Shill much?

This joker pops up in a conversation between me and a buddy on FB about if he, personally, should be allowed to own a rifle.

"I'm former military, and I do not think anyone should have the right to own an assault rifle. Its sole purpose is to kill. I am trained to use a rifle and I do not own one, nor do I ever plan to own one. You do not need a rifle for protection. Society protects people. Improve the views and education of the people and you will not need weapons. I'd rather be killed by a gunman, than run the risk, whilst being trained, of killing an innocent bystander. Being on a mission with fellow soldiers is different.
I understand the argument for arms in case the gov't turns on its citizens, but in most civilised societies, that's won't happen. Having a weapon wouldn't prevent this anyway.
If you want the right to own an assault rifle, you need to move to an isolated island where your right to that ownership doesn't threaten my rights as well.
It's been proven many times that carrying a weapon does not increase your chances of survival against an intruder/gunman the vast majority of times. In practise most people do not shoot nearly accurate enough once faced with the situation - this is true for many trained individuals as well.

We have a military for the purpose of invasion protection. If a foreign power invaded and defeated the standing military, it is highly unlikely that civilians with weapons would be of much assistance.

That's my view. Just wanted to say it." from FB

Totally out of the blue, never heard of the guy before.