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.

This was the part in the comment I responded to where you implied you don't like what guns are used for by outright stating it. Guns are used for murder in some instances, about 12,000 per year if we're talking US, but they're used 100,000 per year here according to harvard for self defense, and while I don't have a figure of how many times shooting sports happen within the country's borders I have to assume it's even higher than that.

So again, now that I've pointed out exactly where the "implication" you outright stated is, why don't you like those things?

It isn't saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect,

Your "tiny commentary" is part of your argument, not only is it there but it informs your argument from the outset. Those not in favor of further legislation on firearms don't often talk about further restricting firearms, nor how something that can very easily make firearms is "actually different." In fact, most pro gun people use 3d printers as an example of partly why further restrictions would be ineffective at best or abused for maximum bans at worst.

Other than that, I don't see anything else that I need to comment on. Happy to oblige if you do relate it to my argument.

Just keeeep moving those goalposts and avoiding my argument.

But then you say you don't believe there should be restrictions there... so, I'm confused why you would argue both sides there.

You'll still continue ignoring it, but my point is if restrictions make sense for one they make sense for the other, as "the other" can be used to create the "one." Just as guns can be used for murder but shouldn't be, 3d printers can be used to make guns that can be used to murder, but shouldn't be.

Rather than restrict the items we should make the misuse itself illegal, like how we don't ban booze but we do ban driving drunk or beating your wife because you're drunk.