It depends on your goals and where you live. “More regulation” can mean many things, and the effects vary by country, law, and enforcement. Here’s a concise, evidence-based way to think about it (drawing mostly on U.S. and other high‑income countries’ research):
What tends to reduce harm with relatively limited burden
•Universal background checks and permit-to-purchase: Associated with lower firearm homicide and suicide rates when well-implemented. Trade-offs: processing time, administrative cost; needs equitable access and privacy safeguards.
•Waiting periods (e.g., 3–10 days): Reduce impulsive suicides and some homicides. Minimal long-term burden but delays purchases.
•Safe storage and child-access prevention laws: Reduce unintentional shootings and youth suicides; pairing laws with education and subsidies for safes helps.
•Extreme Risk Protection Orders (red-flag laws): Can prevent suicides and some planned attacks when due-process standards and training are strong.
•Domestic-violence firearm prohibitions and timely relinquishment: Strong evidence of reduced intimate-partner homicides; enforcement is key.
•Training and licensing (“shall-issue” with objective criteria): Can improve safe handling and screening; burden varies with how streamlined the process is.
Policies with more mixed or limited evidence
•Assault-weapon and large‑capacity magazine bans: Mixed impact on overall mortality; may reduce casualties in some mass shootings but definitions, compliance, and legal challenges complicate results.
•Raising minimum purchase age: Potentially modest effects; evidence still developing.
•Looser public carry (permitless or broad shall‑issue): Several studies link expansions to increases in violent crime; others dispute magnitude.
Common arguments for heavier regulation
•Public health: The majority of firearm deaths are suicides; targeted measures (waiting periods, ERPOs, safe storage) address impulsive or high‑risk situations.
•International comparisons: Countries with stricter systems generally have lower firearm death rates; while culture matters, policies still play a role.
•Focused restrictions (background checks, DV prohibitions) respect ownership while reducing risk among high‑risk individuals.
Common arguments against
•Self‑defense and rights: Lawful owners shouldn’t face undue burdens; long waits or high fees can be inequitable, especially in rural areas.
•Evasion and enforcement: Criminals may circumvent legal markets; poorly designed laws can be selectively enforced or widen disparities.
•Constitutional/legal limits (e.g., in the U.S. after Bruen): Regulations need historical analogues and strong due-process protections to stand.
A balanced path many jurisdictions consider
•Keep ownership legal but require universal background checks, prompt DV relinquishment, ERPOs with due process, brief waiting periods, and safe‑storage standards supported by education and subsidies.
•Streamline licensing/training to be objective, fast, and affordable.
•Pair regulations with community violence intervention, domestic‑violence services, and suicide prevention.
Bottom line: If your goal is fewer suicides and shootings with minimal burden on responsible owners, there is good evidence for some additional, targeted regulations. Broad bans or highly complex regimes show less clear benefits and face more legal and practical hurdles.
If you tell me your country or state and priorities (e.g., suicide prevention, reducing street violence, preserving carry rights), I can tailor options and likely impacts.