Like several other notable perpetrators of political crimes, this guy Loughner seems to have a rather confused view of politics with opinions ranging all over the place. If he can in the end be tied to some person or group who would have influenced him to act as he did, it certainly won't be any important or mainstream person/group.

That said, it is admittedly possible but rather unlikely that the shooting was entirely unrelated to politics - i.e., that it was a coincidence that Giffords was the first target. Nobody but Loughner himself is responsible for his actions, but until we know more about his exact motivations, the assumption that there is a connection between his actions and the current political climate is rather more likely than the assumption that there is not. And really, even if it should turn out that there is in fact no connection at all, and the guy had personal reasons for targeting Giffords, the incident may still serve as a wake-up call to the nation that the polarization is reaching dangerous levels. Polarization, of course, being something that per definition involves two "poles". Keith Olbermann certainly doesn't have any room to talk. If some of the left think that their aggressive rhetoric can't possibly lead to violence, I invite them to take a look at the Netherlands and the case of Pim Fortuyn - or, on a less violent but still disturbing level, incidents like the hacking of Sarah Palin's email by liberal whizzkids. Guns are of course associated with the right more than with the left, but since it only takes one deranged person to commit political crimes, such averages are fairly meaningless - and in any case, politics are not so simple that you can neatly divide people into right-wing and left-wing. In that regard, Reynolds certainly has a point - when prominent left-wing politicians point accusing fingers at "the right" or at prominent symbols of the right, be it the Tea Party or Sarah Palin, they are only exacerbating matters. But all politicians left and right should, as I said, consider this an alarm sign about the tone in political discourse and the polarization in politics, and I get the impression that Reynolds is a bit too hasty in amalgamating the latter with the former. As were, incidentally, some people on this forum in the other thread, when reacting to Danu.