Longrider has peered into the abyss of non-thought that is the Guardian and striven to discover how deep that particular hole goes. He's still a long way from the bottom of that pit, I think.
The article is frankly disgusting, an attempt to conflate a murderous nut with a particular, unrelated political movement which seems, at this stage, diametrically opposite to the gunman's beliefs. In fact, without the gun, he might be spouting his bile on CiF to cheers from the commenters. The same commenters who actually tried to dissociate a definitely Muslim woman who stabbed an MP for a definitely Muslim reason from all other Muslims. Yet a random gun kook is proof of 'far-right links' in what passes for minds among these people.
So who do I think he was shooting for? Himself. I don't think he took the shots for political reasons. He was a Democrat and he shot a Democrat congresswoman. That makes no political sense.
Aside from the congresswoman (who is, so far, recovering) he killed six others. One was a judge. He was known to be anti-pretty much everything, and involved in illegal drug use, so was he going for the judge?
He shot a nine-year-old girl. Not just any nine-year-old girl, but one who was born on the day the Twin Towers were destroyed. If she lived locally and he knew about her through local talk, could there have been a connection made in that twisted mind? Logically, you're thinking 'Ridiculous' but this man wasn't thinking logically nor making logical connections.
Any one of those three would have gained him what the deranged always crave - worldwide fame as a killer. The rifle in the clock tower, the pistol in the schoolyard, none of them have any reason to happen other than some obscure link in the dark recesses of a madman's mind. And yet the Guardianistas, those who drool over the prospect of Thatcher's death and hang Nick Clegg in effigy, are already making political capital by linking the loony to white supremacy groups and the Tea Party on the basis of... he had a gun.
They are not linking him to Paul Flynn's campaign to legalise cannabis, even though he was a heavy user. They make much of his reading of Mein Kampf but little of his reading of the Communist Manifesto. They insist he is the Right Wing Ideology made flesh and they accuse all those they see as 'right-wing' of being capable of the same.
They shriek and wail like ghouls over fresh corpses, they hold aloft the still-warm bodies and use them as totems for their cause. And then they claim they hold the moral high ground.
Why did he really shoot those people? We might never know. It's entirely possible he doesn't really know himself.
Sarah Palin's website is blamed although there has been nothing to suggest he ever saw it. Political groups are blamed even though no evidence has come forward to suggest he is involved with any of them. He is madder than a bag of badgers but that is the one thing that the Socialists will not blame. They can't. Their equality agenda won't let them.
So now, as in the aftermath of Dunblane, there will be renewed calls for gun bans. This particular nut bought a 9mm Glock last November. He already had a history of erratic behaviour and drug use. So would a gun ban have stopped him?
Or would he have done what the UK youth now do, and bought an illegal weapon in the shadows of a pub car park? If he was determined to go out shooting, he could do that in the UK where guns are banned just as easily as he could do it in Arizona where they are sold over the counter. the only real difference is that in the UK, he can be certain that none of those in the crowd have guns.
If he believes he was acting with a political agenda, that's one thing, but there's really scant evidence for it so far. None to link him to any of the groups now being villified by hysterical socialists. The only evidence so far suggests he was nuts.
Really, there doesn't need to be any more motive, incentive or trigger than that.