That is a far cry from a scientific study that condoms have reduced infection rates. The former possibility would certainly have a far greater effect than the latter. Wouldn't you agree?
As condoms do not provide immunity to becoming infected, it is dangerous to leave the impression that they do. To compare this to Russian Roulette, would it be smart to suggest to people that it would be safe if they would increase the number of pistols by a factor of ten, while only keeping only one bullet in one gun? Well, there is no doubt that one person playing one time would be much safer, but if they are lulled into thinking that it is safe, they will be just as dead in a short period of time.
It's a news story about the scientific study that was complete by "The Lancet" and The University of Toronto. Furthermore, there have been countless other studies about other parts of the worlds that validate this belief.
As for your firearms analogy, I'd say this. Protective armor doesn't guarantee you won't be killed by bullets or shrapnel. But, it's an illogical conclusion to draw that protective armor isn't a good idea. And just like no Captain or General guarantees 100% effectiveness with protective armor, I've never seen a responsible health care worker ever claim that condoms were 100% effective in preventing any STD or pregnancy.
Prophylactic or preventative measures are always a good idea even if the prevention rate isn't 100%.