No Notoriety For Mass Shooters

I am sickened by the gun violence in this country.  No other western countries even comes close to the carnage our mass shooters do.  It's up to our country's leadership, starting at the top, to start the conversation and get some laws passed.  Anything would be better than what's been happening recently.  What's wrong with people?

Some journalists have tried to make a difference.  When the Columbine mass shooting happened many years ago, Anderson Cooper and several other journalists made a conscious decision not to give shooters the notoriety they desperately crave.  It was called No Notoriety, and he vowed not to utter the name of the shooter or show his picture.  (It's always a male).  I noticed that after the El Paso shooting, most journalists were not mentioning the name of the shooter.  There are people on both sides of this issue.  Some think saying their name doesn't change anything, others think that it does make a difference.

Proponents of naming shooters contend that providing the public with information about killers is crucial to preventing future violence.  Really?  Opponents of naming shooters contend that providing already arrested or deceased shooters names or pictures provides inspiration for those potentially primed to commit mass violence to follow suit.

Possible mass shooters can be pushed over the edge by finding a community of others who are similarly motivated.  Websites that post manifestos of haters may inspire others to act out.  Research also shows that mass murders take place in clusters.  One shooting begets another and another.

I certainly have no answer to this difficult question, but doing nothing is not acceptable.  Legislators, grow a pair, give up your partisan politics, and do what's right for the country.  This goes for the president too.  After all, is our presidents first and foremost job to keep us safe?  He, and congress are doing an abysmal job.