Deadly shooting on Oregon college campus

So why do you think there are so much gun violence in the US and so little pressure cooker violence?

First in spite of the news media all violence including gun violence is at a near 100 years low.

Now as far as mass murderers they seems to take the path of least resister like the rest of us for that matter so picking up a gun take no thinking unlike building an IED.

Care to prove that?

n other words, it's far easier to kill with a gun than with a pressure cooker

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221

In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.

https://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Fox made his point in greater seems like these dreadful crimes are occurring more frequently, it is really the immediacy and pervasiveness of media coverage that creates the impression. And thanks to state-of-the-art technology, it can feel as though the tragedy happened in your own backyard."

In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.

In June, following gun attacks in California and Oregon, President Obama remarked that mass shootings are "becoming the norm." But some commentators claim that mass shootings are not on the rise. So which is it?

Have mass shootings become more common?
According to our statistical analysis of more than three decades of data, in 2011 the United States entered a new period in which mass shootings are occurring more frequently. Our analysis used data compiled by Mother Jones on attacks that took place in public, in which the shooter and the victims generally were unrelated and unknown to each other, and in which the shooter murdered four or more people. (An incident with four or more homicide victims was the threshold count for mass killing established by the FBI a decade ago; a federal law signed by President Obama in 2013 defined the threshold as three or more victims killed.)

So why do we keep hearing in the media that mass shootings have not increased?
This view stems from the work of Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox, who has long maintained that mass shootings are a stable phenomenon. ("The growing menace lies more in our fears than in the facts," he has said.) But Fox's oft-cited claim is based on a misguided approach to studying the problem: The data he uses includes all homicides in which four or more people were murdered with a gun. His analysis, which counts the number of events per year, lumps together mass shootings in public places with a far more numerous set of mass murders that are contextually distinct—a majority of which stem from domestic violence and occur in private homes. Fox's annual count and use of overly broad data including many types of mass killings fail to detect the recent shift in public mass shootings.

No it is harder to killed large numbers of people with a firearm not easier and thank god for lazy would be mass murderers.