The Virginia Tech shootings last year partially fed into a stereotype society tends to have about killers: they’re odd, strange, violent individuals that we can spot from a mile away. The reality was that Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter who murdered classmates and professors, was mentally ill. His illness manifested itself in rather frightening ways, such as “morbid and grotesque” class assignments.

Although the student body, faculty, and staff of Virginia Tech, along with the rest of us, were shocked, the profile that emerged conformed to images we have of criminals: deviant, threatening strangers. They’re never people that we really know, people that we spend time with, people that we trust.

Now, less than a year later, we have another campus shooting, this time at Northern Illinois University. This time, unlike Cho, the killer is described as “quiet, dependable, and fun-loving.” Steven Kazmierczak’s ex-girlfriend characterized him as someone who “wasn’t erratic. He wasn’t delusional. He was Steve; he was normal.” This assessment feeds into another stereotype: the nice, gentle boy, the kind that neighbors interviewed by reporters always describe as “the last person you’d imagine doing this awful thing.”

So we have the Monster and the Saint. But the reality is far more complex. As this article explains, Kazmierczak had mental problems, had “disturbing tattoos,” and had recently developed an interest in guns. Far from being a black-and-white caricature, the NIU gunman was many shades of grey, just like the majority of us.

In the battle over gun control and access to guns, there’s a lot of black-and-white arguments. But the truth is there’s a large, ambiguous middle– and that middle ground terrifies me. The moderate position is that guns are somehow okay when used by certain people in certain situations. This viewpoint is part of the reason why the reactions to these tragic events have prompted not just a resurrection of the gun control debate, but a reassessment by a lot of people on the issue of whether to have and use guns at all.

Yesterday, CNN carried a piece about college students in Utah, a state where concealed gun permits allow gun owners to carry weapons onto college campuses, among other public locations. Currently, the state legislature is considering modifying this right even further; if a pending bill passes, it will permit current concealed-weapons owners to carry these guns unconcealed in places like college campuses, hospitals, and sports venues.

I’m not so sure that’s wise. In the CNN article about students, the bill’s sponsor, Utah State Representative Curtis Oda stated, “When you see someone with a gun, you are looking at some of the most law-abiding people in the state.”

That might be, but I’m thinking more about a student quoted at the beginning of the article: “Nick” commented on his decision to carry a gun, saying “Last year, after Virginia Tech, I thought ‘I’m not going to be a victim.” From one perspective, that’s an understandable reaction. Who wants to end up dead in the morgue due to a rogue classmate?

But then I think: it’s easy to say that about the “monsters.” Can you say the same about the “saints”? Just how far are we willing to let things go until a mistake turns into a tragedy?

Then I noticed later in the day yesterday a news item that exemplified that for me. Just a mere 45-minute drive from my home,

An ROTC student carrying a nonfunctioning rifle on the campus of Cal State Dominguez Hills in Carson prompted a large police response after students reported that they had seen a man carrying what appeared to be an assault rifle on school grounds, authorities said today.

Fortunately, the authorities quickly assessed the situation and realized no threat was posed. But what might have happened if in the interim, “Nick” or someone like him decided that rather than being a victim, now was the time to act, rather than react? What if someone who was a legally licensed gun owner who carried a gun on campus decided to shoot that ROTC student, in the mistaken belief that it was another Cho or Kazmierczak?

What if a student, who under every other circumstance was a normal, outgoing student, got an “F” or “D” in their class, confronted their professor, and decided to respond in the heat of the moment with the gun they had strapped around their belt?

As Kevin Rechtenbach commented in the CNN article,

“If acts of terrorism continue on campus, then I will have no choice but to carry a concealed weapon”…

“But you see, that is where the problem lies: Everybody will end up carrying concealed weapons, and everyday problems will be solved with guns rather than words or even fists.”

This is one of the concerns I have about easy, free gun access in places like college campuses: students that age are still growing, still maturing, still experimenting. There’s a reason why many male criminals in prison are in their late teens and early twenties; raging testosterone combined with immaturity and incomplete judgment processing skills make for a volatile mix. It’s bad enough when it’s fists; why throw guns into the mix?

I disagree with Rechtenbach: there is always a choice. But that choice is not just his, it’s ours as well. Do we as a society limit access to weapons, or do we permit the increased possibility of a shootout at the student union? Is there a grey area here where a balance can be struck? Or is it a black-and-white issue? Hovering over all this is an unanswered question: how many more tragic school shootings will we allow ourselves to endure before we finally resolve the seemingly never-ending battle over gun control?