Thank God he didn't have a nuke.
Is it that hard to accept the reasonable conclusion that the fact that this guy didn't have a gun (which is a common and easily obtainable weapon in the US....unlike nukes) saved many lives?
Lives were also hypothetically saved by the fact that he didn't build a bomb. Or by the fact he didn't burn the building down. No one is doubting it could have been worse, but guns had nothing to do with this.
And what percentage of things like this happen with self-built bombs or by burning down the building? You can find a long list of things that are deadly, but guns are used in the vast majority of cases.
Be happy he apparently didn't have access to one.