This is a genuinely contested political and policy question where reasonable people disagree based on differing values, interpretations of evidence, and priorities. Rather than telling you what to think, let me lay out the substantive 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 weapon types reduce suicides, homicides, and mass shootings.
•Comparative data: Advocates point to lower gun death rates in countries with stricter gun laws as suggestive (though not conclusive, given many confounding factors) evidence that regulation correlates with fewer deaths.
•Targeted policies: Many public health researchers favor "targeted" interventions—like keeping guns from domestic abusers, the mentally ill in crisis, or minors—rather than blanket restrictions, arguing these have stronger evidence bases.
•Accountability: Some argue that treating guns like other regulated consumer products (cars, medications) subject to safety standards and licensing is reasonable given their lethality.
Arguments against more regulation
•Constitutional/rights framing: In the U.S., the Second Amendment is interpreted by many as protecting an individual right to bear arms, and additional restrictions are seen as infringing on that right.
•Self-defense: Many owners argue firearms are effective tools for personal and home defense, and restricting access disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens rather than criminals who obtain guns illegally.
•Efficacy skepticism: Critics argue many proposed regulations (e.g., certain assault weapon bans) have weak or mixed evidence of reducing overall gun deaths, since most gun deaths involve handguns, not the weapons often targeted by bans.
•Enforcement concerns: Some argue that new laws mainly burden compliant gun owners while doing little to stop criminals, who by definition don't follow laws, and that resources might be better spent on enforcement of existing laws, mental health, or addressing root causes of violence.
•Cultural/historical concerns: Others worry about slippery slopes toward broader restrictions or distrust government's ability to fairly implement and enforce new rules.
Where there's more consensus
Polling suggests many Americans—including gun owners—support certain measures like universal background checks, while there's much less agreement on things like bans on specific weapon categories or magazine capacity limits.
The honest bottom line
This isn't really a question with a factual "correct" answer—it hinges on how you weigh individual liberty against collective safety, how you interpret constitutional rights, your trust in government enforcement, and which empirical studies you find most persuasive (the research itself is contested and politically charged on all sides).
If you want, I can dig into specific policies (e.g., red flag laws, background checks, assault weapon bans) and summarize what current research says about their effectiveness—that's a narrower, more empirically answerable question than the broad "should regulation increase" framing.