why is it that when we have a tragedy, like the shooting in arizona, people need to blame an ideology?

It's hard to find a serious answer to this question. For most of these ideological ambulance chasers, it seems enough to lay the blame in an effort to anathematize ideas they don't like.

But that's shortsighted. Misplaced panics like this have a momentum and logic all their own. Already, Rep. Bob Brady (D-Pa.) has drafted legislation to ban the use of symbols (crosshairs on a map, for instance) or language ("lock and load!") that he says could foster violence. "The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down," he told CNN.

That opens the bidding. The question is, where will it end?

If the alleged shooter had been inspired by a movie or TV show -- as any number of murderers have been over the years -- would those blaming the tea parties join with social conservatives in blaming Hollywood? Would they celebrate new laws to "shut down" such fare?

Mark David Chapman, who murdered John Lennon, claimed to be in part inspired by "Catcher in the Rye." Should that be banned? Or if not banned, should we "dismiss" from public life anyone who doesn't denounce J.D. Salinger?

When the subject of censorship or the "chilling" of free expression comes up in other contexts, the very idea that books, movies or TV can be blamed for the actions of the criminal or the deranged is met with unbridled scorn. I actually disagree with that. If books can inspire us positively, surely they can inspire us negatively, too. But we understand that we don't blame books for the rare demons who feed on them.

No doubt this will cause eye-rolling among those who simply want to keep the focus on demonizing conservatives and never bother to think ahead about the consequences of their misplaced hysteria. One noble exception is Slate's Jack Shafer, who probably goes farther than I would when he writes, "Any call to cool 'inflammatory' speech is a call to police all speech, and I can't think of anybody in government, politics, business or the press that I would trust with that power."

Meanwhile journalists, see no problem with fueling a mass panic over our "political discourse." The fact that liberal rhetoric and images are often just as "extreme" is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is any violence that might be linked to such rhetoric. And the fact that the shooting suspect's motivations may lay in a reality of his own design? That's irrelevant too.

These critics' aim is simply to exploit this horror as an opportunity to yell "shut up" at their political opponents. o_O

Note: It's apparent from evidence found by the authorities and from interviews with the alleged killer's friends and acquaintances that Loughner has fixated on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords since 2007, long before anyone heard of the "tea parties" or, in most cases, Palin. Moreover, his grievance with Giffords appears to be unrelated to any coherent -- or even incoherent -- ideological platform. Rather, it drew on the bilious stew of resentments this young man cultivated as he lost his grip on reality.

Indeed, according to a fascinating interview in Mother Jones with one of Loughner's close friends, this twisted soul was apparently an ardent believer in "lucid dreaming" in which he could control an alternate "'Matrix-style" reality.

I think since JFK was killed we have all had a kind of conspiracy notion when something like this happens. Like he is not working alone but in conjunction with some politically unhappy person or group of people. He becomes the hit man either while on drugs or brainwashed in some way.

It is ridiculous of course he could just be a nut job that wanted to hurt someone. Maybe he hates women? or large groups of people? I guess we will all find out soon. Like you said though the news media does jump to conclusions too quickly and tries to put a political spin of everything.

sure a famous flesh presser being shot gave it national prominence on the information. yet in addition, each time a mentally risky individual is going on a capturing rampage that kills and wounds diverse human beings, that still gets some press like Columbine, VA Tech, fortress Hood, etc. there are maximum of tragedies interior the international however the information can purely record on maximum of of them. The media alternatives and chooses what is going on.

Because the unknown and random occurrences that have no basis in logic or motivation scare people. If "things just happen" in this world for no reason, that means ANYTHING could happen which flies in the face of the concept that there is order in the world and that if we could only UNDERSTAND circumstances, we could control them. Without that illusion of control, we simply become creatures on this planet, like all the other creatures, subject to the whim of the universe and unable to conceive of and direct our own destiny.

The problem it seems to me is the easy availability of guns in America. All those swaggering, John Wayne wannabes who insist on the right to carry weapons at any time and place are too stupid to have worked out that not everyone has the intellectual capacity to cope with carrying a lethal weapon. It is the government's job to protect the rest of the population from the mentally-ill, not to leave them at the mercy of the deranged. Or should the nine-year-old have carried a gun to protect herself? TOO MUCH HOLLYWOOD!

Everyone always ignores the freaks online or harasses them, which only feeds their psychotic tendencies, then they shoot up a grocery store parking lot and everyone is like WHHHUUUT?? People should not be allowed to openly promote violence online, i don't give a rat's *** about their "right to free speech." They gave up that right the minute they went crazy and threatened their fellow man. They should be detained and not ignored.

because everyone feels the need to blame something and ideologies are easier to blame from human beings.they cant defend themselves and they are less certain etc.

crazy people come from the far left nut job wing of the Waco commie party.the demo party

Maybe they ought to look at Sarah Palin who according to Gifford spread around "target lists".

Link...paragraph 12

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congresswoman_shot

When people like Sarah Palin use gun metaphors and one of her nutty followers act on it she should take responsibility. http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/01/08/palin-issu...