Gun control does not mean the government is going to confiscate any firearms you possess, it means taking certain measures to ensure weapons, especially the more dangerous types do not fall into the wrong hands. This country has seen numerous mass shootings recently and the federal government is doing nothing, it is time to use common sense.
These ideas are not mutually exclusive. The areas in the United States that suffer from gun violence (at rates higher than the causalities from the War on Terror) are the areas in which the state has not penetrated its monopoly on the use of force. The problem isn't guns as much as its the inability of the state to enforce its rules. Illegible economies in these areas are rampant, resulting in self-help systems that are further enforced by codes of honor (or street credibility). This is very much the kind of Hobbesian trap that can only be solved by penetration of the state. However, the state must also have checks and balanced for it to be legitimate, and includes all the features of decentralization, including legal firearm ownership. Yet we all know that most leftist states seek complete confiscation inch by inch. In fact, there is now lobbying to ban muskets.
If it came to a scene where the 2nd amendment never existed, and it was my job whether to initiate it or no, then I would say no. However, it has already been implemented into our civilisation and so our citizens have adapted to that. And I think that the idea of removing the already-acclaimed gun rights of 300 million Americans just because maybe a few hundred out of that 300,000,000 cannot be responsible with their actions with guns is unfair and uncivilised. I think the argument of guns being accidentally triggered should be an indication that guns should be prohibited is also unjust, because, once again, it's very rare. You barely ever come across these accidents at all, and so why ban this right for the hundreds of millions because of those few incidents? I also conclude that the responsibility of the gun is within the hands of the person, not within the hands of the constitutional law. We should change the person that actually causes the trouble in the first place. And, if his mental adaptations are irreversible, then we simply must commit to capital punishment so there is always a route out of the trouble caused by that person, whether that means rehabilitation, or death. People like yourself claim that abolishing the 2nd amendment right and banning guns is a "common sense law", when the peer-pressure tinge to the idea really digs into that labelling of the law . I say justice to the majority, not the minority.
It's sort of like a disease. The best way of dealing with your health is by preventing disease. Example: smoking. And disturbingly enough, people who commit shootings have a mental disorder of some sort, so I think a combination of mental health efforts and regulation to see who gets these weapons is needed.