Better to have solid research rather than just personal research

One of my frustrations after each mass shooting is that there is a barrage of gun control recommendations and associated rhetoric to the effect that if you don't support gun control you must be evil or stupid. Set aside the issue that this is a Second Amendment right. Set aside the role of an armed civilian populace in the checks-and-balances equation of the Constitution. Set aside the fact that mass shootings are incredibly rare and a negligible percentage of homicides.

The frustration arises is as a rationalist. It is extremely rare, after a shooting, that any of the standard gun control recommendations would have made a difference. I have a pretty strong view of the Second Amendment as an unacknowledged and powerful check-and-balance but you cannot ignore the tragedies which arise from common gun ownership, even if such tragedies are rare or concentrated out of sight.

So intellectually I am open to the idea that perhaps there might be some recommendations which could reduce gun deaths and also preserve the checks-and-balance of the Second Amendment. However, over the years, as I have paid attention to the particulars of each mass shooting, I have never found a single one which would have been prevented through the implementation of the most popular gun control suggestions. Why talk about policies which are not pertinent to the actual realities of these tragedies.

It comes across as profoundly unserious at best and cynically motivated at worst.

But I have always had a hesitancy. That is what I am seeing and reading across time and varied circumstances. I might be right, but that is no rigorous analysis.

I just came across this research from Rand which comes close to addressing my concern. They aren't looking at whether particular policies are relevant to particular mass shootings. They are asking the bigger question of whether there is reliable affirmative evidence which supports the efficacy of the proposed regulations at all.

Their finding is that no, there is no such evidence. Half the policy recommendations have no research at all to support them and the other half have research but the results are mixed and inconclusive.

INCONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE

Background Checks
Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines
Child-Access Prevention Laws
Concealed-Carry Laws
Licensing and Permitting Requirements
Minimum Age Requirements
Waiting Periods

NO STUDIES MET OUR CRITERIA

Firearm Sales Reporting Requirements
Gun-Free Zones
Lost or Stolen Firearm Reporting Requirements
Prohibitions Associated with Mental Illness
Stand-Your-Ground Laws
Surrender of Firearms by Prohibited Possessors

Nice to have the imprimatur of Rand Corporation rather than just "I haven't found any evidence to support the efficacy of such policies.