This is a deeply contested political and ethical question rather than a factual one with a settled answer, so I can't tell you what should happen—that depends on values about liberty, safety, rights, and the role of government that reasonable people weigh differently. But I can lay out the substantive arguments on each side so you can reason through it yourself.
Arguments for more regulation
•Public health/safety data: Advocates point to statistics linking gun availability to higher rates of homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths, and note that other wealthy nations with stricter laws have lower gun death rates.
•Mass shootings: Proponents argue that measures like background checks, waiting periods, red flag laws, or restrictions on certain weapons (e.g., assault-style rifles, high-capacity magazines) could reduce the frequency or lethality of mass shootings.
•Closing loopholes: Many support universal background checks to close gaps like private sales or gun-show purchases that don't require federal checks.
•Precedent from other policy areas: Supporters often compare guns to cars or other regulated products—things with inherent risk that society already licenses, registers, and restricts.
Arguments against more regulation
•Constitutional rights: In the U.S., the Second Amendment is interpreted by many (and by the Supreme Court in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller) as protecting an individual right to bear arms, making broad restrictions legally and philosophically contentious.
•Self-defense: Opponents argue that firearms are an important tool for personal and home defense, and that law-abiding owners shouldn't be penalized for the actions of criminals.
•Efficacy concerns: Some research and advocates question whether certain regulations (e.g., assault weapons bans) meaningfully reduce overall gun violence, since most gun deaths involve handguns, not the weapons typically targeted by bans.
•Enforcement and criminal behavior: Critics argue criminals who obtain guns illegally won't be deterred by laws aimed at legal purchasers, so regulations may burden law-abiding citizens more than they stop crime.
•Slippery slope/trust in government: Some worry that incremental restrictions could lead to broader confiscation or erode a right they see as a check on government power.
Where there's more consensus
Some policies—like background checks for all gun sales, or red flag laws allowing temporary removal of firearms from people deemed a danger to themselves or others—poll with relatively broad bipartisan public support in the U.S., even though they remain politically difficult to pass. Other measures, like assault weapons bans or significant restrictions on concealed carry, are far more polarizing.
If you want, I can dig into specific data (e.g., effects of particular laws in certain states/countries, recent research on red flag laws, comparative international statistics) to help inform your own view—just let me know what angle interests you.