"The Journal of Empirical Legal Studies report" within your buzzfeed article that you linked links to a research paper
that is locked behind a paywall
that I was luckily able to bypass and gain full access to, which I was then able to download and reupload to web archive
so that nobody needs to pay money to access it, but keep in mind that every few seconds or so, you will have to deal with this annoying pop-up
when reading through it, since I uploaded it to scribd.
Not gonna even bother reading through all 50-pages of that anyways. I just put it there so others can see it more easily. Still, linking sources that require weekly/monthly payments just to be viewed is just plain stupid, and I wouldn't recommend doing it in debates ever again. Voters have to be able to see your sources within 1 click of your link, not pay money for it. Not only that, but if you're gonna be citing a source that's dozens of pages long, the least you can do is try to quote the most important/relevant part of that source to the debate. That too makes it easier for both debaters and voters.
With that said I will provide some of my own arguments as to why we shouldn't/cannot "get rid of the guns," as well as address what you've said.
Its time to do something the evidence is overwhelming
This, I agree with. There definitely is overwhelming evidence that crime in the United States is getting out of control, and that something needs to be done about it. Chicago alone, for example, has like hundreds of shootings every year! 
However, this is where we disagree:
if we get rid of the guns we get rid of the crime
First of all, getting rid of the guns violates the Second Amendment, which says, and I quote, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  This means that well-regulated people have the right to possess weapons, which cannot be infringed upon or taken away. One of the reasons behind the Second Amendment was to ensure that we the people could have a chance to defend ourselves in case our government/leader ever becomes tyrannical or corrupt like Adolf Hitler, Kim Jong Un, or Nicolás Maduro.
Second of all, even if we were to let's say abolish the second amendment, and we decide to just get rid of the guns anyway, how exactly would we "get rid of the guns"?
Do we go door-to-door, knocking on every person's door across the country and ask them "hey do you have any guns? If so, please turn them over"? Do we carry out stop-and-frisk on a bunch of people to try and find their guns? Well good luck with that, checking millions of people and their homes to get rid of their guns in such as tedious and difficult attempt to get rid of their guns.
What about a mandatory buyback program? Should we require everyone to turn over their guns in exchange for a small amount of money like Beto O'Rourke wants to do?  I would definitely be in favor of a buyback program.... if it meant that even criminals would also turn over their guns, which they would never do, since they don't care about laws.
Third, getting rid of guns does not "get rid of the crime". People have been committing mass murders for thousands of years, since before guns even existed.  The problem with your buzzfeed article claiming that guns "trigger a 13% to 15% increase in violent crime" is that it's only focusing on 1 factor that plays a role in crime, when in reality, there are multiple factors that play a role in crime rates. 
To properly determine whether or not banning guns would guarantee that crime would go down, you need to focus on ALL of the factors that play a role in crime, not just 1 factor. After you focus on all of the factors, and then rule out each of them one by one until you reach the last factor, which is guns, only then can you reasonably claim that guns are the main problem. Your buzzfeed article only focuses on 1 variable while ignoring all the other variables, does not rule out any of those other factors that also play a role in crime, and then proceeds to brag about how "Scientists Showed How More Guns Led To More Violent Crime".
This article  says, and I quote, "A failure to isolate the controlled variables, in any experimental design, will seriously compromise the internal validity. This oversight may lead to confounding variables ruining the experiment, wasting time and resources, and damaging the researcher's reputation. In any experimental design, a researcher will be manipulating one variable, the independent variable, and studying how that affects the dependent variables. Most experimental designs measures only one or two variables at a time. Any other factor, which could potentially influence the results, must be correctly controlled."
In other words when trying to determine whether or not guns are the main problem, and whether or not banning them would fix that problem, you need to regulate and/or control external factors that could influence your dependent variable while you test your independent variable. The independent variable, in this case, is banning guns. The dependent variable, in this case, is the outcome of banning said guns, and whether or not it reduces crime. Other external factors that could influence this, such as a person's childhood, the kind of drugs a person uses, the kind of environment a person grows up in, the kind of people a person hangs out with, the king of school a person goes to, and so on, all need to be accounted for, otherwise, they could influence the outcome of your experiment to see if banning guns gets rid of crime, as well as mess up your results, which is what most likely happened with buzzfeed.
When you claim that by getting rid of guns you get rid of crime, simply because there was some kind of correlation between guns and crime, without considering all of the other external factors that may be playing a role in crime, you end up committing a logical fallacy known as the Post Hoc Fallacy.  By claiming that getting rid of guns led to crime going down simply because one happened after the other is committing this logical fallacy. You also could be committing a different kind of fallacy known as the Cum Hoc fallacy, which is when you claim that crime goes down at the same time you get rid of guns and therefore getting rid of guns caused it, without looking at the other external factors and/or keeping those other external factors in check. 
we need to regulate them more strictly not necessarily ban them outright but prohibit military type guns that serve no purpose but mass shootings
Both Chicago and California already regulates these guns "more strictly" than other states  so how much "more strictly" do you need them to be regulated?
Not only that, but guns do not "serve no purpose but mass shootings". Guns can also be used to hunt, to show off, and most importantly, to protect oneself. They serve many other purposes. Some people just so happen to use them for bad purposes when they fall into the wrong hands.
Getting rid of the guns does not get rid of crime, especially since people could just switch to knives or something.
I am not saying we should have no gun laws. I do think that it is necessary to but basic limits, restrictions, and background checks towards insane people, as well as children, to keep them from just purchasing a gun freely, is a good thing, but simply pumping out a couple dozen more strict gun laws and trying to act "more strictly" over and over towards these guns every time there is another mass shooting doesn't fix the problem.
It only makes things worse, as there seems to be this mentality circulating around that, if there is a mass shooting, then we need some more strict gun regulations and comprehensive background checks, and if there is another one, then we just keep throwing more regulations and background checks on top of that, and if there is another, we throw in more and more strict laws and comprehensive measurements, and so on, until we have like thousands of ridiculous strict measurements and restrictions. This mentality is bad and does not help anyone.
There are various factors that we could focus on to try and cut down on crime, like improving the environments that children grow up in, and not letting children hang out with the wrong crowd.... but simply focusing on 1 factor while ignoring the rest is a sign of ignorance and desperation. It is also counter-productive, since you aren't actually cutting down on crime, and California and Chicago are prime examples of this.
I would even argue that, for every mass shooting, there are also instances of good people with guns who use them to legitimately defend themselves, defend others, and save lives. It's just that the media often only wants to focus on mass shootings, and rarely focus on times when guns were used for good, in order to make it seem like guns are bad and nothing but bad, and that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is bad.