I saw your articles and the thing is the media reporting these things isn't the main reason for these shooting sprees.
OF course they're not the main reason.
Getting fired, arguments about video games, GF/wives leaving, no GF forever, wanting to enter the next world faster, etc is usually the cause of wanting to do something stupid.
Their method of solving their problem is what makes them copycats though. They think it's a suitable way of solving their problem, hence so many professionals and experts telling the media to stop feeding the thirst for blood.
I am sorry 10+ kids being shot up should be front page news and probably for days.
Why are you so blood thirsty?
For the sake of saving more lives, it shouldn't be. It can still appear SOMEWHERE, but why give the death of whomever full 24/7 media coverage with a disembodied voice needing to make shit up for every second, or else lose people's interest? Like i said before, people are murdered, suicide, and die every single day and hour. What makes certain deaths matter so much when you already don't give a shit about other multi-kill streaks like with gang members? Even local media won't report on local issues like that unless some white person got involved or the cops were shot at too.
Are you too young to remember what it was like before the news started sensationalize everything, hence believing shit like that needs to be front page news damn the costs?
Here is a more pertinent study.
https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868
I like this part
We found similar findings in other studies examining legislation targeting multiple elements of regulations in other countries (122126), ... findings have not been replicated. (about Australia's ban)
Also, almost every law that banned guns increased violence/murders. Laws that made punishments more severe for infractions or actually preventing those that shouldn't own guns (crimnals, domestic abuses, etc) actually did reduce violence/deaths.
about DC ban
found that the law was not associated with abrupt or gradual changes in homicide rates (no estimates for the law-suicide rates association were reported)
1968 Gun Control act
Magaddino and Medoff (96), using data for the period 19471977 in structural models adjusted by state characteristics, found that the law was not associated with changes in homicide rates.
About gun buy backs (reducing number of guns in various areas/countries)
found no association between the program and firearm homicides but a reduction in suicide rates associated with the number of firearms that were bought back.
About increasing punishments for gun infractions (depending on the city/state tho):
Rosenfeld et al. (92) added more years (19922001) and used adjusted multilevel models, and they observed a 22% yearly reduction in firearm homicides
About US assault weapon ban:
Koper and Roth (76) using UCR data (19801995) found no association between the law and homicide rates in 15 states after adjusting for the presence of other firearm laws and crime laws in New York and California. A recent study by Gius (48) showed that the federal assault weapons ban was associated with higher rates of firearm homicides.
Also, read up on on the Aussieland 1996 ban. It becomes a mixed result (the law having an affect on homicide rates OR not having an affect) if you go through the results historically.
I am not sure what it has to do with comprehensive gun policy.
It doesn't. All I've really done is dismiss OP's theory, because it doesn't explain shit, especially when other comprehensive studies show a more direct correlation between mass killings and the news media. The correlation is so strong that they can predict the future:
In fact, the authors did discover a temporal contagion among
all datasets (USA today 4 or more deaths, Brady Bill 4 or more deaths, and Brady Bill school
shootings) except one (Brady Bill 3 or fewer deaths). Moreover, the rate of mass shootings has
escalated to, on average, one every 12.5 days in the United States, and one school shooting
happens on average every 31.6 days. The most disturbing finding is that for every three
incidents, at least one new incident is guaranteed, or copied, within 13 days.
Ok, maybe i was on topic earlier when I said WHY DID MASS SHOOTINGS BECOME SO PREVALENT NOW? Everything about obtaining firearms, buying fully automatic rifles and machine guns, and NO BACKGROUND checks would have made it far easier to enact mass killings pre-90s/80s. Nevermind the fact that there's far less violence today than most other decades.
The only explanation is the fact that the news media has increased their coverage and has increased the amount of time that they can cover those violence crimes.
I blame princess Diana's death. Around the clock news really did not begin until then. OJ helped too.