Firearms regulation

According to shooting tracker, There is (at least) one mass shooting each day in the US. It's the worst frequency in the world, Except in war-torn countries. The US constitution stipulate that people have the right to own firearms, And that this right can't be removed; now, Despite the constitution, Would regulate the ownership of firearms be a good decision to take?
All points of view are welcome

(I speak english quite badly, So please no write too long arguments, Thanks)

No, It would not be, And there of many reasons why.
1. If we begin to remove things from the constitution, That would give many the idea that other things should be removed, Things that are the foundation of our country.
2. If a gun is fired on school grounds, It is considered a school shooting. Many people have committed suicide on abandoned school grounds, And it is counted as a school shooting. There have also been cases where a gun is misfired on school grounds, And it is also considered a school shooting.
3. These are law abiding citizens. Only a very small percentage of Americans use there guns for harming others, The rest use theirs for hunting and such. Most shootings are committed with handguns, Not automatics. So if you were to argue that you only wanted to take away automatics, Most shootings would STILL happen, So the only logical thing to do in that scenario would be to also take away handguns, Which is completely ridiculous because as I have said previously, Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens.

First precision: shooting trackers measures its numbers for mass shootings with at least four killed (but not only in schools).

I admit, Pave the way for many removals can weaken a country that has worked quite good up to now. So, I think it's difficult for me to imagine the American state of mind, But in France (I'm French), One person owns a handgun out of ten people, (and nearly nobody owns an automatic); and the statistics shows it clearly: there are much less shootings in France than in the USA.

You said most people don't use their guns for harming others, Of course it's true. But I'm still convinced restrict firearms owning is good, And I'll show you a little example. Most Americans are law abiding citizens, You said it. So according to your reasoning, What's the use of the police? I hope you're convinced of the usefulness of the police (and I think so), And surprised by my remarks; but it's the same: the police is necessary to protect us from a minority of criminals, And restricting firearms is in my opinion necessary to protect us from mass shootings, Even if most people use only their guns to hunt, Or keep their firearms to defend themselves if necessary (a person rarely manage to defend herself).
And the MASS shootings are not committed by handguns, Except in hostages takings; outside, The shots are comitted by automatics; and I never spoke about singles shootings which can be a mistake, A mass shooting can't be accidental.

For the constitution: here, The referendum is national : the president, Or the population (if one voter out of ten give his accord) can require a poll, And the result of this poll become a law. It's the only way to change the french constitution. Can law like this be a solution? (It's not the anarchy, We not had a referedum since 15 years).