The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and many others in Tucson on Saturday was a tragic incident, on that we can agree. But before the final count of dead and wounded was even confirmed, the blame for the incident was flying in the media and on social networks. And none of it was placed on the shooter himself.

There have been articles and commentaries and news clips galore blaming everyone from Sarah Palin to Jan Brewer to Sharon Angle to the Tea Party to Barack Obama.

The main focus of the blame seems to be the use of rhetoric in political circles that uses violent imagery, such as the poster Sarah Palin posted on Facebook, showing political opponents in a rifle’s crosshairs.

There are many other instances that have been brought up, but since that’s not the heart of this piece I won’t list them all here.

The main belief being put forth is that people in the public arena are being careless with their words, have used threatening imagery in their public speeches, are to blame for Jared Loughner’s actions on Saturday and must be held accountable for it.

There has been a backlash too, people saying that Loughner was a lone crazy man, solely responsible for his actions. There’s a lot of support for that angle too.

Reports are coming in that he was mentally ill, had been kicked out of college and asked not to return until he had had a psychological evaluation, and that he was enthralled by “Mein Kampf,” the Communist Manifesto and Nazi propaganda. But again, placing blame isn’t quite the point I’m trying to make here.

Loughner, as the man holding the gun, is the responsible party. Whatever his influences were, he has to bear the burden of his actions.

That his direct influences do not seem to be what people initially were decrying as his influences, i.e., Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, etc., doesn’t mean that they aren’t a contributing factor. I think people jumped to that conclusion because there is a sort of sense to it.

Maybe Loughner didn’t spend a lot of time researching Sarah Palin’s poster, but that doesn’t mean that some of the rhetoric that is so commonplace now didn’t filter down to him, making him think that shooting someone you disagree with is an acceptable solution to the disagreement.

Was it just Sarah Palin though? No. Was it just Sarah Palin and Jan Brewer and Sharon Angle and the Tea Party and Barack Obama? No. Was it just people in the public arena? No.

I contend that we all, as a people, have allowed our speech to be littered with violent imagery and vulgarisms that we now accept as normal. I think collectively we know it’s wrong, our sensibilities are struggling with it and this tragic incident is giving us an opportunity to say “enough.”

Remember George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can’t Say on TV” routine? (Look it up, I’m not going to list them here.) Out of the seven, two are no longer banned on American television, four are allowed on British telly, movies use them liberally, and all are in common everyday use all around us.

In the Old West, to use the phrase “Son of a b*tch” would be taken so personally it would likely get you shot. Now people say it when they stub their toe. It’s all so casual. No one seems to notice or care if there are small children around to hear it.

And with the advent of the Internet, where everyone gets to speak their mind, we see the filth in those minds in the comments section below any news article.

My husband once wrote an article posted in this very news source about the controversial subject of genetically engineered food, and one reader apparently disagreed with his stance.

The reader could have chosen to say, “I disagree with your position, and believe you are misinformed,” but instead chose to say, “You’re wrong, you f***ing idiot!” and then suggested my husband drink anti-freeze and die.

Why the vulgar speech? Why the personal attack? Why the violent suggestion, over an article about … food? And comments like this are common all over the Internet – this was not an isolated incident.

It is not just people in the public arena who are to blame for this climate of violent rhetoric we live in. After all, the ones on stage are a reflection of the masses. We all need to reflect on our contribution to the morass.

Common sense tells us that the more we let fly with our words, the more that disturbed people such as Loughner, who may not have the mental filter or discipline to keep his feelings just to his words, will think that violent speech approves violent action.

We all need to reflect on the things we say, and how we say them. All things can be expressed in different ways, every idea may be conveyed with alternative means … see what I did there? I said the same thing two ways. We don't have to resort to vulgarity and violent imagery to get our point across.

We can, and should, clean up our communications, both our public officials and the private sector – which isn't so private anymore.

No, folks, I’m not saying we need to stop talking. I’m not trying to curtail freedom of speech. I’m requesting that we all return to civility, think before we speak, and if we disagree, disagree politely. Thank you for reading.

Lacy Christensen lives in Clearlake Oaks, Calif.