Short answer: it depends on your goals. If the aim is to reduce shootings and suicide while respecting the Second Amendment, there is a strong case for more targeted regulation—not blanket bans. The evidence from multiple states suggests some policies lower risk without unduly burdening responsible owners.
What “more regulation” that tends to work looks like
•Universal background checks or permit-to-purchase that also cover private sales, with quick turnarounds and clear appeal paths.
•Licensing plus basic safety training for first-time purchasers, similar to driver licensing.
•Extreme Risk Protection Orders (red-flag laws) with robust due-process safeguards, time limits, and penalties for misuse.
•Child access prevention/safe-storage requirements, paired with tax credits/rebates for safes and smart storage.
•Stronger action on trafficking: require reporting of lost/stolen guns, crack down on straw purchasing, and improve tracing data sharing.
•Domestic-violence prohibitions that are clear, swiftly enforceable, and consistent with current constitutional doctrine.
Policies where evidence is mixed or benefits are more limited
•Bans on specific rifle categories (“assault weapons”) show uncertain effects on overall violence; magazine limits may reduce mass-shooting lethality but not day-to-day shootings.
•Broad “may-issue” discretion for carry permits can raise fairness concerns; objective “shall-issue” with training is typically more defensible.
Legitimate concerns to design around
•Constitutional constraints (post-Bruen, regulations must fit historical tradition).
•Disparate enforcement or criminalizing technical mistakes.
•Burdens on rural or lower-income owners (fees, travel for training).
•Privacy and fear of registries.
Design principles that balance rights and safety
•Make compliance easy: online processes, fast checks, fee waivers, training vouchers.
•Focus penalties on willful trafficking and dangerous misuse, not paperwork errors.
•Build in due process, independent review, and sunset/evaluation clauses.
•Pair regulations with non-regulatory investments: community violence prevention, hot-spot policing, suicide prevention and crisis services.
My take: Yes—more regulation is warranted, but it should be targeted, evidence-backed, and constitutionally sound: universal background checks/permits, training-based licensing, ERPOs with due process, safe-storage laws, and anti-trafficking measures. Broad categorical bans are less likely to deliver clear benefits and are more legally vulnerable. The best approach also funds prevention and measures results.
If you share your priorities (mass shootings, everyday gun crime, suicide, or rights protection) and your state, I can suggest a concrete package tailored to that context.