I had wondered if the break down hadn't happened, or if it simply had not been reported on. I had guessed that it hadn't been reported on because (a) the press has moved on to the next issue in this 24-hour news cycle where big stories are over within a week or so, or (b) describing how many people hadn't been shot dilutes the message they want the public to hear. It serves the narrative better if they can say "guy shoots in Vegas and hundreds are injured" as opposed to something like "guy shoots in Vegas, and while hundreds were injured only 20% were actually hit by bullets."
I'm not a big conspiracy theory guy. Especially when it comes to .gov conspiracy. Just seen too much ineptitude in .gov over my almost 30 years of working with government people at different levels. Also, in this day and age where there is a very lucrative market for insiders willing to blow the whistle, I can't imagine .gov being able to buy/threaten silence out of all the people that would need to be suppressed to make such conspiracies successful. That said, I can believe that the media, and those who play the media game, are willing to alter the perspective on stories to meet a certain goal. So, if the goal is to garner support for a new assault weapons ban, to get rid of bump stocks, and limit mag capacity, then not reporting on the break-down of injuries based on type of or cause of injury is just another move on the chessboard.