There is a problem in using other causes of death in arguments. Now, students - here's the point. The intent in the causality of the death affects people more than the actual numbers.
More people die in accidents or from bedsores or doctors, etc. Your emotional mind may not care. Why - they view the firearm as an instrument designed to do harm (yes, it's just a tool - sings the choir unconvincingly to the nongun world). Thus, a death from an intentional instrument of harm is more reprehensible than a side effect of medical care or a mode of transportation.
EBRs clearly descending from a line of killing instruments and arouse negative feelings in some - INCLUDING many of the sports shooting inclination.
So if you do argue the point about EBRs - you need to know the processes that are active in their evaluation outside of the views of our choir. And you need to know that some of these arguments are not very effective if they are being viewed by fast, emotional based affective evaluation processes.
Simply saying they are not that dangerous, doctors kill more or it's the 2nd Amend. may not carry the debate.