This is a genuinely contested policy and values question where reasonable people disagree based on differing priorities (individual rights vs. collective safety), interpretations of evidence, and constitutional philosophy. I can't tell you what you "should" conclude, but I can lay out the main considerations on each side so you can weigh them yourself.
Arguments for more regulation
•Public health framing: Proponents argue that measures like universal background checks, waiting periods, red-flag laws, and restrictions on certain weapons reduce suicides, homicides, and mass shootings by making it harder for high-risk individuals to obtain firearms quickly.
•Comparative data: Countries with stricter gun laws (e.g., UK, Australia, Japan) have markedly lower gun death rates than the U.S., which advocates cite as evidence that access correlates with harm.
•Specific policy gaps: Advocates often point to loopholes (private sales, gun shows) and argue closing them wouldn't infringe on responsible ownership while reducing illegal transfers.
•Mass shootings: Some push for restrictions on high-capacity magazines or semi-automatic rifles, arguing these increase casualty counts in shooting incidents.
Arguments against more regulation (or for current/looser regulation)
•Constitutional rights: In the U.S., the Second Amendment is viewed by many as protecting an individual right to bear arms, and additional restrictions are seen as infringing on that right.
•Self-defense: Gun rights advocates argue firearms are used defensively far more often than in crimes, and restricting access could leave law-abiding citizens less able to protect themselves.
•Enforcement concerns: Critics argue criminals don't follow laws, so new regulations primarily burden lawful owners while doing little to stop illegal acquisition (straw purchases, theft, black markets).
•Federalism/cultural variation: The U.S. is large and diverse; rural vs. urban needs and cultural attitudes toward guns differ significantly, making one-size-fits-all federal policy contentious.
•Slippery slope concerns: Some worry that incremental restrictions could eventually lead to broader confiscation or erosion of rights.
Where there's more consensus (even among people with different overall views)
•Keeping guns from people already legally prohibited (felons, domestic abusers, those adjudicated mentally ill) tends to have broad support.
•Improving background check system data-sharing is less controversial than banning specific weapon categories.
•Safe storage requirements and support for mental health infrastructure draw support across the political spectrum, even if enforcement mechanisms are debated.
Key empirical disputes
•How much specific policies (e.g., assault weapon bans, magazine limits) actually reduce overall gun deaths is heavily debated among researchers, partly due to data limitations and the rarity of mass shootings relative to other gun deaths (which are mostly suicides and interpersonal violence, not mass shootings).
•The defensive gun use statistic is contested, with estimates varying wildly depending on methodology.
If you want, I can dig into specific policies (e.g., red-flag laws, assault weapon bans, concealed carry permitting) and summarize what research says about their effects — that's more tractable than the broad "should regulation increase" question, which ultimately hinges on your values around liberty, risk tolerance, and the proper role of government.