@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Twitter is really furious. A lot of blacks and millennials are making points about the difference in the way murders are covered in the press.
"Watch. They'll start saying he was mentally ill," many of them tweeted. This jabbed my sensibilities because I strongly assume the shooter IS mentally ill.
But, why didn't I think that about the Boston bombers? I immediately assigned them terrorist status, and wanted them to pay. Same with James Whatever who shot up a movie theater. Upon seeing his glazed eyed nutty face, I instantly relegated him to psycho status.
But, I think these angry people have a point. Do you feel comfortable with the method you use to delineate these people?
In the past 5 years related to all these shootings. ALL of the shooters have been mentally ill or have had a case of psychological issues. But it makes sense that these people would be mentally ill. But for some reason the liberal media that is anti-gun don't want to bring up this as being an issue. They would rather push their anti-gun agendas instead.
I rarely ever care about what the group thinks about a story. Id rather roll it over in my own head and do my own research before coming to a conclusion. I definitely am not going to back down if someone tries to tell me not to come to some conclusion, if the evidence points directly to that conclusion.
Let's face it, you have to have at least some psychological disorder to shoot another human being, unless it was in self defense or protecting your home.
