Topic Analysis - PF Universal Background Checks
By: Krithika Shamanna and Pia Dovichi
Overview:
The PF resolution is Resolved: The United States should require universal background checks for all gun sales and transfers of ownership.
In terms of definitions, “universal background check” and “transfer” are important to consider.
Here are a few basic definitions:
Transfer: all legal changes of ownership, including gifts (this means that the traditional gunshow and gift loopholes will be solved for in the aff world)
In the status quo, anyone who purchases guns from a dealer automatically goes through a federal background check (private sales and transfers don’t count).
Universal background checks require all guns to be registered and require a background check in any sale or transfer of ownership.
NICS (the National Instant Criminal Background Check System): the system the federal government uses to run background checks. All information in the system is reported by the states, often to varying degrees
As a general note, it’s a good idea to be aware of most the studies/authors people will be reading. This is an indict heavy topic.
Pro:
Generally, the majority of arguments on pro end up impacting lives. It might be beneficial to have a framework or overview if you choose to specify that lives are the most important impact in the round.
One of the most common arguments is that UBCs could reduce the chance of a mass shooting. After the Sandy Hook shooting, some Congress members introduced legislation to pass a UBI, but it was unsuccessful. They argued that a standardized, regulated system would make it harder to acquire guns, reducing the chance of a mass shooting.
Another common argument is that UBCs save lives by stopping accidental gun deaths. Accidental gun deaths are often discounted because they end up being misclassified as homicides. However, some studies estimate that these statistics, particularly regarding accidents with children, are actually much higher. Some argue that universal background checks would mitigate this impact.
Additionally, another common pro argument will be that UBCs decrease the number of suicides because it increases the amount of time a person has to wait before receiving their gun, which reduces the probability they will decide to take their own life.
Another contention idea is that guns on the blackmarket will become more expensive as they’re harder to obtain, which means less people will be able to afford them. This would counter the common con argument that UBCs will increase the number of guns on the blackmarket.
Con:
The con will probably have a harder time presenting offensive arguments. If debaters concede lives are the most important, they will likely lose on risk of offense. There are many studies, however, that find UBCs increase the number of deaths overall.
One con argument is that requiring universal background checks for all transfers of ownerships makes it harder for people to confiscate guns from those who they fear are suicidal. Some studies find that in states that required UBCs for all transfers of ownership, suicide rates (by gun) actually increased.
Another con argument is that it takes a large amount of political capital required to pass the legislation, which hinders future political endeavors. Take care to show how these arguments outweigh lives saved by UBCs.
The resolution is vague in that it implies the federal government is the actor. However, UBCs may not be constitutional because of the Second Amendment. Does the federal government have the right to regulate guns? Would states be better at regulating on an individual basis?
One of the best con arguments is about discrimination. The restrictions for owning guns include past convictions as well as serious mental illness. African-Americans and Hispanics are statistically more likely to be incarcerated than any other demographic in America, meaning UBC legislation targets them disproportionately. The mentally ill are also targeted by UBC legislation as they’re included on the registry on their physician’s discretion. In this vein, there is a lot of literature about how the rhetoric of mass shooting and gun control is divisive and discriminatory. These are two interesting reads from the Atlantic and the ACLU.
Special thanks to Krithika Shamanna from Westwood School in TX and Pia Dovichi from College Prep in CA for their expertise!