Prove to me guns cause crime

In Round 2 I wrote "I believe it is not possible to accept that a gun here caused the situation to be for the better, but in the case of Harris and Klebold it was irrelevant". I am merely saying that these two statements seem to me to be incompatible, and that if you accept the first you should accept the second. Now, I am afraid I must deploy a disturbing analogy, and please do not take this the wrong way - I am not appealing to emotion, rather, I find it a superb comparison. This analogy is: the paedophile (British English) who wants to work in a school. Presumably, it is justified to prevent a known paedophile from working in a school: I believe the idea is that the close proximity to children is both tempting to the paedophile and also facilitates paedophilic acts. These reasons seem perfectly valid, and the purpose of preventing paedophiles working in schools is obviously to prevent the rape of children. The direct implication of this is that letting paedophiles have such lose proximity to children would cause, or lead to (in some contributory fashion), the rape and / or molestation of children. I believe you can see where I am going with this. The possession of a gun by someone with murderous intent, or indeed many other kinds of criminal intent, can be seen similarly as a cause of, or as something leading to (in some contributory fashion), murder or of more murders, because as with the paedophile, the possession of the gun is both tempting the potential murderer and would also facilitate murder. Tempting, because, as I think we can all appreciate, seeing and holding something we want to use will likely make that object even more tempting to use - when one holds a gun, does one not feel a slight desire to pull the trigger? I for one find myself inexplicably desiring to swing an axe every time I handle one, thankfully not into a living creature. Furthermore, it is self-evident how a gun may facilitate crimes, but nonetheless, I will show how... It becomes incredibly easy to rob someone when you need only to point something at them, and similarly it becomes incredibly easy to kill someone when you need only to point something at them and move your finger. I am not introducing a new argument, rather, I am merely presenting it in a different, and perhaps more convincing, way. My opponent's rebuttal to the similar argument I presented previously can be found in Round 3. I believe the paedophile example fits perfectly, as working in a school is not the only way to gain access to children in order to rape them, and of course the major cause of the rape of a child is the paedophile's desire to do so. Nonetheless, we can see how allowing them access to children in such a way does lead to abuse. If you disagree with the idea that this analogy proves my case, then you must either think that it is a false analogy, which I think would be a false criticism as the two situations have been demonstrated to be suitably similar in technicality for the purpose of the argument, or, presumably, you think that allowing paedophiles to work in schools is perfectly acceptable, because if this does not lead to more abuse of children, then it is pointless discrimination against paedophiles. To summarise, if allowing a paedophile close proximity to children daily leads to child abuse, then the possession of guns by people with pre-existent criminal intent leads to crime, as they both tempt and facilitate the potential criminal to act. My opponent's rebuttals that 'they could find another way' and 'they wanted to do it anyway' are true, but they do not refute my case, as we can see that if they do not need to find another way, then the crime becomes easier to commit, and being so close to children / guns further tempts those who want to 'use' them. I would appreciate it if voters considered the spelling and grammar of my opponent, as well as the fact that although he did use more sources, they were typically not used effectively, and he merely pointed at them to show that 'more guns does not mean more crime' in most cases. I believe I showed that the truth of that conclusion for the whole population was largely irrelevant to the proposition of this debate. If a study found that there was a rise in the consumption of peanuts nationally, but no corresponding rise in allergic reactions, I don't think we could conclude anything more from this other than that peanuts are becoming more popular with the general public, while people who are allergic to them are, rather sensibly, bucking that trend. Thank you for the debate, damienvox, I too have found it enjoyable.