Your point is that deaths by bad people will still happen, even if we ban guns. Therefore we shouldn't ban guns. (You're implied logic, I believe)
If car wreck deaths still happen, even though we banned drunk driving. Then we shouldn't ban drunk driving.
If you had made the point that the benefit of banning guns is not worth the cost of losing the ability to have a gun, then your analogy might be apt. I didn't see you making the argument that the benefits of being able to own a gun are worth the number of extra deaths caused by having that ability.
I don't see the argument that owning a gun might prevent deaths as particularly relevant either. Even if you believed that owning a gun might prevent deaths in some cases, drinking alcohol will almost certainly never prevent a car accident.