The author notes that it may be impossible to find the relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates because of the complexity of socio-economic factors and the cultural reasons for gun ownership.

Hasn't stopped you from doing so, it seems.

That's a curious response. I don't have a stance on this issue. I was using your source to point out that your own source doesn't say what you're purporting it to say in the unequivocal way you're stating it.

Fivesplaining (or ELI5) is when someone takes a really complicated issue and objectively explains it without the jargon so the average person can understand it.

I've now read your OP multiple times to try to understand what you're supposedly fivesplaining.

Are you just fivesplaining how a gun works? If so, it's confusing since you're mentioning politics. The functioning of a gun doesn't include politics.

Are you fivesplaining the complex debate surrounding the proliferation of guns and the debate surrounding gun control? If that's the case, so far you've presented a very biased one-sided view with cherry-picked "facts" from your own sources that contradicts your own source in places, and you're using rhetorical tactics to obfuscate the issues.

If someone is offering to fivesplain the very complex gun control debate, I'd be interested to learn more in a fair and balanced presentation. Based on your responses in this thread, you're not offering that.

what's the reason that the burden of proof should lie on the side of the people who want gun control?

What's the reason it should be on the other side? You've just kind of declared that it should be and left it at that.

I don't have a stance on this issue.

But just based on looking at the resource you cited, an argument could be made that if there are ethical and moral concerns about gun ownership from a certain segment of the population, and it can't be proven that gun ownership is beneficial to society, then the burden of proof should fall on those who want less gun regulation.