Was in the news everyday for at least two weeks.

Fitz, the simple answer is that getting the word out could stop someone from opening the next package bomb. Well worth the inconvenience to news consumers.

The purpose of the media is not to keep you informed on important information in your world. Their purpose is to keep you frothed up and worried so you keep watching to find out the next thing to be worried about. It's also to divide the country and keep everyone fighting against each other. Common sense and logic aren't sexy and won't keep you watching so you won't see them on the news.

To me, it comes down to control. There are inherent risks in driving a car (and cars these days offer protection with all of the technological advancements) but we accept the risk that there may be an accident. And in an accident, you have someone at fault that can be held accountable. Driving is ingrained in our society.

If there was a rabid cougar in the hill country ripping throats out of hikers, that would be one thing. Hikers slipping and falling is a risk undertaken when one decides to hike. And there are not that many hiking deaths in the hill country, plus there would be a shutdown of the trail and TPWD would go find the cougar.

Some psycho delivering package bombs at random houses is different, in my opinion. There is no control by the victim in that scenario. Just living in a house doesn�t normally carry the risk of receiving an anonymous package bomb on your porch. It is unreasonable to assume the risk of riding your bike down a trail and tripping a bomb left by some psycho.

I realize what you�re saying, but I disagree that the media attention this is receiving is overblown. Thankfully, anonymous and random package bombs are rare in this country, but when there are four in one short period of time, with no leads and an evolving MO, there is reason for covering it wire to wire.

When a plane is blown up, it gets more attention than Susie being distracted by a text message and running a red light. Neither death is more important than another, but there is blame to be placed.

I don't mean this in a snide manner, and I'm seriously asking because I'm trying to understand a viewpoint that differs from my own, but how many people would have to get blown up (or how many bombs need to be set) before this is worthy of getting a hefty dose of media attention?

I'd bet if given enough time without being caught, this individual could get to that number. In my mind, getting a serial bomber off your city's streets has to be just about at the top of the list of priorities.

Aren�t claymore mines illegal for the general public to use or possess?

Not in my America

They need to ban those items.

Well, both.

Personally, I have a fair amount of control over my household and immediate environs. I can make the rational decision to have a chimney sweep clean the chimney, or have someone clean the built-up lint out my dryer exhaust vent, or have the plumber inspect all the gas lines for my house. Those are all things I have control over, and they're not particularly alarming if I can take preventive measures for them.

I have very little control over whether or not some psycho wants to blow me up. But if I'm aware that someone is setting bombs, I can be alert for potential bombs, but otherwise there's very little I can to do prevent it.

The general public probably reacts in the same way, even if they don't analyze it quite so much.

Next thing we see, maybe, is a Self Driving Car loaded with explosives.

Drone with explosives.

Unless I quit driving, I can't get away from texters. They even made a law about it.

I�m considering moving to your America, but first, a few questions:

1. Is Jay allowed there?
2. How does your America feel about bud light?
3. What is the cost of a pound of live crawfish in your America?