Could this have been prevented?

Yes. It could have been prevented. There. I have said it.

Everyone says that he was such a nice boy and he was the last one they would have suspected... I am sure he was a great guy, when he was on his medication. Everyone is so quick to blame the medication for causing this tragedy. Be careful with that. The problem isn't the medication, its the LACK of the proper medication. All of the reports state that the shooter went off his medication before he left his home in Urbana and headed north. Thus, we cannot blame the pharmaceutical companies, as he was no longer under their influence. Keeping him on his medication wouldn't have prevented it. We cannot force feed people pills. The solution is much simpler.

Also in the news is Senator Dick Durbin, for some legislation to increase campus security. That isn't going to fix it. Wait, this is old news. This was introduced back in April of 07.. It DIDN'T fix it.

We need to get rid of guns. I know this isn't a popular view. I am proud of Chicago's mayor for being one of the few brave enough to say it though. "We have a presidential election," Daley said. "People say they lose elections because they stand up to the gun manufacturers." (from a blog by Gary Washburn, see link). Nobody wants to anger the gun lovers... why? Oh yeah, cause they might SHOOT YOU. But lets stop and REALLY think about this for a minute. Had Kazmierczak not had the guns, he wouldn't have been able to harm as many people. Yes, he could have killed somepne with a knife, but it would have taken him longer and been a bit harder. They say that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sure, but it is a hell of a lot harder to kill someone with a board with a nail in it then with a glock.

Now, for everyone out there who is concerned with their 2nd amendment rights, lets take a moment and read the second amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

What does it mean? A well regulated Militia: latin in origin, basically is an army made of citizens when called to duty. Keep in mind, this was written in the 18th Century when the US didn't HAVE a full time army.

being necessary to the security of a free state: We must have an army for the country to defend itself if needed.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed: This is where it gets tricky. The right to keep the weapons is for those who will belong to the militia to defend the country. This was written in a time when a gun took several minutes to reload between single shots, inaccurate, and often considered more useful as clubs. I doubt the founding fathers ever expected to read newspapers with headlines about University students shooting each other or five dead in store shooting.

A normal citizen does not have any right to own a gun. there are so many deaths that could have been prevented.

Rather then talk about gun control they would rather discuss more pointless legislation and blame drug manufacturers that actually help people handle depression or anxiety... blame video games and rock music... but no, we can't dare actually talk about controlling the guns.