Because the shooter was confronted by an armed civilian within seconds and took his own life.
I watched this develop this morning.
“Shooting in OK at a WalMart”.
My antenna went up with first thought “El Paso”.
Then shortly after, “Three dead including the shooter in the parking lot of the WalMart”.
Second thought was it was a domestic.
Didn’t take long for it to be confirmed.
But I can see why the media jumped on it.
A sorry situation.
You seem to pay very little import on the fact that two innocent people were shot and killed by a person using a GUN to murder them.
As for your claim in the title of this thread: a quick google search shows links from The New York Times; Business Insider Nordic; CNN; CBS; Daily Mail, USA Today; Daily Telegraph; Voice of America; MSNBC; NBC; et al.
An interesting theory, but seems more likely that it’s not getting a lot of intention because it seems it was personal dispute as opposed to a mass shooting.
And it was a man with a gun who stopped him.
The instrument is irrelevant, it’s just a tool.
Then why did he only take his life after being confronted by the armed citizens which of course is what usually leads mass shooters to take their own lives?
If we follow your logic he should have just shot himself immediately after killing the ex and new spouse without being confronted.
I am sure that the police were called very quickly.
So if the armed citizen was not there, the police would have been there shortly.
Considering the reports that I have seen, I don’t think that the shooter was out to get anyone else.
He was going to do himself in no matter who challenged him with another weapon IMHO.
A man suspected of driving while intoxicated killed an innocent child in Utah. Do you blame the vehicle?
4 innocent people lost their lives. Do you blame the knives as you do the gun?
I would wonder if Westaussie is really from there. And therefore how some many people from other countries with such different gun laws really understand how our gun laws work.
Over the years I have seen so many “knee jerk” reactions when these types of stories come out.
And I have seen how difficult it can be to explain to them how our laws work.
Yep if the guy used a bomb instead of a gun there’s no difference.
Yep, you blame BOTH.
Average response time is over 4.5 minutes in the US.
Someone who is determined and of only moderate skills can kill a dozen or more people in 20 seconds.
In the vast majority of cases the police simply arrive in time to count the bodies and write up reports.
What we know for sure is that in this case a quick thinking, stand up guy stopped him within seconds ensuring there were no more casualties.
It’s almost scary that on occasion you accidentally say something 100% correct.
And yet you never come out demanding “common sense knife laws” or the banning of “assault knives”.
There is no doubt where I am domiciled and my nationality. My initial response in this thread was to highlight that the thread’s title was not correct. There were many news outlets that had provided information on this tragic event.
For the record I have also put on record several times that it is up the electors of the USA to decide whether they want to vote for candidates who believe that there is a need to reform gun laws in the USA. Quite clearly in other threads I have expressed my own personal view as is appropriate on a forum like this. It has been expressed openly and without subterfuge.
Well that’s simply false, the story got barely any notice at all.
Your “Someone who is determined and of only moderate skills can kill a dozen or more people in 20 seconds.” lends itself to the very strong imperative that sensible gun laws reform is necessary.
I already pointed out that various news outlets had stories about this incident. It is unreasonable to assert that there was very little coverage of the incident.
No it doesn’t particularly what you label as “sensible gun reforms”.
I could kill or maim that many people with any of a dozen bolt or lever action hunting rifles I own in less time.
What you know on the subject wouldn’t fill a thimble and all you have to offer is bias.