He seemed to be sincere but he used the same circular reasoning that confuses the issue. When looking at the views of gun owners he admits that they are responsible and no danger to him or anyone else. So far, so good. Then he goes to explain his position.
‘I do not own a gun but I feel safe at home. As violent crime rates decrease, the likelihood being a victim of a personal crime that a gun could prohibit is very small, Most people will never find themselves in this situation. In addition, my personal freedoms are not infringed by gun regulation and I too recognize that illegal guns are a problem. If I generalize from my experience, I may have difficulty understanding why people would need a gun in the first place whether for personal protection or for a vaguely defined “protection from tyranny”.’Notice that he admits violent crime is decreasing. He feels safe. Somehow that leads him to think that we need more gun laws. If we have a situation where more people are owning guns and he does not feel they are threat to him and life is getting safer, why would he want to turn the clock back to the days of fewer guns?
He does not understand “why people would need a gun in the first place”. Fine. I don’t understand why people feel they need to wear a lot of gold jewelry. I don’t understand why people eat sushi. I don’t understand why people build houses in areas with high fire, flood and landslide risks. That does not mean that I improve society by passing laws to keep them from doing these silly things. But then, I am a conservative who believes that you should have all the liberty you want as long as it doesn’t cross over into my space.
As for not understanding why we need guns for protection from tyranny, he obviously had a liberal teaching him history. Tyranny thrives on a population of unarmed serfs who know their place and can do nothing to change it.
Don’t confuse a position on a college faculty with wisdom.
homo unius libri