Who killed at Virginia Tech?

In an insteresting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Gary Lavergne says, "More than four dozen innocent people were gunned down by a murderer who is completely responsible for what happened. No one died for lack of text messages or an alarm system. They died of gunshot wounds." And, "(...) as long as we value living in a free society, we will be vulnerable to those who do harm -- because they want to and know how to do it."

Well, it's true that gun shots killed people there, but here we have a little trick. Even if they would have been protected by alarm systems, the death cause wouldn't by different. It is far from appropriate to put in the same balance two different things on scale of events. But the two phrases above rise the question: Wouldn't be better to have a more equitable distributed system of protection? I mean, yes, some guy may be angry on some class mates, a little deranged, doped, or with who knows how much alcohol on board. But why he doesn't go in the Parliament, or in the local police office, or even on the street? I think the most accurate answer is that in other cases the risks to be stopped (sometimes even before to begin your "revenge") are bigger. Opposing these risks we find those of getting in a university campus or in a high school. And with that it should start any discourse on this subject.