In those exact words? No. But Timex, Tim, and Shiva who have, for various reasons, espoused positions to essentially refute any attempt to zoom out the picture from that one incident. Who insist that the discussion remain fixed on this one specific scenario.
Now whether they truly believe that greater gun ownership reduces negative outcomes, or merely feel that preventing this one specific bad outcome justifies the dozens or hundreds of other bad outcomes from greater gun ownership? In the end the difference is one of degree, not kind. It is politicizing the anecdote to prevent rational analysis. The same type of thing that 2nd ammendment maximalists carp about when a Sandy Hook incident occurs, and the anti gun forces use that as justification to push some form of gun control. It is literally the same arguments, just from opposing perspectives.
Because when you focus on the narrow incident and use it to either drive, or deflect, broader policy discussion the net effect is you are arguing for more gun ownership, as @arrendek points out
So ultimately the distinction between genuinely feeling greater gun ownership makes you safer, or merely that this incident justifies the greater risk, is not a distinction I care about. The end result is the same, either way.
Demanding we grapple with the individual anecdote, either pro or anti gun, is a horrible rhetorical stance. It is the type of narrow minded focus that leads to bad decisions, and bad policy. Anecdotes can be useful in these types of discussions, but as adornments on a scaffolding built of more thoughtful and analytical arguments. Its how we wind up with poorly worded assault weapons bans, that @ShivaX is right to decry as pointless. It is how we wind up with a political climate toxic to dealing with the underlying issues.
No, but you either wildly misrepresent what others say, or go on about how there is nothing to be done. Which is a wee bit frustrating. Being contrarian for contrarian’s sake, is how it feels. And if that is not your intent, I apologize.