Prevention and resistance are two very different things, and the latter is what the gun debate is fundamentally about.
Even if guns don't prevent crime, it wouldn’t mean that guns are not a reasonable means of resisting crime.
To illustrate the difference, let’s suppose that I encounter a mugger while taking a walk.
I brandish my firearm to the mugger, who is undeterred and rushes me with a knife.
I then shoot the mugger, stopping the crime.
In that situation, my gun has failed to prevent a crime, but it was successful at resisting a crime.
The gun was an effective and reasonable means of self-defense even though it failed to deter the would-be mugger.
This is a very crucial point that must be carefully appreciated.
Even if guns don't prevent crime by reducing the overall crime rate, it wouldn’t mean that guns are not a reasonable means of resisting crime.
As far as gun rights are concerned, the single most important issue is simply the question of whether guns do a good job when deployed against a criminal assailant. Prevention is not the key issue at stake.
