> Countries that have prohibitions on firearms have fewer firearms. It's a huge difference in the numbers and that's an example of prohibition working.
Who cares? You're working from a premise that having fewer firearms is a good thing. I'm not going to say I disagree, but I'm not sure I agree either.
The real metric is whether or not firearm-related crimes are significantly reduced in countries where there are prohibitions on firearms.
There's also the question of whether firearm use matters in some crimes. Take these two scenarios:
1. Burglar commits armed (firearms) robbery of a house. Owners of the house are suitably frightened but give in to the burglars. Stuff is stolen but no one gets hurt.
2. Burglar commits armed (knives) robbery of a house. Owners of the house are suitably frightened but give in to the burglars. Stuff is stolen but no one gets hurt.
They are essentially the same crime, but now #2 is not lumped in with the "firarms-related crime" group.
And let's try keeping #1 as it is, but now #2 is this:
2'. Burglar commits armed (knives) robbery of a house. Owners of the house think a knife isn't too scary and fight back. One owner gets stabbed and dies.
I don't know about the frequency of stuff like this, but it's certainly not a quick "look at the numbers" thing to decide which is better.