No offense intended here. I can understand your’s and other’s sentiments on mentioning the name of the perpetrator, but to me that thinking is really the same kind of politically correct control behavior about which we complain here very frequently. It usually regards “correct speech or actions” associated with not stigmatizing some victim or other or just to place blame.
Mentioning his name or not won’t change a thing. The gun grabbers will still go on and the facts unpleasant to the liberal side will always be suppressed=. The victims will still be dead, and this man’s soul will still be roasting in hell.
He wins if he gets the attention in life or death. Nothing PC there I can detect.
I don’t know if he’s roasting in a fire or just worm food. Faith is a personal thing.
I think this guy ran around with a rat in his defective brain. He found away to kill it. Unfortunately he didn’t kill it before he killed all those innocent folks.
I think the point of not mentioning his name is to not encourage other psycho losets like him to seek their own “fame” through a mass killing.
These bastards murder others under the sick impression that the notoriety makes them worth something. (Even John Wilkes Booth was enthralled by the idea that assassinating Lincoln would give him eternal fame). They seek out information about prior cases, and imitate them. Oregon boy seemed inspired by the Colombine losers and Adam Lanza, and particularly the way that resentful Vester Flanagan got lots of attention. Denying “celebrity” to killers potentially breaks the cycle.
That’s at least the theory. It’s not about PC or gun control.