> Klebold and Harris weren't engaged in explosive rage.
On the contrary, there seems to be quite a lot of evidence for long building 'explosive rage' on their part. Go ahead and look at Harris's notebooks, or the transcripts from Klebold's tapes for examples. Or just read Cullen actually - where he talks about Harris's website entries, and Klebold's "fits of rage". And there seem to be many complex reasons for that rage.
> Klebold was a pscyhopath who was unable to feel empathy. he was perfectly willing to lie, cheat, kill, and steal simply to get what he wanted - whatever it was. they have no sense of connection to other people. Harris was a depressive.
It's important to get this right, so that the evidence of their respective behaviours is understood. Harris is the one alleged to have been a psychopath according to Cullen; Klebold was the depressive. (At least, this was according to the original Slate article - perhaps the book argues to the contrary). It's striking that the evidence is so patchy that the 'psychopath' diagnosis could potentially be stretched to cover either Harris or Klebold.
By the way, it's not impossible to reach a diagnosis based on material collected post-mortem, but anything offered as such has to be treated as highly provisional, not as a set of facts. We don't know about Klebold or Harris's 'inner life', as it were. We have scrappy evidence of interviews with relatives and classmates, their own undoubtedly self-deceiving and self-serving testimonies in written and oral form, some experience that Harris had with a psychiatrist to deal with his anger and depression issues (yeah, explosive anger). It's a serious mistake to think this gives us a definitive diagnosis, or reason to say with absolute certainty that Harris could not 'feel' (this seems implausible), even if the category of 'psychopath' wasn't just a placeholder.
Mark Ames is on much stronger ground by focusing on the social relations, hierarchies, families, authorities, cultural environment and so on that the pair were embedded in. Because this is where the carefully cultivated barrier between interior and exterior, between the psychic and the social, or between subject and structure, breaks down.