No. of Recommendations: 0
Sure - but that simply means it's possible to reduce the risk. And again, a lot of the risk that firearms present have little to do with firearm safety - but rather, the risk that the owner of the firearm will intentionally use the firearm in a way that destroys their life, either by firing it in a circumstances they shouldn't (like the recent spate of homicides by shooters mistaking innocent people for threats) or turning what would be a non-fatal domestic disturbance into a homicide.
And this risk is...how much, exactly?
20% chance?
10%?
Or is more like...0.00002% chance?
Sure, but you were arguing that it was a "natural" right or a "fundamental" right - which is far more than simply arguing that the Constitution and SCOTUS currently recognize owning firearms for self-defense is a right. The US is rather an outlier in that position - very few countries on earth provide a protected right to bear firearms. So there is a fairly strong argument that this is neither a fundamental nor a natural right, but rather a construct of our specific (but peculiar in this regard) Constitutional framework - much like the Third Amendment.
1. What other countries say about firearm ownership is completely irrelevant. Madison wrote Federalist 46 and noted that the US was SUPPOSED to be completely different from everyone else ESPECIALLY on the topic of firearms.
2. There is no time basis on whether or not the Supremes currently recognize it or figured it out 100 years ago. By that logic since slavery wasn't outlawed until 1865 then basic human freedom isn't fundamental either.
