I agree that mass shootings are publicized way beyond their damage compared to other gun violence but I understand the public concern. Decades ago I read Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter about the Manson Family slayings. The book was disturbing, obviously, but what truly affected me was the killing of the de la Rosa couple (I might be off on the name). That middle-aged couple was killed as “practice” for planned murders. They were randomly chosen.
This is significant because we comfort ourselves with the idea that most risks can be minimized with some precautions. If we don’t want to be shot, we avoid drugs and gangs, don’t hang out with violent people, stay away from guns in the wrong hands, don’t piss off the wrong people, avoid crowds and volatile situations and generally live innocuous lives. But mass shootings are often random and people caught up in them are frequently just in the wrong place at the wrong time. So our veneer of safety is ripped apart and we are exposed to our vulnerability. Thus, the public is disturbed by these more than others because there is no way to really protect yourself or loved ones. Everyone is a potential mass shooting victim regardless of precautions.
I don’t contend the focus is right, just understandable.
AND.... Huge policy and law actions based on phenomenon that happen in tiny, tiny numbers generally, or perhaps always, cause negative consequences in some other area of society in much more substantial numbers. But then, in this case, that’s kinda the point.
So called mass shootings are rare, and the numbers affected are tiny.
By the way, even in the area of multiple-victim shootings, the motives vary substantively.