Balance of Gun rights and safety

I believe that all societies need to find the optimum balance between rights because rights can sometimes be in conflict with each other. We already do this- for example, we have the right to freedom of speech in the bill of Rights but that right does not protect speech that can incite imminent violence or danger- the famous, can't shout fire in a crowded theater scenario- because that type of speech infringes of the right to safety of others. I believe that is a wise balance to strike. I believe that we should also be looking for the wisest balance in gun rights and safety. Similar to the right of freedom of speech, there is a second amendment right to "keep and bear arms" which must be respected. But like freedom of speech, there are and should be limits to the right to "keep and bear arms" when it infringes on the safety of others. To me, this is supported by the preamble to the Constitution which states "domestic tranquility" and "general welfare" as two of its goals- I believe mass casualty shootings and the level of gun violence show that we are not striking the right balance between gun rights and "domestic tranquility" and "general welfare." This is further supported, in my opinion, by the ninth amendment to the Bill of Rights which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I read that to apply to all the rights in the Constitution including the right to "keep and bear arms." Even though the Constitution does not explicitly state a right for an innocent person (like a child) to not be killed in a shooting, (like a school mass shooting), that does not mean that they don't have that right. Furthermore, the ninth amendment means that the right to "keep and bear arms" should not be taken to such an extreme that it threatens other basic rights that are not specifically mentioned in the bill of rights. Finally this is supported by the preamble to the Declaration of Independence that specifically calls out "life," "safety," and "future security" as goals of the government they were striving for; I have capitalized these goals to call them out in the preamble here: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their SAFETY and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their FUTURE SECURITY." (source https://www.archives.gov/.../stylistic-artistry-of-the... )