Wittgenstein once said: 'There are no false facts'.
There are notorious problems with how much we can generalise from studies and there are also problems with the methodology etc and subsequent conclusions. I still think that there is a fact of the matter as to how many people are harmed (and to what degree), however. While we might not know how many are harmed (and to what degree) at present I think that science will find that relevant fact one day.

Then the issue becomes: How many need to be harmed (and to what degree) before we decide that the practice is morally / legally unacceptable to us?

We might disagree on that latter bit even if we agreed on the facts, you see. Or... We might converge on our views at that point.

With respect to the gun thing we seem to come back to:
'More harms are caused than prevented by private gun ownership'
'No - its not'
'Yes - it is'
'No - its not'
etc
There is a relevant fact as to whether more people are harmed or not (not saying that we know what it is at present) but there is surely a relevant fact.

How many people need to be harmed before we decide to morally and / or legally clamp down on private lisenced gun ownership?

Might be that we converge once the facts come in (once we agree on the facts) or might be that we don't.

I'm not talking about the pornography laws in the United States. I'm talking about the pornography laws in general.

How do you feel about animated child porn / animal porn? Cartoons. No children and / or animals were harmed in the making of this porn. Just a way for people who get off on bestality / pedophilia to get off?

One thing that seems to be coming up is something along the lines of a 'critical period'. If children don't learn a language by age 7 (for example) then it is much much harder for them to learn it later in life and they never acquire full gramaticality etc etc. The notion seems to be that there is a critical period for sexual responses where up until the age of consent (18, I guess) peoples sexual responses are mallable such that porn etc CAN harm and result in pedophilias and fetishes and implicit and explicit beliefs about treating women as objects... But then (at the age of consent) all that is fixed and subsequent experiences have no affect on ones sexuality whatsoever.

That seems to be the claim that porn DOESN'T serve to strengthen neural connections (e.g., to make pedophilias and fetishes and implicit and explicit beliefs worse and / or more entrenched) and that porn DOESN'T serve to set up new pedophilias and fetishes and implicit and explicit beliefs AFTER the age of consent.

That of course is an empirical matter.

I'd be extremely surprised if this was found to be true, however, as phobias can be acquired later in life...

But...

Lets suppose it was found that porn DID have an impact on adults similarly to how it had an impact on children.

Would we then converge in our views or would the disagreement remain???

Let me suppose it was found that porn DIDN'T have an impact on adults similarly to how it had an impact on children.

Would I think converge with you guys view?????

I'd still be worried about other harms - but I would agree (if that turned out to be the way things were) that that harm wasn't relevant to the issue...