Do you lock the doors of your house when you leave? Those locks are useless to a thief with a crowbar.

So if you do lock your house doors when you go out, you're implicitly agreeing that you do this to make it more difficult for someone to get inside your house, reducing the likelihood of theft.

Same thing with guns.

> Same thing with guns.

So America has zero house burglary?

??? Seems you missed my point entirely.

Parent claims guns shouldn't be restricted since someone can make one on a lathe if they cannot buy one at a store.

Meanwhile parent almost certainly locks their house doors despite a thief with crowbar being able to bypass their lock.

Therefore, the parent's reasoning that gun control won't work because a criminal can mill their own gun is not logically sound.

You reduce opportunity which gets rid of opportunistic criminals. Ones who might rob your house because it is unlocked and they are less likely to get caught (compared to the shattering of glass or breaking down a door).

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim murders are not an opportunistic crime. People are not killing because they can and can get away with it. The comparison you are trying to make dies there because the type of crime is not comparable.

It's the acquisition of the gun that's comparable, not the crime committed with it.

Since someone can physically go and mill a gun, should that be the reason not to enact gun control? Seems like a ridiculous reason to me, but apparently is a core bit of logic for the gun crowd.