The bigger problem here is that this person was known to be prone to violence. Student after student is proclaiming that everyone knew this kid was troubled and potentially dangerous. In a sane society we should have the basic infrastructure to make sure that when someone demonstrates themselves as a threat to themselves or others they are A.) segregated so that they can't commit harm and B.) rehabilitated if possible. The idea that we should focus the entirety of the debate on the weapon used and not the person who committed the crime would be like going to a father whose daughter was raped and killed and saying, "hey, at least he didn't use a gun"

Whenever we talk about MENTAL HEALTH we always think of it in the terms of The voice in the radio said this or the little alien on my shoulder made me do it. That says nothing of the nihilistic blood lust that has begun to permeate our culture. The devaluation of human life and the primacy of feelings specifically rage naturally gives way to more and more anti-social behavior and in extreme cases violent psychopathy.

Last of all, why is no one talking about actually protecting the schools. The debate generally devolves into Should we or should we not Take guns away from the good guys. Should we or should we not ad this hurdle that only law abiding citizens will comply with. Should we or should we not have more and more spaces where bad people KNOW there is no armed opposition. At what point do we make the common sense suggestion that we SHOULD have the infrastructure to make sure that a student who has already been expelled with a history of terroristic (little t) threats can't just walk onto a school campus? When are we going to seriously consider "Should we or should we not have basic security in vulnerable locations to make sure that in extreme circumstances we don't just have a shooting gallery?"

---