By putting the "more guns, less crime" argument front and center, gun rights advocates imply that if more evidence comes out that contradicts that, the case for

By putting the "more guns, less crime" argument front and center, gun rights advocates imply that if more evidence comes out that contradicts that, the case for more guns disappears. I'm saying that the argument should always have been that guns are part and parcel of the fundamental right to self defense. Maybe they result in less crime, but even if they increase it, that is an acceptable cost for liberty, within reason. I have no quibble with the paper or its conclusion. We should be clear-eyed about what costs we are willing to bear for liberty.