It’s a shame that the name Alex Hribal likely will be remembered far longer than Sam King.

Hribal is the 16-year-old accused of stabbing 22 people, one a security guard, the rest classmates, on Wednesday morning at Franklin Regional High School in the Pittsburgh suburb of Murrysville. He faces multiple felony counts of attempted homicide.

King is the assistant principal who tackled and restrained Hribal, preventing him from further attacks. King’s students are hailing him as a hero.

According to media reports, Hribal knocked down a classmate in the crowded hallway and stabbed him in the abdomen with a kitchen knife. He slashed another student’s face, then ran down the hall and continued attacking people, apparently at random.

King, 60, told police he heard the commotion and found a chaotic scene in the blood-soaked hall. He saw Hribal stab a security guard. He tackled Hribal, disarmed the boy of two knives and kept him on the floor until a school police officer handcuffed him.

Witnesses say King seemed to act on instinct without thought of his own safety. In the midst of calamity, King kept his head and took a calculated risk, which probably spared additional bloodshed and saved lives, according to Murrysville Police Chief Thomas Seefeld.

Friends and acquaintances describe Hribal as a quiet kid, shy and nonviolent, but by no means a loner or an outsider. Many are speculating a bullying incident sparked his stabbing spree, although no reports of specific bullying have surfaced.

And while it’s human nature to shake our heads in bewilderment and wonder what kind of demons taunted the assailant, it might be more productive to dwell on the assistant principal’s example than on the troubled teen’s.

Experience tells us there’s little we can do as a society to predict or prevent the perpetrators of school rampages. Dozens of such incidents are reported every year. And an increase in incidents seems to coincide with the introduction of “zero-tolerance” policies at public schools nearly a generation ago, although it would be nearly impossible to conclude the phenomena are linked in a cause-and-effect way.

It would be better to concentrate on the potential victims — the student body and faculty — and to consider doing everything within reason to prepare them for the possibility of an attack.

One simple preparation would be the inclusion of self-defense training in the physical education curriculum. Young people who enroll in martial arts programs, as well as their parents, can attest to the self-confidence and self-discipline such courses instill. Why wouldn’t we want to make these character-building skills available to all?

Many martial arts philosophies stress violence as a last resort of self-defense, intended to stop an attack rather than start one. And in the course of training, the student becomes aware of his or her individual abilities and limitations — important knowledge when confronted with the option to confront or flee.

Let’s not forget that the traditional Olympic competitions — including shooting, archery, javelin toss, fencing, equestrian sports, boxing, wrestling, and even marathon runs — are based on military skills of an earlier day. These skills were once taught to many young men as a matter course. They were taught in the anticipation of the rigors of life in a violent world.

Since those days, the world remains a violent place. And perhaps a zero-tolerance regard fails to protect our schools when violence enters their front door.

It would seem prudent to include self-defense in the gym curriculum, even if it crowds out things like badminton, square dance and floor hockey.

It might just save a life or prevent bloodshed.