Alternate History, what if the explosives worked/media reaction

One thing that instantly sprung from the incident was the obsession of blaming the firearms for the reason for the incident.

In the so called “documentary” Bowling for Columbine, which barely mentions the incident in the title and of course being factually incorrect. If i recall, that movie does not ever mention the explosive angle to the incident.


So I ask, if the bombs worked, here’s two scenarios, what if the incident was a bombing with no firearms at all, or it was as planned, a bombing and tbey used firearms as well? The mechanics of how the incident happens also factors in other failures, such as the sprinklers not working and what not. What if the explosives were strong enough as explained by some to cause enough structural damage to cause the upper floor to cave in? Presumably the vast majority of fatalities happens this way, does the media focus on this or do they obsess with the firearm angle.

It’s something that got me thinking following two random murder incidents in Toronto in 2018, in April of that year, one incident involved someone who rented a commercial van and drove down the sidewalk of Yonge Street in the heart of the former city of North York killing 10 people and injuring 16. The other incident involved a shooter firing at random on Danforth Avenue in July. He killed 2 (and himself) and injured 13. The media constantly went back to this story as the much more serious story as compared to the van attack which was obviously the more serious crime. Yet the obsession with the firearm caused the media to focus on the latter incident.

(Redacted)