I'm seeing a pattern where you consistently ignore the point of analogies to take issue with an irrelevant issue. That's not going to make the discussion easier. The analogy with Anthrax has nothing to do with the number of 'uses'. That's irrelevant. The analogy with Anthrax was to make clear a/the flaw in your argument, which it did. That flaw was in your 'only law-abiding citizens won't have it' paying attention to something unimnport and and ignoring the question of reducing supply for criminals. That applies to both guns and anthrax and is perfectly useful as an analogy. Well, that wasn't the argument stated, but the one you now say is the argument needs support, which it did not have. Watch this: "passing the law is sufficiently useful at preventing criminals from getting guns that it is worth the negative impact it would cause" Nice argument. No support, like yours. That's ridiculous. While guns aren't impossible to manufacture, how many guns in circulation are privately made? How many crackheads are going to make them? The Gaza example is useless - the issues of Gaza's import of weapons - which involves things like other countries like Iran - and gun manufacturing are not the same at all.