When I am challenged by an antigunner - not to divert from this thread - I like to pose them what they would do in situations such as the 14 year old faced.
My favorites are local. One is when a young woman faced a world championship boxer with a history of forcible sex crimes. He stalked her from the gym and broke into her house. She shot him with a Glock. Ask the anti-female if she thinks she could have saved herself with a frying pan. Ask the antigun male if he could go H2H with a championship boxer.
Or the CT daddy who got bopped and then his family was sexually asaulted and burned alive. Maybe he could have save the day with a gun or the women could have.
Or the 17 year old young lady - alone at her burned out house in Bastrop area of TX after the fires. Her relatives went for supplies. Looters showed up. Her holstered handgun and statement that they should not test her resolve scared them off.
There are others. The anti answer would of course be that the overall level of gun crime is such that if we banned all guns many would be saved. Your particular horror is worth it to reduce total crime. Good choice, in my opinion -
Are you willing to be burned alive to cut down drug/turf related gun fights?
Of course, approriate social programs would reduce drug crime after guns are banned from law abiding citizens.
I am in favor of appropriate social programs to help people. We know crime is driven in large part by economic circumstances.
But banning guns for law abiding folks is orthogonal to the social issue.