There is a lot of discussion of this topic currently, because of the shootings in Tucson, AZ. While there is considerable evidence that right-wing provocation may not have been a contributing factor to Mr. Loughner’s rampage, there are examples that make this point in a better way. Why aren’t people using the better examples?
While Mr. Loughner’s evident psychosis may be the real source of his rampage, there are other situations where there is good reason to believe that right-wing, violent, provocative rhetoric contributed to the harm done. For example, on July 27, 2008 a man named Jim David Adkisson burst into a Unitarian-Universalist church in Knoxville, TN, and opened fire with a shot gun. This took place during a presentation by the youth group. He killed two people and wounded at least six before members of the church subdued him and the police came and took him away. He said he wanted to kill "liberals and democrats," and his home contained books by Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Bernard Goldberg. While his life had also taken a turn for the worse, which is often the case for mass murderers of this type, he clearly was influenced by the extremes of right-wing rhetoric. Why isn’t this case brought up more often as an example? It seems to be a very clear example, and could be used to further the cause of trying to tone down the rhetoric.
Gaynor wild