Short answer: It depends on what you want to optimize. If your top goals are fewer suicides, fewer shootings, and fewer accidents—while preserving the core right to own a gun—there is good evidence for some targeted, “heavier” regulations that work with relatively little burden on most owners. If your top concern is limiting government involvement and preserving maximal flexibility for self‑defense, you’ll be wary of most expansions.
What the evidence most strongly supports (U.S. context):
•Universal background checks that cover private and online sales, with quick, modernized systems.
•Permit-to-purchase/licensing that verifies identity, disqualifying records, and completion of basic safety training.
•Waiting periods of a few days to reduce impulsive harm (especially suicide), with narrow expedited exceptions (e.g., documented, imminent threats).
•“Red flag” (extreme risk protection) orders with robust due‑process: clear evidence standards, short initial orders, prompt hearings, penalties for misuse, and right to counsel.
•Child access prevention/safe‑storage requirements, paired with tax credits/rebates for safes and smart-storage options.
•Disarming those under domestic‑violence restraining orders and those convicted of violent felonies, consistently enforced.
•Dealer oversight focused on the small share of sellers linked to crime guns (straw purchasing, theft prevention).
What’s more debated or shows mixed evidence:
•Bans on specific models or features (e.g., “assault weapons”) and magazine limits; these may reduce lethality in rare events but overall population impacts are less certain and face significant legal scrutiny.
Legitimacy and fairness safeguards (often overlooked but essential):
•Clear, objective disqualifiers; minimize discretionary denial.
•Due‑process protections and time‑limited orders; transparent appeal pathways.
•Uniform enforcement to avoid disparate impacts; independent audits and public reporting.
•Data privacy protections; no blanket registries without strict limits and security.
•Sunset clauses and built‑in evaluations so policies adjust to results.
A balanced package many Americans across viewpoints find acceptable:
•Keep the right to own common firearms for lawful purposes.
•Add universal background checks, short waiting periods, basic training/licensing, and safe‑storage rules.
•Use narrowly tailored red‑flag orders with strong due process.
•Focus enforcement on proven risk factors and bad‑actor dealers, not broad criminalization of ordinary owners.
•Fund community violence intervention and suicide prevention alongside policing.
So: Should ownership be more heavily regulated? If the aim is to lower harm while respecting the Second Amendment, a targeted expansion along the lines above is justified. If your priorities differ, the answer may change. If you’d like, tell me your goals and constraints (e.g., rural vs. urban, self‑defense needs, views on government power), and I’ll tailor a concrete policy set.