So...more random shooting

I'd say it's written like crap because it's like the rest of the mainstream media, it leaves out important details, like the fact that the shooter was a "very opinionated socialist".http://www.ijreview.com/...etail-about-arapahoe-high-shooter

News reporting, for at least the past several decades, isn't only about the few known facts of a public shooting incident. It's also about who did it, why did he do it, how could it have been prevented, etc. The shooter, Karl Pierson, will always be referred to as "Karl Pierson", not "Socialist Karl Pierson". Remember Ruby Ridge, and its bad guy, "white separatist Randy Weaver"? We seldom heard him only called Randy Weaver, his name usually had the "white separatist" in front of it. It's always implied in the news that we should never judge all those of the political left because of the actions of a few lunatics, but we should always judge all those of the political right because of the actions of a few lunatics. That's because they had ties to the political left, not the right. If they had been Christian/conservative, you'd have heard plenty about it. Did you know that the Ft. Hood shooter was a registered Democrat/Muslim? That the Columbine shooters, while too young to vote, came from families that were registered Democrats and progressive liberals? That the Virginia Tech shooter wrote hate mail to president Bush and his staff? That the Colorado theater shooter was a registered Democrat and a staff worker on the Obama campaign? That the Connecticut school shooter was a registered Democrat and hated Christians? It's not thought of that way, because a few of its lunatics actions aren't tied to it by the news media. Being conservative isn't a psychological issue either, but a lot of people think it may be, because of how the tea party is tied to crimes committed by only a few lunatics. Just like when someone opposes Democrat policies it doesn't make them anti-science.