately passing a law that, just one month
later, the U.S. Congress could not. “Dozens of criminals would be walking around
with a gun right now if not for the new law,” Fields said in a statement. “Our
intention was to make our communities safer and make it harder for criminals
to get guns. We now have five months of data that prove that the law is
working.” The 72 sales were blocked because of crimes that included homicide,
sexual assault, assault, drugs and others. The other 98 percent of sales “went
through without a hitch” for law-abiding citizens, according to Colorado House
Democrats’ release.
Analysis: Background checks are not the perfect answer to the system. However, they have
proven to be successful within reason. Millions of sale have been stopped as a result of the
Brady Act and just the instant background check system. When Colorado moved to limit the
private gun sales not covered by background checks, they had even more success. More gun
sales were stopped, which shows how important it is to expand the system to see those
kind of results on a federal level.
Champion Briefs 303

Nov Champ Brief

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Nov Champ Brief

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Champion Briefs

Resolved: The United States

1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.

even if the source of the information is legitimate.

inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.

5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of

information distributed by ourselves or by any third-party.

6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence

from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.

goals and vision of this activity.

students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.

country and learn from them.

fortune favors the prepared.

the ground of the topic.

resolution seems to pose three natural questions to the debater:

1) Will background checks work as a means to decrease gun violence?

2) Will there be any negative externalities to passing background checks?

3) Do background checks pass various constitutional and legal tests?

Clinton administration’s attempt at expanding affordable healthcare. A powerful lobby of anti-

architecture which is favorable to good gun policy is the war.

some impact of the legislation that comes after it.

lobby, which has finite resources.

their long term political implications.

reduce the risk of accidents or crimes being committed.

as a major priority for law enforcement and judicial agendas.

legislation, and ultimately stall the gun control movement.

Good luck this month!

to the Glenbrooks Tournament. This tournament boasts an incredibly expansive spread of

type of background check. Additionally, a requirement assumes a system of punishment for

system that can successfully root out risky or ineligible buyers.

The Affirmative approach to arguments is going to be (fairly obviously) an impact-based

most successful teams will be the best at explaining why.

believe that gun trafficking as gone back up following the repeal.

higher types of deaths is the most important impact in the round.

think make this point quite effectively.

would become federally required. Other state-based bureaucratic hurdles-record release,

understaffed departments, privacy laws-prohibit the release and retention of accurate

gun violence reduces in the long term.

to weapons even in a world with universal background checks.

Good luck this season!

your opponent’s arguments can be very alienating to judges.

Framing and Weighing Consideration

complicated moral and philosophical claims behind them.

negative teams should be framing their cases largely on impacts to lives.

Affirmative Strategy and Argumentation

impacts of universal background checks. Peripheral or secondary effects of background checks

impacts and preempts potential squirrely counterplans or political tradeoffs.

intent to harm anyone should have nothing to worry about.

dishonest and morally bankrupt.

Negative Strategy and Argumentation

above, without eating up too much time in rebuttal.

Another Negative argument might be that universal background checks unfairly

filling in some of the pragmatic holes in this argument can be difficult.

About Harrison Hurt

Tournament of Champions and championed several national circuit tournaments, including

the Tournament of Champions. Harrison is a freshman at Georgetown University’s Walsh

School of Foreign Service, where he plans to major in International Political Economy.

The Effect of Guns

own half, or about 310 million, of the estimated 650 million

civilian-owned guns worldwide. India is second, with a

minimal 46 million. However, it is impossible to measure

the exact number of civilian-owned firearms due to illegal

trade and global conflict. America owns more funs ger

capita with 89 firearms per 100 people. Yemen comes in