I see. I should have been clearer. You went from seeing this statement by me:

Gun owners might have to deal with some extra process in the acquisition of a tool explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds

To then this next reply by me:

By this logic, you should also have to jump through those same hoops to get things that can be used to create with minimal experience said tools explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds Nope. Not my argument in the slightest? Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it’s made for, especially when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like.

And then reading that the it in “Guns are made for it” is referring to crime… and not “sending projectiles at lethal speeds”, and that “when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like” is something other than “crimes / gun violence”?

I see that we don’t really think in sufficiently the same way in order to have any hopes of a productive conversation. The stuff I’ve written is congruent enough that you should be able to get my point, if you either read it enough times, or ask a friend. To help you along: this doesn’t mean that I expect you to agree with me, but at least you know what it is you would be disagreeing with.

Just keeeep moving those goalposts and avoiding my argument.

I mean, you… do have to state your arguments in a way that are relevant to my arguments. Which requires you to first understand my arguments. I’m not avoiding your arguments, I’m just ignoring them because they are not relevant to my arguments. I hope you see the difference. Not addressing a red herring isn’t avoiding your argument, it’s simply ignoring something irrelevant to the original premise.

I will not reply to anything beyond this. (Again, this is meant as a courtesy. I don’t want to waste your time). Have a good one.