Gun Control Prevents Violence

I'll start round 2 with a brief summary of my round 1 statement. Next I'll present some brief rebuttals to Con's argument. I'll finish my round 2 with proof of my statements and any further argument I may have concerning the efficacy of gun control. In a nutshell, I can outline my round 1 statement like this: Violence is part of being human. It cannot be completely eliminated from human behavior in a practical way. Violence is also an emotion that is characteristic of having an "outburst". What this means is that when a person has a violent episode, they cannot limit themselves. The violent episode is only limited by the means to carry it out. There is a spectrum of solutions to violence. A total elimination of means to perform a violent act would result in a complete cessation of violence. And something short of total elimination is what we usually call "damage control". Gun control is a form of the latter. On the spectrum, it would be close to limiting violent means in favor of redirecting violence to a less harmful conclusion. So, gun control prevents violence. Rebuttals to Con's Arguments: Con doesn't offer much of an argument. Instead, Con presents a few examples and implies that these examples are proof that gun control is ineffective. Con's 1st Example The Navy Yard Shooting may have been prevented if gun control was more comprehensive. I argue that a more comprehensive restriction on guns would have limited the violence that occurred. The example puts me in a awkward position. I must attempt to rebut what happened with what might of happened. This is similar to having to prove a negative. One should consider this, if gun control was so complete that it made it impossible for the Navy shooter to obtain a gun, then there would have been no shooting at all. Con's 2nd Example This is the easiest of examples to rebut. Con has made the mistake of the Nirvana fallacy in logic. Con offers that there is a perfect solution to gun control (The "Nirvana" in the the Nirvana fallacy), and since gun control will never achieve this perfection, it will not prevent violence. Please consider that there is no such thing as a perfect restriction on illegal activities. And yet we still restrict many wrongful acts and contraband despite black markets. For example, there is a black market for harvesting organs. Some people are murdered and their organs are removed and sold. This is of course illegal and there are harsh penalties for it. And yet the black market continues to trade in harvested organs. This doesn't lead to the conclusion that we should eliminate the laws that prohibit organ theft. In fact, it only reinforces the need for controls that would prevent organ theft. Similarly, just because there is a firearm black market doesn't mean that gun control is ineffective. (Also, although it's somewhat irrelevant, Con's source used to support that example is taken from an organization that is for gun control. Read their mission statement and follow some of the links on its website to find out. http://gunvictimsaction.org...) Con's 3rd Example: Con's third example is a double edged sword. The example implies that there are not enough people to enforce gun controls, and therefore gun control cannot prevent violence. This example actually supports my argument. It also implies that gun control would work if there were enough people to enforce the controls. The solution is simple. Hire more people. Proof of my statements. The crux of my argument is that people are unable to control themselves when they become violent. As proof, I offer a video because a picture is worth a thousand words: http://youtu.be... I must also prove that guns enable people to act violence. This is easily understood. A person with a rifle can do much more damage than a person with bare hands. I will expand on this in the next round.