Interesting, I hadn't seen this one before. Just keep in mind the inherent bias of the writer:

"I have reviewed recent research in hopes of debunking some of the common misconceptions I hear creeping into discussions that spring up whenever a mass shooting occurs."

Of course my source has bias as well (as do all) so just saying it's something to keep in mind.

Some concerns I have with the study you linked: - It limits the data to "wealthy" contries without justification or saying how wealthy is defined - it does not specify how they define "mass shooting" which is important to consider. If my memory serves the source I linked used the FBI definition of "a single act where 4 or more people are killed excluding the shooter" - it uses total number of mass shootings instead of per capital. Of course a country with 1million people is going to have a lower total number since they would need a mass shooting rate 30000% that of the United States to reach the same total number. Which rolls into the next point: - the "wealthy" definition inherently cuts out some of the largest countries like China, Russia, and India making the US the largest one considered, and skewing the data to make the US look worse. - and, like you said, their source data is not provided - it only looks at frequency, not total deaths (although it's arguable which one is a better representation, it would be useful to see)

But yes thank you for engaging and providing some actual sources as well. Always happy to engage in rational discussion, it just drives me mad when you hear people say that "the US is the only place where mass shootings happen"

But, even with the study you provided