That would be true if we assume the effect is linear, but why should it be? Is there evidence of linearity?

If the relationship were superlinear, then we'd expect to see much higher rates of mass shootings in places like Montana or Wyoming (where >60% of households have guns) and lower rates in California (where ~20% of households have guns). This does not seem to be the case.

There is a correlation chart[1] of gun ownership and gun deaths per state for 2013 in this article:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/gun-owners-stud...

(correlation does not explain causation, but it may help to guide analysis)

[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20211204010352/https://www.mothe...

That is gun deaths, not gun homicides or mass shootings. Around 2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides. A suicidal person will choose the most effective and painless method available to them, so if they have a gun around, they'll use it. This is a totally different problem than gun violence, but many activists will conflate the two.

Its not "conflation". Its recognition that background-checks, and delays, should reduce gun-violence AND cut back on suicides.

I'm not sure how much of an effect they would have on suicides. This may just be my stereotypical mental image, but I suspect that a lot of gun suicide victims have owned the gun in question for a long time, in which case a waiting period wouldn't help any more than a waiting period to buy a car would stop people driving off bridges.

Are there any numbers on how many people commit suicide with guns they bought in the last 6 months of their life?

Because they are sneaking suicides into the numbers. If you split the data up between suicides and homicides, the correlation disappears.

Upvoted and agreed, that's a reasonable complaint. Can you provide sources that illustrate the absence of correlation after dividing the dataset?

I haven't yet, although I did find this publication from Boston University positive correlation between increased gun ownership and increased non-stranger homicide rates: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4167105/

This post basically explains the bait-and-switch being used.

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-...

The post also questions how studies like the one you linked are measuring gun ownership rate. Every reliable study uses % of suicides with guns as a proxy for gun ownership rates. RAND notes the same thing: "A fundamental limitation for all of the studies is the lack of direct measures of gun prevalence. All of the authors use FS/S as a proxy for gun prevalence" https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/fir...

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/fir...

A lot of the shootings involved someone driving to different states.

Which ones? You can only buy guns in the state which you are a resident. You'd have to find a co-conspirator who is a resident of that state and who is willing to commit a felony to get you a gun. Or you'd have to live in one state and decide to drive to another state and murder people.

The Buffalo shooter bought his rifle legally in New York. Same goes for the most recent shooter in Texas. The San Bernardino shooters bought their firearms legally in California, then modified magazines to accept more than 10 rounds. The Orlando night club shooter bought his guns legally. He even had a valid security guard license.

The only example I know of is Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter. He lived in Nevada and bought a WASR-10 (an AK variant) there, then drove to California to massacre people. While the WASR-10 is illegal in California, very similar rifles are legal in the state. Had he lived in California, he could have purchased a Palmetto State Armory GF3 (or any other CA-legal AK clone), then removed the grip fin and modified the magazine to accept 30 rounds.

Some states actually do allow non-residents to buy rifles, but I believe handguns are federally restricted to residents only.

Yes I did slightly simplify. There is an exception for buying rifles and shotguns from a gun store, but that still requires passing a background check and everything. Also the rifle or shotgun must be legal in the state you reside. And it is illegal to privately sell a gun to a non-resident. If the buyer is from another state, you must go through an FFL.

The point I was trying to make is that people cannot take advantage of less restrictive gun laws in neighboring states. Almost every mass shooter either got their guns legally or stole them from a close relative (often by murdering that relative). There's no glaring legal loophole that these people are using.

>> then removed the grip fin and modified the magazine to accept 30 rounds.

What an oddly specific comment.

I used to live in California. They have silly laws that require a "fin" on the grip (so you can't wrap your hand around it) and 10 round magazines. Once I moved, I fixed those annoyances.

On second thought it's kinda of a dumb comment. I'd retract it if I could.

A theory: the number of firearms (which translates into how accessible they are) isn't a linear scaling factor in the problem.

Comparative population could be relevant, although also doesn't explain the statistics you reference.

To try to prove/disprove the argument: has the prevalence (or nature) of bullying changed?