You assume that 1/3 the per capita shootings for 1/3 of the guns means a difference in policy has no effect. I think you are seeing an irrelevant correlation. M

You assume that 1/3 the per capita shootings for 1/3 of the guns means a difference in policy has no effect. I think you are seeing an irrelevant correlation. Mass shooters are carried out by individuals who seek out a gun to commit a crime. Difficulty to get a gun especially if you are a person of problematic character or history seems relevant. Sheer number of guns not so much. If it were merely as difficult for your problem child to get a gun as in the US and other factors were equal one would expect as many mass shootings per capita not some factor based on relative number of guns available to the total population. That is to say that if evil bob can go by a rifle and go downtown to whack the neighborhood it is as irrelevant as it is possible to be if 2 or 20 of his neighbors are gun owners unless they are literally shooting back at him right now. Essentially you are looking at a partial success story through a lens of faulty analysis and concluding that nothing is working.