Not your point, but why don’t you like self defense? Or IDPA, USPSA, Skeet (lol), Cowboy Action, Biathlon, Hunting, or any other shooting sports?

Two logical fallacies here. Red herring, in that it's not not relevant to the argument, and a straw-man, because the supposition of me not liking self defense is not stated by me, or implied.

There’s a fourth. I don’t believe reducing the number of guns nor 3d printers sold would even reduce crime, as they could instead 3d print a lower, or make a LutySMG, or mill an 80%, or buy a CNC mill, or abandon guns entirely for another weapon like the Boston Marathon. I’m a gun and 3d printer enthusiast. I think the only thing that will actually reduce crime is actually making this country better so less people want or need to commit crimes.

You'd... be surprised to find that this is in part the first one, and clearly the still the second, with yet another straw-man argument, this time only implied. Perhaps go through my argument again. It isn't saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect, but please don't confuse that with the argument presented.

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. The only relevant part, if I understood correctly, you suggest that for X="3d printer" and Y="gun crime" that... there might be a basis for some restrictions? But then you say you don't believe there should be restrictions there... so, I'm confused why you would argue both sides there. I assume your point is therefore: "neither should be restricted, because if one should be, so should the other"... something like that?

So, a clarification... for your sake here, so please to take this with good intentions. These are the relevant points I was making:

• 3d printers shouldn't be restricted with any hoops motivated by "crime mitigation"
• If it is desirable to reduce "gun violence", hoops that deal with "guns" vs "3d printers" are not in the same ballpark when it comes to what makes sense.

The first one of those is clearly also your point. So, we agree on that one. But it seems you disagree with the second one. Is that the gist of what you're saying? You object to the second point, in that if one should be restricted, the other makes similar sense, as to be in the same ballpark?

Because if so... I find that strange.

• No 3d printers => approx the exact same amount of gun violence.
• No guns => approx. no gun violence.

I don't see how you could disagree with me, without also disagreeing with one or both of these. They seem like pretty obviously true statements to me.