This statement is indicative of one of the key differences between R's and D's. R's believe that the rights of individuals are more important than the needs of the group. I can understand why people would think that way. The reason I don't think that way is that I believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Sometimes, preserving rights for individuals is bad for the collective. There are many, many examples of this. Pumping mercury into our bay systems instead of disposing of it responsibly and at greater cost is good for Alcoa, but bad for anyone who likes to fish or eat seafood from that bay. Having lower security at airports is good for people who want to put bombs in their shoes or underwear, but bad for the people in the planes they blow up. Driving 100 mph is good for people who like to drive fast, but bad for all the people killed in high speed crashes. Having easy access to high powered guns is good for people who like owning guns (for whatever reason), but bad for all of the people who are killed because high powered guns are so easy to get and so effective at killing lots of people in a short amount of time.
This is a public policy and public health issue. We (you) have to understand, really understand, that what we do as individuals affects other people and has broader effects on the group. The cause and effect is sometimes attenuated; it's not a single relationship connection (like, "The mass shooter didn't use MY gun, so I should still be allowed to own MY gun."
I have to take off my shoes and go through a whole body scanner at the airport, I can only drive 75 mph max, I'm not allowed to pour mercury in the bay, all for very good reasons that affect the public at large. Yet we have a major public health crisis - deaths causes by firearms - and I can still go to a gun store right now and buy a high powered, high capacity firearm. We sacrifice certain rights for the greater good all the time. Most we don't even notice. Guns needs to fall into this category sooner rather than later. If there was some huge individual benefit that could offset the public good argument I might be persuaded, but there isn't.