Hypothetically, let's suppose that we somehow create a third party, completely unbiased group to crunch all the numbers and determine if, once and for all, if guns in the hands of citizens prevent more crimes than they cause.
Hypothetically, what if this group discovers evidence beyond dispute that widespread gun ownership on average causes more deaths than it prevents. That for every person who fends off an intruder or stops a crime, two weak people grab a gun and kill themselves or shoots someone they are angry.*
And, again, hypothetically, they analyze past military insurrections and determine that the chance of citizens EVER overthrowing the government is near zero.*2
In this scenario, what would matter more :
1. The PRINCIPLE of the matter. Freedom itself is worth defending, even if the actual results show it isn't helping.
2. The RESULTS : in our reality, to the best of current knowledge, a particular course of action is a bad one.
* The current evidence mostly points this way
*2 in the historical record, no western country has fallen to a rebellion in at least a century.
Hypothetically, what if this group discovers evidence beyond dispute that widespread gun ownership on average causes more deaths than it prevents. That for every person who fends off an intruder or stops a crime, two weak people grab a gun and kill themselves or shoots someone they are angry.*
And, again, hypothetically, they analyze past military insurrections and determine that the chance of citizens EVER overthrowing the government is near zero.*2
In this scenario, what would matter more :
1. The PRINCIPLE of the matter. Freedom itself is worth defending, even if the actual results show it isn't helping.
2. The RESULTS : in our reality, to the best of current knowledge, a particular course of action is a bad one.
* The current evidence mostly points this way
*2 in the historical record, no western country has fallen to a rebellion in at least a century.