It's an interesting problem. On the one hand, its natural to want to understand what motivated the murderer.
If you can understand the why then maybe you can prevent the next one.
If he was motivated by a feeling of irrelevance and part of his pay-off was the attention his thoughts and feelings would get in the aftermath, then we need to not do that.
I agree - but I don't think that this is helping discover the why - or at least, not diving deeply enough. It isn't to be found in the person committing it as much as the society that encourages it perhaps. It is part of the problem I reckon.
A friend of mine spent a few years in the US, and said it's very different to Australia, culturally. Wealth and fame are so much more important there.
If people don't know your face or name and you don't look wealthy, you're irrelevant. Background noise.
Seems like the perfect storm for people facing a lifetime of being background noise, to decide there's only one way to become a household name.
Martin Bryant is a household name here; but nobody wants to emulate him; because being a household name isn't really that important.
This is an incredibly salient point. With such an disparity in wealth, it makes it a tinderbox for so many social dysfunctions.