Wow, you're kind of an entitled asshole. Are you implying that if news networks covered children dying of starvation on a daily basis, no one would care? Perhaps people are showing an outpouring of sympathy because they're reading and hearing about a terrible event covered by national news networks. Remember last year when they got the story about Kony in Africa? Remember all the facebook "bleating" about that, then?
A lot of this is driven by what people see and hear on a daily basis. It's not a hard concept--people are busy running their lives and the only news they get, is news like this that shows up on the morning news show before they head out to work. If they were covering Sudan 24/7, there would be sympathy for that too.
Cute. Really edgy. If you apply a little bit of critical thinking, you'll find that it's pretty simple why this event has gotten a lot of media attention: 1) it's a domestic event 2) it's lethality is terrible 3) news networks cover what will get them more viewers and subscribers. Given number three, an event where a small, peaceful town was torn apart by a shooting spree is going to garner much more viewers than news stories about children in a far away place. Whether or not that's right or wrong is irrelevant.
I know we've all been pretty big on painting with as wide a brush as possible, but let's not get carried away. I have a BA in history and a MA in European history and yet I, too, am a gun owner and do not want my rifle taken away from me either. I will agree with you that unlimited access to firearms coupled with the US crime rate adds to an increase in fatalities. That's a given. However, to imply that strict gun control is the answer (strict control of ammunition would be wiser anyway), is to miss the underlying causes of the issue. We should be addressing the societal trends that are causing people to go on shooting sprees like this. We're going through some pretty large transitions here in the industrialized world that we haven't had to do since the onset of the industrial revolution. During the late 1800s, there was a large increase in bombings and assassinations associated with social change. We're going through the same thing now. We need to address the problems that make people feel like they want to shoot things, not take away their means to do so. If you look carefully, you'll see that mass knifings are actually pretty common in Chinese schools. Restrictions on firearms in China have cut down on the number of fatalities given that these attackers are using knives--however, these attacks are still taking place. Think about it.
While it's all well and fun to poke fun at Americans for being backwards and ignorant, it's not quite productive. American culture regarding guns is significantly different than European gun culture. Gun ownership was considered a fundamental part of American society going back to the 1700s. The men that founded this country felt that a populace that was armed was a good deterrent to the tyranny they felt they were fleeing in Europe where few owned guns. While things have since changed in ways that they could not have foreseen, the culture of gun ownership has not. Europeans look down on Americans these days for owning guns. It's crude and backwards and all that. Interestingly enough, if you read travel diaries of Europeans in America during the 1800s, you'll note that they look down on Americans for owning horses. Horses were the prerogative of the landed class in Europe. In America, anyone could own one. Different times, different cultures. It's worth taking a step back to think about.