B.) You shouldn't kill someone if it's not justified? Okay, Ram. You sit there and get murdered. I'm going to fight tooth and nail to protect myself and those around me.
As in, don't point a gun at their head in self defense. Maybe incapacitation might work. If you have no choice, fine. But there are incidents when maybe a victim could have shot their gun arm/hand or whatever, but instead had a direct chest/head shot. Negotiation, maybe. Although that wouldn't work on a crazy madman like this one.
C.) The way the media has covered this has indeed been a disgrace. Part of me wonders if the way the media covers these stories is one of the reasons that they continue. The shooters names become household, but nobody remembers the victims. The media treats the killers like celebrities, people that will be remembered throughout history. Perhaps in the media didn't put such an emphasis on what monsters the killers were, they would not be so quick to attempt to get their name in the record books.
I agree on that. I've had my share of debates on this issue. The media does what it does to keep going. Why? Because in the first hours/days after the incident, the emotions are at their highest. The media make top stories when they incorporate emotion. It happens with any other major incident. Take those miners trapped down in Chile or wherever back in what was it, 2009? The moment they got rescued, the media dragged them in and pay them to front the cameras. And when they ask, "Do you miss your families?", they can't say "Fuck you, you haven't even let me see them yet." So instead, they pour out their emotions.
The media does have problems in many social and ethical aspects. Their system also needs to undergo reviewing.