Lets dismiss some false equivalencies commonly used.
Alcohol does not have the sole purpose of killing things. It doesn't pose anywhere near the same direct risk to others as guns. In addition it is heavily regulated, and the same people arguing for gun control are extremely likely to also support policies/programs designed to alleviate the potential negative impacts.
Drugs do not have the sole purpose of killing things. They do not pose the same risk to others as guns. In addition it is heavily regulated, and the same people arguing for gun control are extremely likely to also support policies/programs designed to alleviate the potential negative impacts.
Vehicles do not have the sole purpose of killing things. They pose a much greater risk to others, compared to the previous examples, but still not to the same level as guns. However that risk is countered by the fact that they are vital to modern society. In addition it is heavily regulated, and the same people arguing for gun control are extremely likely to also support policies/programs designed to alleviate the potential negative impacts.
Gun are designed to kill or practice killing. They pose an extremely high risk to others (highlighted by suffering from a problem that is not repeated anywhere else in the first world,while simultaneously, regarding mass civilian ownership, providing zero benefit to society. Regulation is heavily opposed, by default, by a tyranny of the minority. The US does not have any domestic or foreign enemies that would be hindered by mass civilian ownership of firearms. Ironically, the closest thing the US has in that scenario is the extremist right.
The risk to reward scenario is so heavily weighted to one side that there is no logical argument that mass civilian ownership is a benefit to US society. Attempting to argue that we should ban/restrict other things, like alcohol or smoking, is a distraction technique. Partly as they are unrelated issues, partly as the same people advocating gun control also support targeting the other factors involved in crime. Gun control isn't a one stop fix, it's merely an attempt to help alleviate a symptom, while also working on other ways to reduce the causes, such as mental health, education, poverty, etc.
So, as there isn't a logical argument to it, the anti-gun control people resort to the constitution as if it's a sacred document that should be followed regardless of a law's merit. Despite that the fact that they are justifying gun ownership via an amendment, which is a change/addition in itself, and there are multiple examples of them being added or removed as situations change. The Constitution is a set of guidelines to help encourage a healthy, safe and prosperous society. It is not a reason in itself to not do something. If it was then we'd still have slavery, because god forbid you change your mind about something or have a situation change.
People who try to justify mass civilian ownership of firearms need to take a long, hard look at themselves. You are damaging your own society, your own country, and while making excuses to try and pretend that you are doing the right thing. If you aren't willing to give up your toys, at least be honest about the reasons for it.