I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. If I choose to have a gun in my home, how do "non-gun owners" have a right to "not be put at risk" from my gun beyond the obvious response of declining to be a guest in my home?
I favor registration because it may help the police to catch criminals who use guns, and those who traffic guns to such criminals. I favor no-fault style insurance so that persons injured by guns have a source of funds from which to pay their medical bills, and to provide practical incentives for gun owners to secure their weapons and report them to the police when they're stolen.
Neither of these are substantial burdens on law-abiding gun owners, IMO. But the flip side is that, if properly registered and insured, there should be no restriction placed on a citizen's right to buy as many guns of whatever sort he or she wants. You may recoil at that, but that's the essence of a workable, sustainable compromise. The 2A is part of the Constitution and it's here to stay - together with the concept of reasonable regulation.
The best sorts of compromises are those that deny both extremes what they want. Same goes for abortion. The instinct of the unborn child to grow and to live is fundamentally at odds with the liberty of the mother to destroy it. Neither extreme pro-lifers or extreme pro-choicers would be happy with a bright-line 15 week rule - abortions can be prohibited after 15 weeks, but the woman's liberty must be preserved for the first 15 weeks. That's why it appeals to me and, I suspect, the majority of folks in this country who understand that the only solutions that are sustainable are those that (i) acknowledge the legitimate values at stake on both sides and (ii) (forgive me) split the baby.