Short answer: It depends on what outcomes you want to prioritize. “More regulation” can reduce certain harms, but it also has costs and constitutional limits. Here’s a clear way to think about it.
What problems are you trying to reduce?
•Suicides: Most U.S. gun deaths are suicides. Policies that slow impulsive access and improve storage tend to matter most here.
•Everyday violent crime: Concentrated in specific places and social networks; focused enforcement and community programs often help alongside targeted gun rules.
•Mass shootings: A small share of total deaths but high-profile; perpetrators often acquire guns legally after warning signs.
Regulatory options with evidence of benefit
•Universal background checks and closing private-sale loopholes: Aim to keep guns from prohibited purchasers; associated with fewer illegal diversions in some studies.
•Permit-to-purchase or licensing with safety training: Linked in several analyses to lower firearm homicide and suicide; increases front-end screening and competence.
•Waiting periods: Modestly reduce suicides and some gun violence by adding time between purchase and possession.
•Extreme risk protection orders (“red flag” laws): Allow temporary removal from individuals posing acute risk; early evidence shows suicide reductions and some prevented attacks.
•Safe-storage and child-access-prevention laws: Reduce unintentional shootings and youth suicides; low cost if compliance is high.
•Domestic-violence prohibitions and enforcement: Protects victims during high-risk periods; generally consistent with current constitutional doctrine.
Policies where evidence or constitutionality is more mixed
•“Assault weapon” bans and magazine limits: Research findings on overall violence are contested; legal vulnerability after recent Supreme Court rulings is a consideration.
•Broad carry restrictions: Public-carry rules face strict constitutional scrutiny; violence effects in studies vary by context.
•Comprehensive registration or mandatory insurance: Implementation and privacy concerns; limited real-world evidence on violence reduction.
Potential downsides and trade-offs
•Enforcement can fall unevenly, risking disparate impacts.
•Compliance and black-market substitution can blunt effects if not paired with focused policing of traffickers and straw buyers.
•Legitimate self-defense, hunting, and sport uses may face added burdens.
•Administrative capacity and costs (training, permitting backlogs) matter.
Non-regulatory complements
•Community violence intervention focused on the highest-risk individuals and places.
•Domestic-violence services and housing supports.
•Suicide-prevention measures (crisis lines, lethal-means counseling, temporary off-site storage).
•Better data systems tracing crime guns and trafficking patterns.
A practical middle-ground package many jurisdictions consider
•Universal background checks
•Licensing with training for first-time purchasers
•3–10 day waiting period
•Extreme risk protection orders with due-process safeguards
•Safe-storage/child-access laws and tax credits for safes
•Vigorous enforcement against traffickers and straw purchasers
•Investment in community violence intervention and DV services
Bottom line: If your top priority is reducing suicides and keeping guns from clearly high-risk individuals while preserving routine ownership, a targeted set of the above rules is defensible. If your priority is minimal state involvement, focus on non-regulatory measures and enforcement against violent offenders. If you tell me which outcomes you care about most (suicides, street violence, mass shootings, minimizing burdens on lawful owners), I can tailor a recommendation.