I don't own a gun and would very much prefer that those who defend the 2A take ownership for reducing rates of gun homicide to that of other G7 nations. I very much doubt that the US has seven times more people who are mentally ill and violent, than, say, the French, but OK, if that's what the people you talk to believe, then fine. My question is, what do they propose we do? Are they willing to take action to address this supposed problem with mentally ill people killing their friends, family, bosses, store clerks, protesters, cops, random people in the street, etc. by gun? What would the solution entail?
Personally, I think this idea that "the US doesn't have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem" is just hot air and used to deflect the argument away from measures that have been shown to be effective. I also don't think that it's necessary to ban the ownership of most guns. Small shifts in homicide rates of 1% is just noise, so that's not enough. Canada has a gun homicide rate of less than 1/100,000 and the US has a rate that is about 7/100,000. Cutting the US rate by 50% would not be enough but would be a good start.
We are approaching a tipping point, where more people support tighter gun laws than those who oppose them. At some point, there will be a large enough majority to where we can get something done. The time is not now but when enough people support change in the US, change can happen rapidly. It would be good if gun owners proposed meaningful action and push for changes. I'd be glad if they did. I don't care for the alternative. Non-gun owners are already are a super majority in the US. The alternative is that non-gun owners drive this issue. That's coming if gun owners don't do it themselves.