Yes, I saw your points on the other issue in this thread. They didn't touch on this issue at that time. I looked at the 46 page pdf and did a search on the word "defensive" to see where you got your argument from. The first search find was this: following observations: while there is a great deal of controversy about the subject, it is a misleading controversy in which anti‐gun advocatesʹ deep ethical or moral objections to civilian self‐defense are presented in the guise of empirical argument. The empirical evidence unquestionably establishes that gun ownership by prospective victims not only allows them to resist criminal attack, but also deters violent criminals from attacking them in the first place. From the same note: and deters criminal violence, but how extensive and important these benefits are. That's the question posed here in this piece of the thread. The paper you linked did not directly answer the question except to pose the same question in the notes. Back to your quote. I'm interested in where this statistic came from, (it's in the footnote 87) which states that it's a collection of studies. Note 89 states: of critics and criticisms. Your quote is slightly out of context and not consistent with the notes and the broader theme of the paper. As to your point about comparing other countries' relationship between gun ownership and homicide rates, the author of the article you linked notes in summary: low violence rates in high gun ownership nations other than the United States, one wonders why that deterrent effect would be amplified there. Even with the drop in United States murder rates that Lott and Mustard attribute to the massive increase in gun carry licensing, the United States murder rate is still eight times higher than Norway’s—even though the U.S. has an almost 300% higher rate of gun ownership. That is consistent with the points made above. Murder rates are determined by socio‐economic and cultural factors. In the United States, those factors include that the number of civilian‐owned guns nearly equals the population— triple the ownership rate in even the highest European gunownership nations—and that vast numbers of guns are kept for personal defense. That is not a factor in other nations with comparatively high firearm ownership. High gun ownership may well be a factor in the recent drastic decline in American homicide. But even so, American homicide is driven by socio‐economic and cultural factors that keep it far higher than the comparable rate of homicide in most European nations. In sum, though many nations with widespread gun ownership have much lower murder rates than nations that severely restrict gun ownership, it would be simplistic to assume that at all times and in all places widespread gun ownership depresses violence by deterring many criminals into nonconfrontation crime. There is evidence that it does so in the United States, where defensive gun ownership is a substantial socio‐cultural phenomenon. But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. my bolding added The author of the article you linked is clear to point out that the relationship of one country's gun policies and the link to its homicide rate may not translate to another country rates due to socio-economic factors and its cultural history. That's a point you neglected to mention. 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. many factors other than guns may promote or reduce the number of murders in any given place or time or among particular groups. And it may be impossible even to identify these factors, much less to take account of them all. Thus any conclusions drawn from the kinds of evidence presented earlier in this paper must necessarily be tentative. The author then goes on to discuss the burden of proof and where it lies. The author asserts that the burden lies with those who want gun control. If there's no proof on either side, what's the reason that the burden of proof should lie on the side of the people who want gun control?I linked to this study (also from Harvard) elsewhere in this thread.
83. This Article will not discuss the defensive use of firearms beyond making the
The legitimate question is not whether victim gun possession allows for selfdefense
Recent analysis reveals “a great deal of self‐defensive use of firearms” in the United States, “in fact, more defensive gun uses [by victims] than crimes committed with firearms."
These studies are highly controversial. See Kates, supra note 29, at 70–71, for discussion
Moreover, if the deterrent effect of gun ownership accounts for
Of course, all other things may not be equal. Obviously,
Hasn't stopped you from doing so, it seems. 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.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.
what's the reason that the burden of proof should lie on the side of the people who want gun control?
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. 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.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.
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.