The trouble is, it's a reasonable conclusion to leap to (for various reasons) even if it may well be wrong. Violent political language often leads to political violence, though, of course, we don't know whether that was the case here.
That is pure nonsense, whose logical conclusion would lead to a ban on political speech lest someone get hurt. The only conclusion that is reasonable to leap to is no conclusion at all until all the facts are known. The shooter could have any motivation or no motivation at all.
How is that the logical conclusion? The logical conclusion might be that politicians shouldn't engage in to hateful rhetoric and that doing so is irresponsible.
Although hate speech legislation does exist for a reason.
What politicians are engaging in "hateful rhetoric"? Why is it always the politicians that the speaker (usually on the left) disagrees with, while those on their own side can speak no "hate"?
Thankfully, there isn't much in the way of hate speech legislation in the US. Hate speech legislation exists for no reason but to shut up those with whom people in power disagree. Words don't kill people.
That's plain bullsh**t.
Words don't kill people,it's the people that listen to those words that do.
