A sound Gambit?

Not at all, thanks for pointing it out. 

Evans gambit isn't anything to be afraid of. Taking the pawn won't put you at any kind of disadvantage. It's good tactical practice.

Are you saying you don't blunder in 2.0 minute games on live chess?! I apologise if I was unclear but I was asking for where I make blunders in correspondence.

If you're playing the King's Gambit, you need to know how to deal with the Falkbeer Countergambit and know that playing 3.fxe5?? is horrible.  Saying that it was a 2-minute game doesn't change things with that blunder.

As for your original post, there is no good gambit that leaves you with a winning position.  Probably your best chances for a good game from a gambit are the Evans Gambit and the Smith Morra as White (and I guess the King's Gambit), and the Marshall and Benko Gambit as Black.  As pfren noted, though, you shouldn't have to rely on gambits to get an aggressive game.

Yes I make blunders in 3/0. Made some terrible ones today. I also reviewed my games afterwards briefly for conceptual mistakes. I think moves 6 and 11 in your blitz game are good teaching moments. In blitz we can only play what we know really well, so when we make a fundamental error it's worth thinking about.

Move 6 creates weakness (g4, h4) and opens up the king. Move 11 accelerates his development and opens lines against your king.

As for your correspondence games, I looked at a few just now. Sure there are blunders (we all make them). But the main thing I'd want to tell you in this topic is that openings aren't a cure all.

If you already understand that and just want a good gambit (sharpens the game without being objectively unsound) you've already got some good answers. So I'll leave you with that and wish you good luck!