a fine line, isn't it? knowledge vs notoriety.  I think the name could be used - but no reference to that person's life, beliefs, political  beliefs etc  - no excuses.  A simple statement of fact is more confronting than all the information of why he did it ( again no excuses or reasons) . Besides that, do we then only mention the victims, who are going to be remembered purely as 'victim of a mass shooting' - or if less mention is made of it  - basically swept under the carpet ( as has almost happened with Sandy Hook shooting) as if they didn't exist.

Other than a dramatic changing of the gun laws and psychology of many Americans ( my niece went  to study in the US - first question from friends  - when will you get your gun?  - she never did!)  - then this will continue to happen every time.

Can I ask a question?     When Americans visit Australia for a holiday do they leave their guns at home or are they allowed to bring them into Australia?  Seems to me they might struggle to be separated from their weapons.

Why should we restrict what we say or how we refer to this murderer when clearly the Americans don't care enough to change their gun laws or their attitude to guns? It is claimed that 90% of Americans want to change the law to restrict gun ownership but they are not sufficiently bothered to change their voting habits to get some meaningful change and protect their children and loved ones.  When 40% of the population is stupid enough to vote for Trump and believe that the best way to reduce gun crime is to increase the number of guns in circulation when already the USA the  nation with the most guns has the highest gun deaths I don't think anything we do will make any difference.

Just this year we have seen one US gun massacre after another but it makes no difference. Australia needed Port Arthur, NZ needed Christchurch to outlaw semi-automatic sub-machine guns. It will clearly take more than a little restraint by Australians to bring Americans to their senses.