Let's take the analogy away from the hot button issue (guns) and apply it to something else: stoves.
I prefer my stove to be simple. I absolutely hate electric stoves and convection. Yes, other people like them but if something breaks, it's usually far more complicated to fix and requires much more maintenance.
My gas stove has one switch that regulates the flow of gas. That's really all I need. Timers are nice, but are not necessary.
I think the point your making is that there must be a trade off. And while I agree with the premise, you are missing a huge part of the argument which is simplicity. When I cook, I don't want to have to figure out which buttons do what when I just want to cook my food and be done with it. Temperature meters, sensors, etc...these are all things that make it better for some, annoying for others.
If people want to buy them, I won't stop them. The moment you or the government tells me I MUST give up my simple stove for a bloatware ridden electric one that costs five times as much is the same moment that I resist.
I don't care if my simple stove has caused more carbon monoxide deaths than electric ones. There are ways I can monitor that. The trade-off is not enough for me to make that switch.
To bring the discussion back to guns, the only way I'd be willing to have added "security" to guns is to make the police liable. Too many anti-gun people say, "well, if there were more police, these things wouldn't happen." When seconds count, the police are often minutes away. If you can guarantee that the police can be at my house within seconds of a break in, I'll gladly turn in my gun.
I don't know anyone who is willing give up their personal privacy within their home and give the police carte blanche access. If you are, good for you. But don't make that decision for me.