I've always argued (unsuccessfully) that there should be tiers to gun ownership. Hunting, self defense, and tactical. Each having it's own levels of training and certification. The lower the risk the weapon poses for mass murder, the lower the bar should be.
Anything in the tactical class - which would include guns without lever actuated safeties like glocks (the trigger safety is not a safety at all) and any semi auto capable of holding large clips - would require special training and special permitting. They should be limited to professions that need them, not suzy midwesterner who gets killed by a toddler reaching into her purse.
But there is a reason the NRA opposes even the gathering of statistics. They don't want a safer product. Dozens if not hundreds of accidental shootings could easily be avoided through proper design and application. But it is illegal to even research it.
Want a black powder musket? Just prove you are mentally fit. Want an AR-15, prove you can use one and have a valid reason to own it.
We don't let just anyone have grenades or bombs. Yet those are arms.
Accidental death and injury from a person's own firearm in the US is much higher than elsewhere. It's easy and quite natural to dismiss this as an avoidable mistake.
First, I challenge the assertion that personal gun ownership in this country as a right that shall not be abridged somehow protects freedom from tyranny. Maybe this made sense in the days of muskets.
Second, I challenge the assumption that the guns themselves are safe. They are not. Much could be done to make guns more safe by design.
Third, gun ownership should require regular safety re-certification to establish the gun owner understands protocol for safe gun ownership. Alongside of this severe penalties when a gun found not kept in a certified safe manner, including stripping the license to own a gun from the owner.
We have safety requirements for cars, why not guns? Handle a gun while drunk and get caught? Lose the right to own guns.