I think you have moral concerns that he as a more liberal liberal doesn't understand. His points make perfect logical sense to me and yours make perfect moral sense to me also.
For me guns are an issue in a sick world because they are the methodology by which that illness manifests. I see guns as a symptom and we often treat symptoms. My effort is to expose what the real sickness is. Were we to deal with that issue the gun issue would not exist. Right now we are dealing with what is the best way to deal with the issue that arises from the fact we won't deal with the real problem. We are not going to deal with that so do we or do we not deal with the symptoms and how do we do that if so. Rationally, we generally try to shoot for some sort of compromise, I would think. Emotionally, compromise feels like death.
Sometimes people get so involved that there is no balance nor compromise possible.
"We won't take your rights, just make it impossible to avail yourself thereof. Why? Because I'm the best judge of what is best for you and everyone else and you must be "encouraged" to become... well, me".
My perspective is that there are moral questions within moral questions. Rights must be limited when they are abused for harm, but one side says "None for you" and the other says "All for me" which is pretty much the same thing.
As I understand the meaning of maturity it includes people having the ability to have the right to do things I would rather not. That requires a compromise and the "righteous" on both extremes, in this case, don't want that. They wants their Precious, and that is never shared. No one has a middle ground. Someone wants to sneak in a killer into legislation and so it goes on.
There could be a compromise but letting people who are criminals or are serious proven threats should be part of it. So is due process in determining whether emergency actions were justified. Careful checks on sales? Sure. Mandatory training in usage on a repeat basis (I don't mean just marksmanship) to carry? Yep. Something that people can't pass because it's easy. I'm for that. But then we shouldn't have such restrictions or we shouldn't have guns and screw everyone else and their rights or considerations.
So I present empirical evidence for my prior argument about voting. People voted Trump into power by the means laid out in our voting methods. People voted in trash through all of the history of elections. It's empirical and factual.
But voting is a right so banning it outright can't happen. Therefore based on the facts of disastrous choices, we restrict voting to machines and sue the companies who make the machines if a bad choice results. We sue them out of business to make sure negative consequences don't happen again.
I'm sure that if people look at what I say they'll see the countless factual examples. I mean if people don't abuse their vote to pick poor leaders then machines will still be made. Wait, people use that vote responsibility? I expect so, but the facts support that voting can be harmful and we can't take that chance.
Just something to toss around.