No he does not have a point, nor does he have principles. What he has is an overly wordy version of "It's for the Children!!". Read him carefully:
It seems to me just wilfully ignorant to not compare the numbers in this context and accept that the math which results in fewer dead people at schools is what we should choose.
He is saying we should way the legislation of natural rights against admittedly low risk events, and legislate those rights based on the balance of those risks, regardless of how low the actual risk level is.
He literally wrote "If it saves just one child......"
I would call him willfully ignorant as well but his words are too well parsed.
As far as utilitarian arguments, were I arguing with folks that could actually change policy then I might have to shield my desired outcome behind numbers and such, but I'm not, so I don't have to act like a Liberal.
It's simple. Self Defense is a natural right. So is the keeping and bearing of arms. Using the force of law to change other's behavior so your life is less risky is not. It DOES NOT MATTER the comparative risk between the two activities. I understand that in the real world of 2016, our natural rights have been much restricted in exactly the way De Selby is thinking here, by men much like De Selby. It was a bad idea then, it's still a bad idea, and it will be a bad idea when he brings it up next time.
"The Greater Good" is quite the Siren's call when thinking about adding or changing laws, or even societies policies. But, In America, when the Greater Good runs up against the Individual's liberty and rights, we are supposed to pick the individual. Not weigh the balance. Not parse if the particular liberty is important, not issue mealy-mouthed arguments about safety.
Pick.
The.
Individual.
