I want terribly strict gun control in America (get rid of them all), but I am very swayed by your argument that restrictions are merely obstacles for the poor, rather than the rich.
For anything resembling a complete ban, you’ll need to rewrite the second amendment which is an awfully high bar. The exact language change will be incredibly controversial in any case, but it’s one of the more vague amendments because it includes a rationale in addition to the right being protected. If you’re willing to compromise some, there may be room for clarifying the scope of the right to bear arms without removing it completely.
But please don't be so dismissive - freedom to me means not having to worry about my kids being shot at school, or having to carry a gun around to defend myself with.
Other countries you describe as "less free," I'd describe as "more free."
Safety is not freedom. Both are desirable but conceptually there is no overlap, and in reality there is often a tradeoff. Conflating the two as though safety is a form of freedom is a pretty good shibboleth for authoritarians; let alone defining freedom as the feeling of safety, which is textbook doublethink.
The US has strayed in many ways, but we seem to have the most people out of anywhere who are still invested in actual freedom.
There is no requirement to do either of those things, I don't do either myself but if I wanted to I'd be allowed to. That's freedom.
You should worry about the systemic social problems that breed violence instead of fixating on one of the tools used to carry it out. We have seen with drugs and alcohol that prohibition exacerbates these problems rather than fixing them.
Poll taxes are seen as an explicitly racist policy, yet the National Firearms Act somehow is not despite serving the same outcome. Same goes for the myriad of fees associated with carry licenses, fingerprinting, mandatory training, etc. And left-wing politicians are actively calling to increase these with the express purpose of making it more difficult to acquire firearms... the hypocrisy being that this disenfranchisement would hit the underprivileged the hardest.
That's just the economic angle. When it comes to enforcement, prohibitions on stock/grip configurations, barrel lengths, magazine sizes, pistol models, and public possession will always fall hardest on those who have the most contact with law enforcement... which again is minorities and the poor. These are infringements on everybody's rights, but they are most likely to result in legal consequences for people who tend to get stopped and frisked, or have their cars searched at a traffic stop over an imaginary weed smell.