Guns should be more heavily restricted in the US

My opponent's first claim is that criminals will get guns no matter how strict the gun regulation is in America. There will likely exist some way, but I see no reason to believe that we cannot put forward policies that will stop most criminals from being able to obtain guns. It is true that many criminals get their weapons through secondary sources (not legally bought) [1], but the situation isn't hopeless. I am not proposing a specific overall plan here but this is one option of we could do:We would only sell guns to private individuals who have a good reason as to why they would use the gun. If the reason is hunting, that is permissible but it must be a gun well suited for hunting but not for using in a fight (relatively), like hunting rifles. If the reason is self defence, the person must have a good reason why they need a gun for self defence and whether they would use it. This is because as I will explain below, guns are generally bad weapons for self defense. A good reason would probably constitute someone having a circumstance in their life that would indicate they are likely to be attacked, and that they need a gun to defend themselves.If the reason is acceptable, the person having a gun would be on record and before the person could get another gun for the same reason, the previous gun must be given back or otherwise accounted for. Firearms found on a person with no record would be confiscated.This solves the problem of criminals getting guns from other sources. This or other policies with similar effects would dry up the amount of guns in the pool and would make it much harder for a criminal to obtain a gun. It wouldn't be impossible, but it would help our safety and equality to do so which I argued in the first round should be our primary focus. There would be less guns around that could propagate to criminals, which means less oppritunity to commit violent gun crimes. Here is why guns are not very good weapons to defend yourself with: Guns are used as self defense in less than 4% of shootings, and people who are carrying a gun in an encounter are 4.5x as likely to be shot[2]. Given that about one in three Americans own a gun[3], we can infer that most people can't or don't use their guns even in a situation where the guns could actually be useful. There are many better alternatives such as pepper spray or stun guns which are easier, safer, and more foolproof. My opponent then argues that a big black market would be caused by this similar to the illegal drug black market.This market can be sufficiently defeated by metal detectors. Sure it would still exist, but it would not be as big as Con claims because guns would be much more difficult to import than drugs. It is also much more expensive and requires much more equipment to make a gun, you can't grow your own guns. Therefore, guns would not be super common in the black market, unlike illegal drugs, given good policies with sufficient enforcementTo sum up, we need to reduce the number of guns around to maintain the equality and safety that the government has the duty to uphold. I have proved that it is feasible to do so even when many criminals do not get their guns from legal sources, by stopping the ability for people who do not need the gun to have a gun. Guns in the U.S. most often stem from legal sources but trades and other transactions get them to the hands of criminals. Good gun control policies could end many violent gun crimes at the source, the guns themselves.1. http://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net...2. http://theweek.com...3. http://injurypreventionbeta.bmj.com...