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 background checks, waiting periods, red-flag laws, and restrictions on certain weapons reduce deaths from suicide, homicide, and mass shootings.
•Comparative data: Advocates point to lower gun death rates in countries with stricter gun laws as evidence that regulation works.
•Specific policy support: Many "more regulation" advocates aren't calling for total bans but for narrower measures (universal background checks, closing private-sale loopholes, safe storage laws) that poll well even among many gun owners.
Arguments against more regulation
•Constitutional rights: In the U.S., the Second Amendment is central—many argue additional restrictions infringe on a fundamental right, similar to how speech or privacy rights are protected even when exercising them carries some risk.
•Self-defense: Opponents argue armed citizens deter crime and that regulation disproportionately disarms law-abiding people while criminals still obtain guns illegally.
•Efficacy skepticism: Some contend that many proposed regulations wouldn't have prevented specific high-profile shootings, or that criminals circumvent laws regardless, so the tradeoff (burdening lawful owners) isn't justified.
•Federalism/enforcement concerns: Others argue existing laws aren't well enforced, so the problem is implementation, not insufficient legislation.
Where the disagreement often actually lies
Much of the debate isn't really "regulate vs. don't"—most people support some regulation (e.g., background checks). The real fault lines are:
•Which specific measures (assault weapon bans? magazine limits? licensing?)
•How to balance rights vs. risk reduction
•What the empirical evidence actually shows (studies on efficacy of specific laws are often contested and vary by methodology, jurisdiction, and time period)
•Federal vs. state authority
If you want, I can dig into the evidence on a specific policy (e.g., red-flag laws, background check expansion, assault weapon bans) and summarize what research shows about its effects—that empirical piece might be more tractable than the values question of "should" regulation increase.