The person you are replying to is also a professional and knows what he is talking about. Folks, understandably, this event is terribly upsetting to people of all political persuasions. It will provoke, or stoke, important national (and international) conversations about political rhetoric and the causal links (if any) and responsibility (if any) borne by irresponsible political leaders and political commentators who have used inflammatory or violent language to make their case. But as this occurs, I request that we ALL resist the shorthand of "the left" and "the right" when making our case. Those terms are FAR too broad and, therefore, prone to error. Even if you use qualifiers, such as "some on the left/right", while this is much improved, the category is still so very broad (encompassing 30% - 50% of the US population) that it is unhelpful, at best. The murders, and attempted murders, that occurred today will be abhorrent to people on all sides of politics. 99% of the US (and international) population will be joined at the hip in that regard. WE AGREE ABOUT THAT. So, if you have an argument to make that irresponsible commentary or images may have provided fodder for the gunman or persons like him, let it be about the statements of named individuals, not "the right", "some on the left", "Republicans" or "Tea Partiers" or "Democrats". Because plenty of people on "the right", who are Republicans and/or Tea Partiers do not condone violence and do not approve of the language and imagery adopted by some on their own side of politics. Conversely, a critical comment about Sarah Palin is not a critical comment about the Republican Party in toto, or about political convictions of people who align with the Republican Party or the Tea Party or... Because of heightened emotions at a time like this, it becomes even more important than usual that we try to use precise language and listen carefully for signs that we are in agreement - and build on that.