Besides all that, don't you think that your points don't quite match the observed facts? I mean, in most rampages so far, we have seen the perpetrators use long guns.
No, in fact I don't think that's true at all. The guy who shot Rep Giffords used pistols, as did the VA Tech shooter.
I disagree. Concealment is a pretty big plus for these kinds of people - if you lug a rifle around populated areas people start calling the cops. Beyond that, pistols are lighter, pistol ammunition is lighter and deadly enough at close range, pistols are faster to reload, it's easier to shift targets with a pistol, and it's harder to grapple someone with a pistol. Beyond that these guys are mostly penniless losers, and pistols are cheaper.
There are a whole lot of people out there who can hit the kill zone on a man-sized target from 265 ft. That's not a long distance for a rifle. A novice could probably do it after a lesson and a half hour of practice. Qualification range for marines is 500 meters from a prone position.
Long guns are almost never used to kill people (domestically, anyway). Your odds of being beaten to death with fists are five times greater. For the rampage killer pistols make more sense for a whole host of reasons.
As recent trends have shown, not just in the US but in many other countries, what you can actually get with a highly educated population is not everybody becoming rich, but rather lots of highly educated people with no job prospects.
This. Education doesn't create jobs. The people you need to fill high-end jobs are more likely to be around if your education system is good, but saying education creates jobs is putting the cart before the horse.