i feel like this is kinda misleading. i know the first/second/third world classifications aren't really as effective as they were in the cold war era. but, ame

i feel like this is kinda misleading. i know the first/second/third world classifications aren't really as effective as they were in the cold war era. but, america isn't below average when it comes to gun related death, 39,773 in 2017 (CDC). this includes suicide, homicide, murder and accidents. while 39,773 is no small number, compared to the america population of the time 325.7 million, it's only 0.012%. I feel like, the argument breaks down into a few groups. 1. true first amendment followers, they spend their spare time teaching and encouraging anyone to safely and responsibly use a firearm in line with the amendment. 2. people who use the first amendment as a shield to carry and use a gun irresponsibly. the main difference being, one group is for everyone being armed, while the other is only really interested in protecting themselves from immigrants/blacks/police. whenever i discuss firearms in america, it's nearly always a completely fruitless endeavour, because the people who are first amendment supports do normally agree that common sense gun laws should be implemented. the other group screams if you so mention it. from there, it's a simple few questions. "should a former murder have a gun", "should children have guns" and "should someone mentally ill have guns". after that, they normally resort to insults or block me. i do understand some people are far more radical than i when it comes to gun banning. in your experiences, what do you think about this? common sense gun law and such?