The last ambulance had yet to leave Virginia Polytechnic Institute on Monday before the first conclusions about the tragedy barged into the public’s grief. As might be expected, the conclusions were mostly inappropriate if not outright harmful, and they mostly turned to guns.

As of Tuesday, Virginia police had identified the gunman as Cho Seung-Hui, 23, but still hadn’t said whether they were certain he acted alone, what the motives might have been or how events specifically unfolded.

Those details didn’t get in the way of making political points. President Bush’s spokeswoman, Dana Perino, by Monday afternoon had said, “The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed,” as if the comment meant anything. Contributors to a Maine blog immediately were outraged at the gun ban on campuses. The New York Times had an editorial the next morning saying the Virginia Tech tragedy was a “reminder that some of the gravest dangers Americans face come from killers at home armed with guns that are frighteningly easy to obtain.” Maine handgun-control advocates reminded the press of related bills before the Legislature.

The comments, intentionally or not, were about spin, defining the argument about an issue before the other side could. But the Virginia Tech shootings, certainly now and for some time, aren’t an issue. They are a tragedy, an event outside almost anyone’s imagination, with deaths on the scale of war. A swiftly positioned argument helpful to scoring political points says more about the intent of the arguers than about the value of their issues.

It was two longtime foes who made the most sense on the gun question. Sen. Edward Kennedy, who lost two brothers to shootings, said Monday, “There will be time to debate the steps needed to avert such tragedies, but today our thoughts and prayers go to their families.” And the National Rifle Association offered its “deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy,” but would withhold further comment “until all the facts are known.” Good for both of them.

In the coming days, the endless news cycle will produce many more theories and arguments about the reasons for this crime, but actual understanding will come more slowly. After the grieving for the dead and empathy for the families of the dead, questions about why this happened, whether it began, as it appeared, as an attack on an ex-girlfriend, whether there were signs that it was about it happen and how something similar could be prevented in the future will receive both ready-made simplistic responses and perhaps more thoughtful ones.

If understanding really is possible in this terrible event, however, don’t look for it while so many facts still are being discovered. Wait, and then honor those killed by caring enough to follow the details long after the political point-scorers have moved on.