"Gunman Kills One at a Church in New Jersey"
My issue with the term is that it implies that the GUN incites the violence...as if without a gun this "gunman" would be a mere "man" and all would be well with the world.
I would prefer if the title were reworded to read:
Violent domestic quarrel ends with one dead at New Jersey church
I mean, is HOW the person was killed the most important element to this story? Someone died...while at church. My edited title points to that information, but also includes information on WHY this person was killed.
The media tries way too hard to connect guns to crime. Most likely, the killer from the story above would have found another weapon to use, had a gun not been available...like the person from the following headline off of the Los Angeles Times web site:
Scientology guard kills sword-wielding man
1) Why didn't they call him a "swordsman"? This would have been consistent with how people with guns are labeled
..."Scientology guard kills swordsman".
2) Why isn't the gun credited for stopping the "swordsman"? ..."Scientology guard shoots, kills swordsman"