The shooting left six people dead, including John M. Roll, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for Arizona, and Christina Green, a 9-year-old girl. The assumption is Giffords was the target of the shooting because she was shot first from point-blank range. The Times reports Giffords is in stable condition.

Almost immediately after the shooting happened, people began speculating on what could have set off the gunman. For every column or blog post admonishing those on the right for using “eliminationist” talk, there was another article citing the hypocrisy of the left.

For the most part, it was unsurprising. Part of the storyline for the 2010 mid-term elections was that there was too much angry political rhetoric.

The reasoning seems to go that given this climate of aggressive rhetoric, someone would be shot. So, when Jared L. Loughner allegedly went on a shooting spree in Arizona, the reaction was, “We told you so.”

OK, that’s a possibility, but it seems to leave out the part where Loughner hasn’t been shown to be part of any particular political group. It also skips conveniently over the idea that the shooter might have been suffering from a mental illness.

That doesn’t mean he necessarily was at risk for more violent behavior, but factoring in an individual’s mental state probably would help when figuring out whether angry political rhetoric caused this tragedy.

It seems this tragedy should be less about pointing fingers at the other side and more about how to make discussion about more than being at war with each other.

Occasionally there is a moment where both sides come together (usually preceded by tragedy), but those are more Christmas Truce and less, “Let’s work together.”

When I see one side saying, “Right wing rhetoric led to this shooting” and the other saying, “Don’t pin it on us, you guys do the same thing,” I see sides who dislike each other so much they refuse to see the qualities — or vices — each shares.

This shooting should be about everyone toning down the rhetoric about fighting each other, kicking ass, reloading, “who’s got the biggest stick,” pissing contest BS at the door.

Part of what this country — this world, probably — needs is discussion. We have unparalleled access to information as well as the ability to access only the information that supports our particular worldview.

That kind of society makes it easy to pit one side against the other: no one has to leave his or her trench. It seems that in such a world our leaders — political and otherwise — would look to find ways to unite rather than divide.

It could be that there is a doorstep at which to lay all the blame, but finding that doorstep shouldn’t involve picking the person you least like.

Blame, for the most part, has a certain amount of finality. “The shooter heard too much angry talking, therefore Republicans are to blame. That makes it their problem, their fault, let them fix it.”

Yeah, not quite. Even if that was the case (which I doubt) it’s a problem for everyone. One does not do away with responsibility by blaming it on the other side. Assuming Loughner was a political extremist on any side of the spectrum, he still allegedly managed to drag 17 people into his “problem.”

That particular brand of problem solving is no longer relevant. Indeed, it might not ever have been relevant. It can’t hurt to approach some of these issues as if they are “our” problems and the result of things to which “we” collectively have contributed.

We should talk about constructive ways to conduct political discourse, talk about gun control, talk about culture, talk about the state of mental health care in the U.S.

This tragedy shouldn’t end discussion, it should start it.

David Barker is the State News opinion editor. Reach him at barkerd@msu.edu.