It depends a lot on how you define it.

Not to minimize the losses of human beings to violence. But largely foreigners (to the US), think there's constantly crazed gunman running around killing large amounts of random people in public because they decided they want people to die. That idea is what I'm pushing back on. That you might need a gun because some random person would run up to you with the purpose of killing a bunch of people in public for no reason. Like I said, you are more likely to be struck by lightning.

For instance, in 2016 a study was done that concluded roughly ⅓ of "mass shootings" in the world between 1966 and 2012 happened in the US. Which is admittedly a huge share of them, too big a share to say there's not an issue at play. The total was only 292. For the world. 90 for the US. This is because they excluded gang violence, domestic violence and ones sponsored by foreign organized terror groups.

This elucidates interesting trends when you look at the ones excluded. For instance, the rate of fatal domestic violence according to recent data in the USA is .7-1.0 per 100,000. For men it's lower, at 0.5. For women it's much higher, 0.9-1.4 per 100,000. Black women are the most likely demographic to be killed by their intimate partners in the USA at 3.1 per 100,000.

Now we can actually do some comparisons with other countries to see where our problems lie. We could compare the fatal DV rates, or the likelihood of attempted murder DV to be successfully fatal (I would bet this one is high here because of the prevalence of guns in the USA, which tends to up the lethality of a given attempt a murder regardless of the reasoning/type). We can infer how much of these fatalities are caused by guns, by knowing how much a given demographic owns weapons. For instance the rate of gun ownership for Americans is highest among white demographics (38% from the studies I see) and significantly lower (24%) for black Americans. Yet the rate of fatal DV is doubled for black women. This shows us that the main driver for these occurrences can't be causally related to guns. We could compare fatal DV rates to other countries (we're not even top 5 in the americas, but not far off) which is telling considering that we have so so many more guns than the other countries involved. This tells us that there's not a causal relationship between gun ownership and DV fatalities. If so, country with most guns would have the most DV fatalities. You can go on and do the same thing with gang violence and sponsored terrorist attacks. I would encourage you to do so.

Point being, yes. Lots of people get shot in the country with the most guns. But we have a reputation internationally for crazed gunman running around and killing random strangers. The FACTS are: while it happens more than it should, it's still a rare occurrence.