Guns are not the problem. From the data I have seen...
Most of the questions relate to the fact that the US is a very large country being compared to a bunch of much smaller countries. Some are very small, others are just small compared to the US.
Suppose –for the sake of argument — that mass shootings are about equally common in the US and Europe.
In the US, one would expect a few shootings every year because it is very large.
In a group of much smaller countries, some countries would have no shootings and some countries would have 1 or 2. Over time, these would average out but over short samples, a particular small country could look very safe or very dangerous, even though it is really no safer or more dangerous than other small countries or the large country.
With this in mind, here are the answers to the questions.
1. One would expect this because in a group of small countries, a few will have no shootings and a few will have 1 or 2 shootings. The ones with shootings will look dangerous.
2. It is probably not fair to say that the “US is becoming safer relative to Europe,” but it is fair to say that “the US looks about as safe as Europe,” when we look at all the data, including data from the past year.
3. No, it would not be more relevant to look at the casualty rates on a year by year basis. Because shootings are so rare, as one looks at smaller time intervals, there will a few very dangerous small countries and a few that look very safe, even though they are really no different.
4. Norway is probably not more dangerous with respect to mass shootings than the US but it — and other European countries — are also probably no safer either.
As I look at the numbers, it seems very likely to me that the US and Europe have similar rates of mass shootings, with the US looking perhaps marginally safer. The rankings that I see are consistent with this.
I hope this helps the cooler find the root of the problem.
