Did "violent rhetoric" and "hate-mongering" play a part in the Arizona shooting?

Assuming you've heard what happened in Arizona, what do you believe about how people are blaming "violent rhetoric" for it?

Full Article
I just included one line of the entire article.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is the way politicians use certain phrases such as "eliminate," "get rid of," "take [insert political opponent name here] out," referring to a campaign as a "battle" (and in some cases, referencing the Second Amendment in the same sentence as a method), "hunting" the other side supporters and calling it a waste of "ammunition."

There's a lot of blame going around to the right-wing, most notably Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and calling them "Violent rightists."

However, the most interesting (to me, at least) is the blame Sarah Palin is getting for the Arizona shooting.
Last year, Palin posted this image on her site:

Spoiler

The image has crosshairs over congressional targets with specific names.
Supposedly, it was followed by a tweet on Twitter shortly after with her catchphrase, "Don't retreat, RELOAD!" (I couldn't find the tweet myself, but I barely looked.) But it was also followed by the tweet
calling the targets "bullseye icon."
As you can see Giffords (the Arizona victim) is a listed name.
Sarah Palin has received a lot of attack for this with people saying she should be held responsible.
She claimed she used "surveyor marks," not "crosshairs," which is a valid excuse, imo, but she didn't address the tweets following the image.
The image was also taken down from her site yesterday (I think it was yesterday).


Here is an article addressing the act with several (right) politicians' quotes using "violent rhetoric."

Here is a "humorous exchange" between Sean Hannity and fake Democratic pollster Doug Schoen on Hannity's show.

Article and video found here




According to this page (the one linked at the beginning of the post), Giffords' shooting had many "precursors."

Here's what the second-to-last line is referencing:

Spoiler

So, do you think it's true that "violent rhetoric" eventually leads to actual violence and those using it should be held accountable?
Also, does this remind anybody else of the Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode?

 

Lets go into the minefield of politics. It's always fun for everyone with fighting from both sides.

I honestly, honestly... Get the torches and pitchforks angry mob out there, think that the right wing has gone too far in a lot of ways. If it was democrats, I'd say the same thing, and I'm a blue-blooded Democrat. They're doing this for votes and attention, and the thing is, the thing that really pisses me off, is that the press is eating out of their hand with this going on. So that gets them more attention, more votes, and they do it more.

Sarah Palin 20 years ago would have every single press member bashing her skull in the way that she talks about them. It used to be if you spoke rudely or treated the press in any bad way, your carreer was over. I remember doing a project for a business that screwed the press over for the millennium and they shut the place down in less than two years. That was in England in the year 2000. It was the same with EuroDisney, it was the same with any political member 10-20 years ago. Now, the more you throw gasoline into the fire, the more you do to stir up all the angry mobs out there, the more the press follow you like lost puppies. No matter what party you're at, bringing in people who carry guns to rallies and call the president, no matter what his party/race/religion and everything else on the planet that people nitpick over is, the devil, which is the nicer words they have spoke about Obama, will end up with someone dead or a shooting like this.

I do agree Sarah Palin and others have caused this, not directly, and they won't be held responsible for it, but they have caused it. The fact that the last election had Giffords a close race against a Tea Party member confirms it. The bullseyes ads, for anything, be it churches, hospitals, political members, random pieces of land that people think need to be blown up for the hell of it is going to have something happen. At some point, like it has happened before, now and in the future, someone will consider that an invite to go on a rampage.

The Tea Party, Republicans are bringing out these angry mobs. Again, if it was democrats, I would be saying the same thing. When you have an angry mob, especially if you throw a few nuts in there who are already having mental issues, something is going to happen. It's a psychological effect that causes a few people in a group to make it that kind of mob. Hitler and several other people were gifted at getting a group like that with the right words. Put a someone like Sarah Palin or some other republicans saying get rid of kill or do God-knows what else to their competitors, you get a shooting like this at this point.

In my final words, if it was any party, I would be saying this, and right now, I'm saying the whole thing, even if Sarah Palin or anyone else in the U.S. is causing all this craziness to happen, I would say it needs to stop. And I don't care how insane someone is, or even if he's the complete opposite in everything of Sarah Palin, you don't bring out the insanity, point out where your enemies are, or who you want to get for your own fame and glory, and not expect something as tragic as the Arizona shooting.

Now excuse me, I'm going to start packing to move to Canada because I'm starting to be scared of living here.

 

Err ... don' t you think the problem is that any American can buy firearms in the first place ? I know most of you consider that the right to have a gun is a constitutional right, but what' s the point if all it brings you in the end is an endless line of bloodbaths ? I wouldn' t comment the American politics, I barely know anything about it, but don' t you think the verbal violence you mention is just a drop of water in a sea of violence ? From the western cowboys to the CSI weekly murder, your whole cultural heritage is bathing in guns. At least it' s what it looks like from here ...

In most States you can buy a gun once you' re 18 ... but you have to wait to turn 21 to drink a measly beer, oh the irony ...
It' s like giving children the right to play with matches and then wondering how come the forest' s on fire every now and then !

 

It's that, too Patman... But the thing is, and I agree the gun laws should be changed... And the question of this debate is...

"Did the actions/words of politicians cause this shooting?"

In the last decade, politicians, on both sides of the parties, mind you... Have become more and more aggressive. Doing anything to win, I remember George Bush Jr. himself attacked McCain's character and shredded him to pieces, a good FAMILY FRIEND, mind you, to win against him in 2000. I've seen it going on for several elections, and my point is, if you bring out the crazies to rallies with guns and do the attack ads that are shown by Sarah Palin and others, you are going to end up with an Arizona shooting.

I agree, gun laws should be changed to keep people like that shooter from getting them. It should be more thorough on the background checks and everything else. And I don't care if a family member owned the gun and not him, if a person is that unstable, there shouldn't be a gun in the house. Like leaving matches laying around or around kids so they can start a forest fire. I have seen it happen before with kids who get their hands on matches. No matter where you hide those matches, it takes once for the kids to see them to get it, same with a gun, and this was a 20'ish man.

Back to politics, things need to change to stop another tragedy from happening, especially these campaigns that make it sound like the best way to beat your opponent is to kill them.

 

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647
http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10

 

Wrong. Restriction is not the same as prevention. Teaching people responsible and self-conscious use of firearms would be infinitely more effective than simply saying, "No, you can't have them." Because the instinctual response to something like that is to simply subvert the law and get what they want regardless. After all, what gives "The Man" the right to tell you what you can and can't have?

Besides, that's not the issue here: The issue is irresponsible use of guns, which is being linked to irresponsible use of violent rhetoric. You can think of it as a cause or a symptom, but either way, banning guns is not going to treat it. There are already restrictions in place; whether they should be tightened or reworked is another story, but there's only so much restriction can do.

Both sides need to make a better effort not to let this happen. Political speakers need to recognize the weight of their words on the American populace and stop being such spiteful pricks, and the people need to stop being such lemmings and taking every word that drips out of their pet pseudo-politician's mouth as pure and true nectar from the heavens, not to mention recognize that SHOOTING PEOPLE = BAD.

Both parties are being irresponsible; if even one had given some effort, maybe the shooting could have been prevented. They need to be confronted about their irresponsibility and forced to face it, so that (hopefully) they might correct their habits, or else be removed from a position where they can continue to cause harm--being fired in the speaker's case, and being imprisoned in the shooter's case. Blaming gun control will only allow the offending parties to store their bad habits for later.