Short answer: It depends on your goals. In the U.S., there’s a strong case for tighter, targeted regulations that keep firearms from dangerous situations and people while preserving lawful ownership and self‑defense. Broad bans are both politically and constitutionally fraught; focused measures tend to deliver more safety for less burden.
If you want “more regulation,” here’s what a balanced package often looks like:
•Universal background checks that cover private sales and “ghost guns,” with fast, transparent appeals for denials.
•Permit-to-purchase or licensing tied to basic safety training, renewed every 3–5 years; low-fee or subsidized so it’s not a wealth test.
•Safe‑storage/child‑access prevention rules plus tax credits or vouchers for gun safes and locks.
•Stronger domestic‑violence provisions (timely removal when a qualifying order is issued, plus due‑process protections and prompt return when orders expire).
•Extreme Risk Protection Orders (“red flag” laws) with clear evidence standards, short initial duration, right to counsel, and penalties for misuse.
•Mandatory reporting of lost/stolen firearms within a short window to curb trafficking.
•Better oversight of gun dealers (secure storage, inventory audits, anti–straw purchase enforcement).
•Reasonable waiting periods with emergency fast-tracks for documented threats.
•Data and technology: improve record reporting, fund violence‑intervention research, and pilot voluntary smart‑gun/safe‑gun tech.
Concerns worth addressing in any proposal:
•Rights: ensure rules are objective, timely, and not discretionary; avoid de facto bans.
•Equity: don’t criminalize technical mistakes; minimize fees/time costs; watch for discriminatory enforcement.
•Effectiveness: focus on highest‑risk people and places; pair laws with community violence‑intervention and mental‑health supports.
•Legal durability: design policies consistent with current Supreme Court doctrine to avoid being struck down.
Bottom line: Heavier regulation can be justified if it’s narrowly tailored, rights‑respecting, and aimed at specific harms (suicide, domestic violence, trafficking, mass shootings). If you tell me which outcomes you care about most (e.g., suicide reduction, school safety, street violence) and whether you’re thinking federal or state level, I can sketch a concrete, court‑proof policy menu for that goal.