Earmarking university politics as being any more assinine or convoluted than any other political institution is kind of silly. It's not as though governmental bodies or economic institutions have somehow stood out as being more efficient, more realistic, or more effective.
The basic assumption, however false, is that an institution of higher learning will be less likely to be a setting for such an event. And statistically speaking, it's a correct assumption. High schools are more likely, but they are also less selective in terms of the populace. Consider the notion of flying being safer than driving. It's true. You are more likely to be hurt or killed in an automobile, even proportionally, than in on a flight. However, that's not exactly consolation to people who crash to the earth in a giant burning coffin.
It's not just a question of money, it's a question of what sort of atmosphere and climate a university seeks. Most academic administrations will resist increasing security measures on the basis that it will be viewed as distracting from the learning environment (at best). We can't yet ascertain the motivation of the shooter, but money says that whatever the motivation, the setting won't say as much about the reasons as other possible influences on his motivation.