OK So maybe the point has not yet been made. Let us define "bad faith." Bad faith can basically be understood as bargaining dishonestly or making a promise or statement that you do not intend to keep or that you know to be untrue. So if I promise to be true to my wife forsaking all others, knowing that I am going to have sex with her bridesmaid, that is bad faith. If I say that I am selling you a gold mine knowing that there is no gold that is bad faith. If I make an argument that I myself do not believe is valid, that is bad faith. 
 
So how does that relate to a persistent argument that has been made frequently in this thread? Do you believe that if your wife/daughter/girlfriend/mother/favorite nun is for some inexplicable reason unable to defend herself against a rapist then the rape should be permitted? More to the point, do you believe that if the law against rape does not guarantee that evil people will not commit rape, then that law should never have been passed? If not then I call shenanigans, and call anyone who claims that because legislation cannot prevent evil, or prevent evil actions, then there should be no legislation, a liar and a hypocrite. Laws restricting certain kinds of firearms and ammunition will not prevent some evil people from obtaining and using them. No one doubts that, dummy. 
 
You could have argued as many serious people do, that laws are not passed to prevent actions, but rather to give the victim, their families or their ghosts a sense of justice or revenge. You could even have recognized, as most of us do, that the police can only rarely prevent a crime, but that the fear of subsequently being arrested and punished for those crimes might deter some people and prevent some crimes. You did not do that. You focused on the absurd proposition that to be enacted into law or regulation, any abridgement of total freedom by restricting a specific action must prevent all such actions. Under that criterion the only legitimate use of regulation would be something like: it is hereby forbidden to all citizens to defecate on the surface of the Sun. Stop being so stupid.
 
All you need to do to make your case is to say that you believe that you or someone like you could in certain circumstances prevent an injury to yourself or some other innocent person if you are permitted to possess and in appropriate circumstances use a firearm. From that point we could disagree about the circumstances, or the risk to benefit ratio of your actions, but we would at least be able to know that we are dealing with someone who is not stooping to dishonesty to avoid the discussion. 
 
LSD is illegal. Only criminals will possess LSD. If I could walk into Walmart and buy LSD I would be tripping this weekend. As it is, I have no idea where I can get LSD, and even if I could, it would be waaay more expensive than if it were available legally as a generic. Somewhere out there I hope there is someone looking for a cheap machine gun who is also not going to be using this weekend.
 
Would anyone who believes that simply passing a law banning all firearms would result in the end to all criminal acts using firearms please let us know. If so then you laws-do-not-stop-crimes idiots will have someone to convince, if not then shut the **** up with this nonsense.

I make these distinctions bdickens.  it's not always logical.  Weapons of mass destruction are banned.  We don't stop their use completely.  It's not a perfect solution.  The crime is murder, I'm for  keeping the murderers from having too strong of hand.  (sorry for the gambling pun).  Non-killers generally are not the people to ask for the solution.  We need solutions from your side in order to make it stick.  But our society will never get one as long as your side says it's not a problem. 
 
People who go in the military get extensive training on how to use those weapons.  The same training should apply to their purchase.