I can't find a link to the article in question, it seems to only have been printed in the school newletter, but the man is here: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~crawford/index.html
His arguments were basically this:
He said that he understands people feel the need to "do something" and that it's easiest to blame the object (in this case the Gun.)
He says That it's pointless to remove certain weapons because people will always find a lethal substitute. He specifically mentions bombs would possibly come into the fray.
He mentions how the vast majority of crimes have nothing to do with "assault" weapons.
He also points out that hardening the target is probably the best way t prevent this sort of thing and specifically mentions outdoor long range cameras which could identify threats quickly and alert first responders, he does not elaborate on this though.
He finishes the piece by stating that most mass murders are stopped when the murderer-to-be tells someone who reports their plan.
Pretty typical arguments for someone well versed in this debate but amazing, to me, for being published in a school magazine. Bravo to Dr. Charles Crawford and bravo to the magazine editor!