This is a deeply contested political and policy question where reasonable people disagree based on differing values, interpretations of evidence, and priorities. Rather than search for a "definitive answer" (there isn't one), let me lay out the substantive considerations on each side so you can weigh them yourself.
Arguments for more regulation
•Public health framing: Advocates point to gun deaths (suicides, homicides, accidents) as a public health crisis and argue that measures like background checks, waiting periods, red flag laws, and restrictions on certain weapons reduce deaths, similar to how other countries with stricter laws have lower gun death rates.
•Mass shootings: High-profile mass shootings often drive calls for restrictions on assault-style weapons, high-capacity magazines, or stronger background check systems (e.g., closing "private sale" loopholes).
•International comparisons: Countries like Australia and the UK enacted strict gun laws after mass shootings and saw declines in gun deaths, which proponents cite as evidence regulation works.
Arguments against more regulation
•Constitutional rights (US-specific): The Second Amendment is interpreted by many as protecting an individual right to bear arms, and further regulation is seen as infringing on that right, especially after the Supreme Court's Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022) decisions strengthening individual gun rights.
•Self-defense: Many argue firearms are an important means of self-defense, and restricting access disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens while criminals still obtain guns illegally.
•Effectiveness skepticism: Critics argue many proposed regulations (assault weapons bans, magazine limits) have limited evidence of reducing overall gun deaths, since most gun deaths involve handguns, not the weapons typically targeted by bans.
•Enforcement concerns: Some argue existing laws aren't enforced well, and new laws would burden compliant owners without stopping criminals.
Where there's more consensus (even across the debate)
•Universal background checks tend to poll well even among many gun owners.
•Red flag laws (allowing courts to temporarily remove guns from people deemed a danger to themselves/others) have bipartisan support in some contexts.
•Improving mental health access and addressing underlying violence is often supported regardless of one's stance on gun laws specifically.
My take
I don't have personal political opinions to offer on contested policy questions like this — it's the kind of issue where the "right" answer depends heavily on how you weigh individual liberty against collective safety, what you think the empirical evidence shows, and your reading of constitutional/legal frameworks (if you're in the US).
If you want, I can dig into specific angles — like what the research actually shows about particular policies (e.g., background checks, red flag laws, assault weapons bans), how other countries' approaches have played out, or the legal landscape post-Bruen. That might be more useful than a yes/no verdict.