I know you have- I've seen the same arguments. But, that doesn't mean there isn't room to talk. You have to hold onto this thought: the extreme positions (left or right) in our democratic society will never provide workable solutions for the majority. This applies to gun control or, any other aspect of society. There's a spectrum of thoughts that can be discussed.
For example- As you know, I'm a gun owner. I've been (and still am) an independent, historically voted democratic and in the last election I voted for Johnson. I'm not affiliated with any firearms (nor firearms industry) groups. I believe I have the right to firearms for the protection of myself and my family. I don't believe that right is limitless but, this is a right, and I believe that all restrictions of rights must pass the highest levels of scrutiny.
I'm open to the idea of a gun license / registration process but, it would have to be done correctly and it would have to be maintained appropriately (i.e. policies updated for new technologies, situations, etc). One concern that causes me to raise an eyebrow about this is the risk of such a database turning into a seizure tool. On one hand, I could say that contrary to what tons of 2A folks thought about Obama being president, I never thought for a moment that he (by extension) was going to seize my guns, regardless of what he actually would want to do. The legal / political framework just wasn't there. But, there have been cases in recent history, of gun seizure (to include compulsory forfeiture), and identity publication. If we build such a framework, we need to ensure that it can't be used in the future by those that want to effectively eliminate the 2A or render it meaningless (just as there are those who are fervent 2A supporters, there are just as fervent anti-2A supporters).
And speaking of insanity and firearms- a lot of firearms owners (like myself) believe that those who are 'insane' (more specifically those that have been psychologically found to be at risk of harming themselves and others) should not have access to firearms. This is one of those things that pretty much reads as "common sense". Unfortunately, executing this gets complicated real quick. Mental health advocates don't want their patients stigmatized or otherwise have their rights reduced. Lawful, and non-risky gun owners don't want their rights restricted. While other folks believe that this puts too much power in the medical community.