I've seen it a few times in the past few years, and I do agree with you about it feeling like an essay. It explores several topics, but never answers anything—something it never set out to do. I can appreciate its good techniques and strong appeal to emotion (even if it relies on the latter a bit too much).
However, it lacks a central theme (not even "what societal issues could have caused the Columbine shooting"). Because its lack of a central theme, it often feels as if it's bouncing between topics at times and hoping one resonates with the viewer. I know that the only topic that stuck with me to this day is regarding the 24-hour news cycle and the motto of "blood sells" leading to fear. Perhaps this is because, with the other topics, I either disagreed with what was trying to be presented, or I thought they were too tangential to really matter. Could probably do a long in-depth analysis on this film if I really wanted to.
Overall, it's not completely terrible, but it should absolutely not be treated as a Columbine documentary.
_________________
"Why and how can physical evidence selectively be ignored by Jefferson County when it conflicts with the statements given by traumatized and injured eye-witnesses?" –Brian Rohrbough, 2002