Barbara Amiel wrote an article titled “Hysteria may well create the truly dangerous pedophile” and expressed concern that "minor offenders are pushed to more extreme measures to avoid capture, since they are already so thoroughly stigmatized they feel irredeemable"; she also wrote about a similar craziness that erupted over Polanksi.
Thankfully Jesse Brown has taken up this torch and is carrying it well.

Robert Brady is calling for a new law against hate rhetoric which, combined with revamping gun laws, will help make America to become a safer place. Though I hate guns I respect the rights of those who wish to own them. So more restrictions instead of a total ban sounds fair to me (especially considering the 1.3 million US citizens who have died from gunshots compared to half a million Americans soldiers killed back to and including the Civil war!). As for free speech lovers, I am one, but I cannot yell fire in a theater, I cannot present 'obscene' material in public, etc. I accept limitations on my freedom as part of my social contract as a citizen in a nation. As a negative liberalist, I think that government best that governs the least. That said, laws are necessary, and we need a few more. Perhaps we can relax a few other laws as a way to balance the equation, just to appease the Republican types :) I am still incensed at Tom Flanagan's supposedly tongue-in-cheek call for the assassination of Assange, and hope the RCMP soon complete their investigation and conclude he exceeded his rights to free speech. And Brady will get my support as a Canadian concerned about the state of American politics. I do want want the best of US politicians running for cover (even if only at the behest of their spouses http://www.rollcall.com/news/-202271-1.html) leaving office to pursue what are likely to be better paying jobs in the private sector. That will leave the political scene in a sad state.

Brian, obviously restrictions are never entirely effective. However, drugs are produced by many, many criminals. Guns, however, are produced by a relatively few manufacturers that would much easier to control. If nothing else, those companies should be required to pay (more?) for gun education, screening and enforceement programs.

Besides, what are your suggestions? Do nothing?

I will concede your point, in principle, though I doubt the rate of homicides with guns would drop to one twentieth of present levels. But any reduction would be good, eh?

More screening sounds good but I doubt its efficacy. The ex-commander of Canada's largest airbase no doubt went through a plethora of psychological tests--especially since he piloted planes with the Queen of England aboard--but then... "I can't believe he turned out to be a rapist and murderer"!

Excellent link, thanks. Even the best trained police officer sometimes kills accidentally, and I am sure the average person packing pistols is more likely to make mistakes. As to the deterrence factor, knowing that audience members may be armed might dissuade a reasonable assassin, but how many are that?

Ed, You have a very good point, but, that said, I would rather target the right to bear arms than strengthen the abilitity of the state to institutionalize individuals--of course I must admit I am biased here since I'm a bit looney myself and was certainly no saint in my past.

Or, as a comedian once joked, price bullets at $1000 apiece. Surely then the wealthy could still afford to protect their property from the night prowler while the average loony would be plain out of luck:) If the extra expense in purchasing bullets went into coffers specifically designated for mental health programs, then at least the rich loony assassins would help pay for their own incarceration and possible rehabilitation.

Interesting factoid: >>As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit<< http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/11/01...

There is an old Republican saying that “a government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take away everything you have.”

To that I say yes, let us keep centralized power to a minimun, especially when it comes to enforced taxation and the waging of war, but controlling the possession and use of guns is a small price to pay to reduce the impact crazy people have on American politics.

It seems the shooter in Arizona was jumped while trying to reload. If he had not acquired a gun capable of holding thirty rounds fewer people would have be shot. Though I dislike guns i guess there are many who worship them, so maybe instead of banning them entirely we should just clamp down on the kinds that are available (ie target the manufacturers). And, as Potter implies, keep these restrictions in place and well-enforced.

Q: Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
A: The women of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran who risk their lives and their beauty to defy the foulness of theocracy.
Christopher Hitchens http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/0...