That's right. Bogative's teeth-gnashing and general racist pandering in this thread resolves around not understanding - or understanding perfectly well but refusing to acknowledge - that there are two broad but very different categories that "mass shootings" fall into.
The first category is people getting into arguments and altercations which develop into fights, and then rapidly into gunfights because the arguers happened to be armed and shooting at the other person is what you do when you're armed and someone starts an altercation with you because "ermagerd, fear of bodily harm". These shootings are limited in "intent" - such intent as there may be - but easily become mass shootings when they happen in public and there are crowds of bystanders around who weren't involved or targeted but managed to get hit by all the bullets flying around. The overarching cause of this problem is the proliferation of guns, and the cause of that in turn is a fetish for guns and the trappings of gun culture which is widely deeply embedded in the modern image of America and what it means to be American.
The second category is incidents like the Buffalo shooting, where the shooters go to a place planning to kill people they don't individually know and have no personal dispute with but rather because the people - or even, in some cases, the place itself, and thus the people at it by extension - represent some unforgivable ideological transgression. Usually the goal is a high score - to kill as many people as possible before they are stopped - and for that reason these shootings involve a fair amount more deliberation. There's more planning involved, and different kinds of planning. Because the shooters feel they are motivated by a higher cause, they often feel compelled to justify themselves, which is why they tend to leave things behind ahead of time explaining why they've done what they've done.
However politically or rhetorically inconvenient it is, the fact is the two types of shootings are very different in fundamental ways.
