While I’m not what you would consider a gun control advocate, at least not by the common US liberal definition of the term, I don’t see anything in this statement which is inherently anti-gun or even unreasonable. Any policies enacted would, however, have to be designed with the understanding that the only people who obey gun laws are those who intend no harm in the first place. Criminals don’t actually care what is written in a law book, and therefore any laws which take away the ability of law abiding citizens to own and carry reasonable types of firearms will only result in more innocent victims.
I must add, however, that the piece mentioning increased safety measures on guns is a little concerning. If that means safety levers on firearms to prevent accidental discharge then I would be cautious. Most modern handguns have built in safeties to prevent discharge of any type except when the trigger is actively depressed, and therefore such extraneous measures will only result in someone’s inability to fire a weapon when it matters (the act of remembering to disengage a safety when faced with a deadly threat takes conscious attention which is nearly impossible even for those who are highly trained and is, again, completely unnecessary. The stories of handguns that fire when dropped or thrown are mostly fiction, at least on anything manufactured in the last few decades. Saturday night specials are always the exception, but only a criminal would use one, so again any laws would make nobdifference.