I never said a mass shooter has a grievance with each victim. I never said anything of the sort. They are still, nevertheless, willfully directing violence, and it is much more disingenuous to compare a mentally unhealthy person to a storm as you did. The question of their mental health is irrelevant to the fact that they are a consciously and actively antagonistic force. They are actively setting death into motion for some sick and deranged reason.

I'm not sure why you so actively chose to ignore and misinterpret the point of my comment. Your response, in this sense, is completely incoherent.

Isis can't possibly have a personal vendetta against every life claimed by one of their attacks, but would you then describe isis as "random" in the same sense as lightning striking? Would you actively avoid describing isis as willful or antagonistic in their actions? No, because that would be retarded.

I absolutely agree that the government should be tackling the conditions that lead people to commit these acts, and not attempting to remove the objects used in said acts. That train of thought will lead nowhere but to the shitshow England finds itself in. This is why i slipped in the perhaps inappropriately phrased agreement with the sentiment of the article.

I guess the reason i left the comment at all, is that I'm sick of people using fallacious logic in politics