No. of Recommendations: 5
It's possible to train members of a household in how to safely handle, use and store firearms.
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.
Slight problem. X is in fact a right, it's in the Constitution and courts have ruled it as such, so there's no "you think" left.
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.
