I didn't say any independent researchers didn't think there was a link. I said independent researchers AFAIK have not found cause and effect. I did not even say independent researchers attempted to try to find such a link. The OP did not say there was cause and effect. It simply said gun laws are associated with gun death, which are mostly suicides. Those are two different things.
A better map would be one based on ownership rate, which is harder to determine, would be better than by who has stricter laws. For example, in terms of gun ownership Florida, California, Delaware and Maryland are about the same.
Using the "fewer suicides" argument has two big risks. Saying "stricter laws will reduce gun suicides" will beg the question "what about those of other means, don't they matter?" The other risk is that once laws are in place, and the gun suicides do indeed drop, but the suicide rate does not. You would have much less credibility when wanting to close "remaining loopholes". From there, one would have to ask "what about those other common suicide means?" If nothing, why not if suicide prevention is the goal?
The person I replied to someone who asked why suicides and daily gang violence, which is more common, is used as less of a rational than the relatively rare spree shooting. That is a good question. I think I gave a fairly good answer within your SOP, according to six DUers. It was also my honest opinion.
BTW, those are written by the same people