So why not? Why don't I have a right to not be killed by my fellow man? Why is it MORE IMPORTANT that my fellow man have a right to possess and carry weapons that could end my life?
How is the latter "inalienable" and the former is just wishful thinking? The only answer I can find is "because some people in the 18th century wrote one of them down, but not the other."
Wow, talking of rhetorical tricks. In this case, a textbook false dilemma.
The right to bear arms does not negate whatever right to safety you think you have. There are 300 million privately owned firearms in the US. Yet the odds of dying from a firearm homicide are quite small.
And the fun trick here is that "quite small" is meaningless, you would need to compare those odds against those in different countries with different laws...
Think through the implications. Hypothetically if you had the right to not be killed then that would imply that others would be required to do everything possible to protect you. Obviously that would be absurd.
How is the latter "inalienable" and the former is just wishful thinking? The only answer I can find is "because some people in the 18th century wrote one of them down, but not the other."