But how does a name and face help, other than to encourage those who share his ideology to see him as some sort of icon or martyr? (assuming in this case the fellow _has_ an ideology, which isn't 100% clear at this point, for this particular case, simply because it's rather early, but i'ts clearly a common thing in general). Or, in non-explicitly-ideological cases, to encourage the psychopathic in general to believe that a crash-and-burn rampage is a way to get the world to pay attention to them and their unhappiness?
When one looks at the figures, these spree-killings seem to have been gradually, non-monatonically, increasing in scale, as if each is looking to set a new record to gain attention. Whether they are are political terrorism or individual acting-out (and those are two different things that nonetheless overlap and blur into each other), a desire to have the world pay attention to your internal problems as well as your political grievances is pretty obviously part of the motivation.
Seriously, how does a name and face add anything to what is already known about toxic politics, gun-ownership, and general male-inadaquacy? For political terror I entirely agree one can't ignore the events or the ideology and socio-political-factors behind them, but there is still no reason to turn an individual into some sort of star (or anti-star). They don't deserve it, because, frankly, they didn't do anything that is particularly hard or clever. There's no great accomplishment in going amok with a gun, especially not in a society where you can buy a gun from a supermarket.
I have no interest in their names - they want me to know them, I'm not interested.
(In a different, yet similar, spirit, I try quite hard not to hear anything about the doings and personal utterances of our Royal Family - I'm not interested in them as individuals either, I resent constantly being told about them, I'm only interested in the political effect of that institution and what might bring about the end of it)
Facebook
Twitter