The KKK and Fascists seek to violate rights that my culture cherishes.
Gun control advocates seek to violate rights that my culture cherishes.
Nambla proposes a right that is counter to my culture's values.
I wonder if you might consider, then, that saying "so and so is bad because they oppose civil rights" lacks critical nuance then, after all it is missing some critical qualifiers.
I don't cede the high ground. I defend civil rights that my culture cherishes. They violate civil rights that my culture cherishes.
I don't mean you shouldn't think your position superior, after all you would be silly to deliberately hold a position you consider inferior to an alternative.
What I am saying is that invoking "civil rights" doesn't automatically infer said moral high ground. You can't just call the issue good and its critics "bad" because this would be the fallacy of begging the question. After all this is a discussion about what is "good" or "bad" as options.
And substantiating this ipse dixit
with a mere label of the term "civil rights" doesn't improve this much because as we just established not all civil rights are "good" to you.
This is similar to your objection about the use of "common sense" in gun arguments, your objection essentially boils down to that it is begging the question and you are right.
However an ipse dixit that this is civil rights and the opponents are bad people is a horse of a similar color.
And then also, it is hard to see what point the studies would have even if we could ensure that they were fair and accurate. Even if it were definitely true that guns caused a problem, we'd insist on keeping our guns.
I think this is the ultimate truth and given the relative scale of the problem the data, no matter how accurate, is unlikely to sway you. However I have a question out of pure curiosity to see how dogmatic this position is.
The amount of non-suicide deaths from gun violence is relatively low as a statistical risk. It is also not something that many of these proposed laws would dramatically reduce.
So I get that reasonable people (with different axioms being logically consistent I mean, many will consider certain axioms to be unreasonable but there's no arbitrating that) will disagree on this.
But what if the numbers change. What if in the next 5 years it grows by an order of magnitude a year. Would that change your calculus any or is it completely inflexible?
This isn't really about this data being collected, I don't expect any big surprises from some more data on that level, I just wonder if dramatically different consequences to the liberty would change your calculus or if this is a liberty you would accept any cost for.