What is the difference between a freedom and a right? Maybe you could explain this to us non-Americans (i hope it makes more sense than trying to justify gun culture).
In the simplest sense, a "right" is something which is guaranteed by our Creator as an inherent component of our existence: to wit, life. A "freedom," on a similar token, is something like an act which we are innately capable of performing, but which may have limitations based upon cultural perspective or other governance. Both may also be self-limited.
In regards to speech, we accept that everyone has ideas and thoughts and is free to conjure them, while at the same time we also understand there are appropriate venues for expression. For instance, in most cultures there are certain topics of conversation which are deemed inappropriate for children, topics which we do not discuss at the dinner table, or things we may say around our friends but not around customers. The concern is not about offending someone, but more about the decorum of the position or situation. No matter the concern, you may be chastised for exercising speech in inappropriate situations, though rarely would (or should) you be criminally punished for doing so.
The Supreme Court of the United States has also gone so far as to address speech which may be dangerous to public safety (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater) or instances of security as such speech may be the cause of injury or fatality to others.
It's hierarchical, as well. You have the right to worship under religion, and the freedom to choose which religion to follow; or not in both regards. As a consumer you have the right to purchase toilet paper, and the freedom to choose the brand, two-ply, rough or soft.
Both are naturally limited when it comes to the violation of others' rights or freedoms. In terms of living, I have the right to life but not the right to live by denying you your right to life. I have the freedom to choose how to live my life, but it is frowned upon to do so at the imposition of the freedoms of others.
Some rights are not just rights, but duties as well. For democratic societies the right to vote is also a responsibility for the society cannot exist without the exercise of this right. Even so, one may, and often does, exercise the freedom not to participate.
This is just simple and really only touches the surface. There are much deeper arguments which go beyond a simple explanation and some on which I simply am not qualified to pontificate -- many which we face today, some for time immemorial. Governance is a huge issue when it comes to rights and freedoms as government's natural tendency is toward tyranny, which is the loss of both. We can also exist in a quasi-tyrannical state called a soft-tyranny in which we willfully cease or otherwise surrender our rights and freedoms because of the perception of imposed consequences.
I hope that I've been fairly articulate here. You mentioned "gun culture," which has derogatory connotation. Gun ownership is essentially a freedom we have to choose how we supplement our lives provided we do not impose upon others. We concluded at our Founding that our right to life included the freedom not to have a sundry, or necessary, implement of our lives taken from us provided it was not used to harass or harm others.
We also concluded that, in the peaceful exercise of our freedoms, we had the right to be free from harassment thereof. In direct regard to gun ownership: we concluded based upon history that people's right to life included the responsibility to defend themselves against tyrannical society or governance, and that arming themselves was part and parcel to this responsibility and therefore, as a component of our right to life, a right in and of itself.
(As well, I truly hope my explanation does justice to these immensely important constructs. In doing so, I often feel like I am trying to define the devine.)