This is a deeply contested political and policy question rather than one with a factual "right answer" I can search my way to. It involves competing values (individual liberty vs. collective safety), constitutional interpretation, empirical debates about what actually reduces harm, and cultural differences that don't resolve into a single correct policy conclusion. Rather than telling you what to think, let me lay out the genuine considerations on different sides so you can weigh them yourself.
Arguments for more regulation
•Countries with stricter gun laws generally have lower rates of firearm deaths, though causation is debated among researchers.
•Background checks, waiting periods, and red-flag laws are cited by proponents as tools to keep guns from people in crisis or with violent histories.
•Some argue that regulating firearms is analogous to regulating other dangerous products (cars, drugs) without eliminating access.
Arguments against more regulation
•In the U.S., the Second Amendment is invoked as protecting an individual right to bear arms, and many view further restrictions as infringing on that right.
•Some research disputes that gun control measures meaningfully reduce violent crime, pointing instead to socioeconomic factors, gang violence, or illegal gun markets as bigger drivers.
•Concerns about enforcement — that restrictive laws mainly burden law-abiding owners while criminals obtain guns illegally regardless.
•Self-defense arguments: many owners cite personal/home protection as a primary reason for ownership.
Complicating factors
•"More regulated" covers a huge range — from universal background checks to assault weapon bans to outright confiscation — and people who agree gun laws should change often disagree sharply on which changes.
•Data quality varies: studies on effects of specific laws (e.g., waiting periods vs. bans) often show different findings depending on methodology, region, and time period.
•Culture and geography matter enormously — rural vs. urban attitudes, hunting traditions, crime rates, and trust in law enforcement all shape views.
If you want, I can dig into specific evidence — like what research says about the effects of particular policies (background checks, red-flag laws, assault weapon bans) — so you can form your own view based on data rather than general debate. Would that be helpful?