Short answer: Reasonable people disagree, and the “right” amount of regulation depends on which outcomes you value most (e.g., reducing homicides and suicides, preventing mass shootings, protecting self‑defense rights, limiting government power).
What the best evidence tends to show (high level):
•Universal background checks and stronger purchaser licensing: Associated with modest reductions in firearm homicides and suicides in several quasi‑experimental studies. Effects depend on enforcement quality and coverage of private sales.
•Waiting periods (e.g., 3–10 days): Linked to noticeable drops in firearm suicides and some homicides by adding time between purchase and possession.
•Child‑access prevention and safe‑storage laws: Reduce unintentional shootings and youth suicides; low burden when paired with free/low‑cost locking devices and education.
•Domestic‑violence prohibitions plus firearm relinquishment procedures: Reduce intimate‑partner homicide risk when courts and police can enforce orders effectively.
•Extreme‑risk protection orders (“red flag” laws): Early evidence suggests they prevent some suicides and potential attacks when due‑process safeguards are strong.
•Areas with mixed or limited evidence: “Assault‑weapon” and large‑capacity magazine bans (may reduce mass‑shooting lethality; unclear effect on overall homicide); permissive public‑carry expansions (studies conflict, some find small violent‑crime increases); gun buybacks (little population‑level impact).
Key trade‑offs to weigh:
•Public‑safety gains vs. burdens on lawful owners (time, cost, access for rural/low‑income buyers).
•Risk of uneven enforcement or unintended criminalization vs. targeted approaches focused on prohibited possessors and traffickers.
•Constitutional constraints in the U.S. after recent Supreme Court rulings, which shape what kinds of regulations are likely to stand.
If your priority is mainly to reduce deaths with relatively low burden, a commonly proposed “narrow but strong” package is:
•Universal background checks that cover private sales, with fast, modernized systems.
•Short waiting periods.
•Safe‑storage/child‑access prevention, paired with free locks and public education.
•Enforceable domestic‑violence firearm prohibitions.
•Extreme‑risk orders with clear, prompt due‑process protections.
•Better data and tracing against straw purchasing and trafficking.
If you prioritize minimizing government burden on owners while addressing rare, high‑casualty events, options include:
•Improving background‑check data quality (not necessarily expanding categories), targeted enforcement against prohibited possessors, subsidized voluntary safe storage, and threat‑assessment/behavioral‑intervention programs in schools and workplaces.
I can tailor this to your goals. Are you asking about the United States specifically, and which outcomes matter most to you (e.g., suicide reduction, violent crime, mass shootings, civil liberties)?