Gun Control is Bad

Now that we are in the rebuttal, I will attack my opponents claims while reaffirming my own."They'd have to resort to using old fashioned stuff, like swords, and after a while, they'd realize that it just wasn't worth the effort, because those things can only kill one person at a time, and they get rusty. We'd have to stop killing people forever." This is false. No, we wouldn't. The gun isn't the reason people kill. It all depends on the criminal, and their motivations. Considering sword attacks, axe attacks, knife attacks, crossbow attacks, and beating people to death still happens in places where guns are taken away, this is not the case."Think about it for a moment. Do we ever see mass shootings where the attacker uses a sword? Or a boomerang? Or nun chucks? No." That is true, you can't have mass shootings with swords, nun chucks, or boomerang, and that's because those items can't shoot. There are still possibilities for mass attacks though. In 2014, knife attackers in China killed 29 people by stabbing them. Also, guns aren't every murderers weapon of choice. Before the "assault weapons ban of 1994", you were 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an "assault weapons (CDC AND FBI death rates). This shows that criminals can prefer other methods, and if we took every gun and shipped them off into space, we would just end up with criminals killing their victims in more creative and cruel ways, while at the same time stripping their victims of the most effective defense weapon. My opponent also said it is only okay for the military and police to own guns. This is a disastrous idea. However, a Survey of Felons shows that in the U.S., "most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police". Not only that, but for kids in schools, police only end gun attacks 27% of the time (Department of Education 2002). As stated in my argument, waiting for the police to arrive ends up with 8 times as many casualties, so that notion that you don't need a guns should just call the police if someone attacks is wrong.Another thing that needs to be said, people don't want to shoot criminals to feel like an edgy vigilante Batman. People don't even want to shoot criminals. A national self-defense survey shows that 92% of defensive gun uses are just people brandishing their guns or fire a warning shot to scare off criminals. Another thing I don't understand is that my opponent said you won't kill the burglar since they devote their life to crime. That doesn't mean anything, since they are still vulernable to bullets. Not only that, but my opponent even said that guns are the "greatest killing machines of all time". What will stop that greatest killing machine of all time from killing the burglar?My opponent said we don't need to have any weapons. The reason the 2nd amendment was put in place was because they A). Wanted the people to have a way to rise up against a tyrannical government and B). So citizens could defend themselves against an attacker.Good surveillance cameras cannot compare to guns when it comes to bettering criminal attacks. What is more effective: Having video evidence of someone commiting a crime in your house, or getting the criminal out of your house by putting their life at stake?And finally, it will be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to take guns out of the 270 million gun owners in the United States. This doesn't even need explanation.To summarize, my opponents concerns and propositions are completely unrealistic. Gun control never works, no matter how docile or extreme.