It does not matter how many people use cracks for whatever purpose, as long as there is a completely legal use for it, it is not clearly illegal at all. You are also confusing your crimes. Creating a crack is not copyright infringement in the slightest, it is simply a modification of the game code, which is definitely a violation of the EULA (not a crime, just a civil violation), but has nothing to do with copyright infringement. Distributing a crack might be copyright infringement, depending on how that crack is distributed (i.e. distributing a complete modified executable=clear copyright infringement, distributing a clean code patch that will externally modify an existing executable/=copyright infringement). Every argument that ignores or flat out denies the full details and complexity of the issue might benefit the anti-piracy movement, but hurts the rights of individuals everywhere and will not lead to anything approaching a fair compromise.

Since your statement that cracks are in any way lawful is incorrect on its face, I will not refute it in detail. Refer to DMCA, specifically the sections describing what it means to bypass a technological mechanism of access control. While DMCA is strictly US law, all other countries that have signed the WIPO treaties have obliged themselves to enact similar sanctions against defeating access control.

Your argument relating to guns is still irrelevant. Guns are produced legally and sold legally, and only a minority of guns are ever put to criminal use. Cracks are produced illegally and have no lawful market, and only a tiny mnority are put to justifiable use. They're just not equal at all or in any way.

The attitude that it is just fine to aid and abet pirates by pretending that their illegal creations are somehow something you may use freely and defend the use of just makes me sick, and I have no intention of debating it further,

Some free advice: a closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose.

lolwut?
Most (if not all) developers have a vanilla version of their games that they give to the publishers who can then throw every kind of abnormal DRM into it.
If a publisher like GOG decides to not add one it stays DRM free.

Nope. On several occasions, the GOG version was the original retail release, complete with DRM (a gold master without DRM was no longer available). GOG applied the crack and packaged it up for sale, sans the cracker's "signature" in the cracked executable. The cracking "scene" went bananas when it was discovered. GOG even admitted it openly, saying basically that when the need arises, they will use whatever means possible to remove the DRM.

Actually it varies significantly from game to game. For many older games the source code necessary to compile a DRM-free release isn't even available anymore, while for other games copy protection elements are built right into the game code itself. There have also been several cases where compelling evidence has been presented that releases on GOG have used cracked executables originally created as unofficial no-CD cracks, just with the attribution for the responsible individual or hacker group stripped out.

Edit: Ninja'd

And what's more, it's perfectly legal for them to do so, as they do it with the publisher's blessing.

Indeed. Even if someone else wrote the cracked code, that code still belongs to the legal and original rights holder.

EDIT - Damn, I think my laptop keyboard is failing, I keep dropping letters and even entire words. Either that or I've just started typing so fast, the keyboard can't keep up.

By rights holder, do you mean the cracker or someone else? I would think copyright still applies and the cracker keeps copyright of his or her own code. Though in practice, I am unaware of that ever being challenged.

Nope. The rights holder of the game owns all the code, including the cracked code, regardless of who created the crack. One of those interesting legal quirks that hasn't really been tested in court at all.

Not when it's a modification of existing copyrighted code. The cracker can write whatever code he wants on his own and keep the rights to it, but when he modifies a copyrighted executable, the rights to the modification falls to the publisher.

Edit: Ninja'd!

Interesting. So that is actually in the DMCA? I don't understand US copyright law.

EDIT: I would have assumed it's like fan fiction. The studio doesn't own the rights to the fan's story but the fan doesn't necessarily have any commercial rights to the characters.

I believe it's mostly a side effect of code modification being a violation of the EULA (though I'm sure copyright also plays a role in it). Since the modification of the code is not legitimate in the fist place, the modifier has no legal right to it.

I'm not aware of any such case ever making it to court, so there's not really any precedent to make a claim one way or another on the matter. The specific code added to the executable could probably be argued to belong to the one who wrote it, although the rest of the executable would still belong to whoever originally owned the copyright on it. But since you'd actually need a hacker to bring suit against the company who's game they cracked in order to test this in court, we're not likely to get any answers anytime soon. Then again, considering that you can pretty much check any kind of reason at the door when dealing with copyright law, trying to think these things out is generally just an exercise in futility.

You speak like this is fact. It's nothing more than opinion