- All forms of violent rhetoric leads to or causes violent actions.
- All violent actions are wrong and they should be prevented.
- Violent political rhetoric (e.g. putting crosshairs on a map) lead to the assassination attempt in Arizona.
- Violent music (e.g. Marilyn Manson) lead to the Columbine tragedy in 1995.
- Therefore, we should ban any form of violent rhetoric.
Perhaps Plato has something here: music and rhetoric will not be allowed in his Republic.
= 
I don’t agree with the argument above. But my point is that if you’re going to claim it was politicians’ fault for causing a political climate that was violent through their speech, it seems like you’re in the same camp as saying violent speech through music caused Columbine. If you don’t agree with the argument above, which premise are you going to attack and why?
Shaun Miller's Ideas 
Good post. Blaming Palin and Manson for Arizona and Colombine, respectively, is ludicrous.
It’s easier to blame something then to admit that there is Evil in the world; that’s a scarier proposition then anything else. It opens a pandora’s box. Complete with personal responsibility, freedom of will, Good, Evil; basically all the questions everyday people don’t want to address.
If a person was crazy or influenced by some outside source (double bonus if it’s a politician/musician/video game ‘I’ don’t like) then it can be explained away. And because there isn’t a direct link between Palin’s rhetoric and the shooting, then there isn’t really anyone to blame. So it ultimately falls into unexplainable chance, random chaos, that doesn’t affect how I sleep at night.
I’m still safe from all manner of questions (and they’re answers) that would make me uncomfortable.