BINGO!!! That is exactly what I have been saying. The desire for fame is the same motivation many assassins of high profile figures crave. Gavin DeBecker reports the same thing in "The Gift of Fear."
Bruce Schneier (not a gun guy, but a general security guy who tends to be very good on privacy issues) just blogged about fear vs. anger. He discusses some research showing that fear produces less productive responses than anger. A lot of the media attention seems designed to make us afraid. Reading Schneier's link, it looks like our fearful responses to shootings are as ineffective as our fearful responses to terrorism.
Remember fire drills? Public places need to develop a common and established procedure when a shooter occurs. Every one has to have some idea what to do, and not to be an easy target.
I agree with your suggestions, but with a reservation. Staging "duck and cover" drills may increase the hysteria surrounding mass shootings. It's only worth it if it gives you an actionable response that makes a difference. The classic duck and cover drills in schools were stupid -- if you're close enough to hear the bang or see the flash of a nuclear strike, hiding under your desk won't help.
Having a procedure is good, though. If we could come up with good methods that might make a difference, I'd be all for that. There are a few things that seem like they'd make a big difference, but are just about impossible:
(1) Give the folks in the classroom something better to defend themselves than throwing things at the shooter (guns)
(2) Address the societal ills that produce these cases (within the lifetime of some of TFL's membership, kids brought their hunting guns to school and stored them in their lockers)
Those are tough -- some candidates have been suggested in this thread. My favorite three are media glamorization, over-medication, and lack of parental oversight and discipline. I could be wrong, but it is what I think, anyway .
-Jephthai-