Some things just don't make sense.

A week ago Monday, a student, clearly unstable, wielding easily purchased guns, went from classroom to classroom at Virginia Tech and methodically shot at everyone he saw. By the time he turned the gun on himself, 32 people had been slain and more than two dozen wounded.

A horrified nation went into collective shock. How could this happen?

Experts can make educated guesses on what drove Cho Seung-Hui to this horrific act, but, when all is said and done, the why of what happened will remain nothing but speculation. Because the killer killed himself, experts must sift clues from e-mails he left, what writings might have been in his room, what those who knew him might be able to add. But this will not provide a definitive answer.

In an attempt to help people gain some sort of understanding about this irrational act, the media filled newsprint and the airwaves with postmortem reconstructions of the crime scene, the killer's life and the lives of those he had slain. Analyses sought to explain what drove the killer, why someone who had been judged a danger to himself and others did not get the treatment he needed, and how other schools and institutions evaluate and deal with similar types of problem people.

As has been the case for far too long, the messenger became the scapegoat. How could the media print and air Cho's rantings?

The simple answer: News happens, the media report it, although not always as well or as consistently as they have in the past. When a story that has such an immediate impact as the Virginia Tech killings comes along, media outlets do rise to the occasion. People need to hear the details and understand the dynamics behind such events. They might not like what they read, but without sufficient information, the public cannot adequately assess how similar incidents might be prevented.

No magic formula will make all such violence disappear. Yet, ignoring the lessons of this tragedy, not addressing what to do with people who are judged a danger to themselves or others (as Cho was), hiding behind the Second Amendment, rather than discussing ways to keep weapons from being easily bought by those too unstable to own them, will only guarantee more shooting sprees and more innocent deaths.

As the messenger, the media must report accurately and fairly. But the media must also take responsibility when they do sensationalize. And news outlets did just that when they characterized the Virginia Tech as the worst mass killing shooting in the nation's modern history. That it might well be, but breaking down killings into categories seems a bit macabre. That allows for too many "worsts."

One death or 3,000 shouldn't make a difference; all should shock sensibilities, some more jarring because of their nature.

So, yes, 32 killed by one person in one place at one time does shock. But on that same day, 85 people died because of sectarian violence in Iraq. Such violence has become a daily occurrence that doesn't get much news play until a significant number has been killed, like last Wednesday's suicide bombings that killed 172. But that happened there not here, the rationale might go. War rages there; Virginia Tech occurred in a peaceful atmosphere.

Yet, many of those killed in Iraq had been on buses going to work or in markets buying food or in line waiting to apply for jobs or studying at universities. Innocent deaths anywhere at the hands of violence should be mourned.

Americans mourned the Virginia Tech deaths. For the past several days, flags have been flying at half-staff in honor of the 32 people killed there. Such a tribute shows the caring nature of this nation. Flags flew at half-staff in 1995 when 168 died in the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and again in 2001, when terrorist attacks claimed an estimated 3,000 lives.

Eight American servicemen and women lost their lives in Iraq on the day of the Virginia Tech killings. In the week since, a total of 22 have died, bringing total war deaths since March 19, 2003, to 3,323. They continue to die in a war that should not have occurred and one that an increasing number of people in and out of government feel must end.

Their names rarely appear in the media. They remain anonymous to most of the people in this nation, just numbers compiled and placed at the end of news stories about Iraq.

Shouldn't a nation at war have its flags continually at half-staff to honor the ultimate sacrifices of those who, at their government's behest, put themselves in harm's way? And shouldn't those flags remain lowered until the last soldier, sailor or airman in that war comes safely home?

Richard Larsen is a deputy opinion page editor at The Star. His e-mail address is rlarsen@VenturaCountyStar.com.