On September 10th, 2025, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot fatally during an event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Tyler Robinson, the suspected shooter, was arrested two days later. Just three months prior, on June 14, 2025, Minnesota state representative Melissa Hortman was assassinated in a shooting at her home alongside her husband. In the span of one year, three individuals have been assassinated in the name of political violence. This does not even include the two failed attempts on President Donald J. Trump’s life or the arson attack on Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s residence while his family was inside.
In the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination, there has been wide discourse across the political spectrum. President Trump immediately delivered a remark shortly after, blaming the “radical left” for their rhetoric and requesting that all U.S. flags be lowered at half-staff to honor Kirk. When pressed during a briefing in the Oval Office about why he did not order the same gesture to honor Melissa Hortman and her husband, he said, “he was not familiar with the case.” Furthermore, Dean Withers, a liberal political commentator, recently issued a statement explaining why he cried upon hearing the news of Kirk after receiving backlash from his audience. Social media platforms like X, BlueSky, TikTok, and others have featured a myriad of reactions to Kirk’s death, ranging from empathy to celebration. Comments like “in the end, he leaned left”, “he deserved it”, or “he was asking for it” all seem to show a sense of revelation from the fact that he is now dead. Within 24 hours of Kirk’s demise, people had already turned him into an internet meme.
The truth is, nobody deserves to be a victim of political violence, and almost certainly nobody deserves to be assassinated.
While much of this is attributed to what Kirk and his persona stand for, it ultimately shouldn’t matter. The truth is, nobody deserves to be a victim of political violence, and almost certainly nobody deserves to be assassinated. Individuals should not be criticized or shamed for crying or empathizing with Kirk, and the same goes for the other way. Individuals should not be shamed for not mourning Kirk. One thing is for certain, however, that Kirk’s death should not be celebrated. Full stop.
America has increasingly grown desensitized to violence. Take September 10th, for instance. On the same day Charlie Kirk was assassinated, an active shooter was found in Evergreen High School, making it the 42nd school shooting in 2025. A man was murdered on television, and a school was shot up on the same day. That should absolutely disturb Americans beyond belief, yet it doesn’t. Gun violence should never be celebrated, and yet it is. As we continue to grow more and more desensitized to these types of violence, we grow complacent. We start to let more things slide, to demand less change. School shootings have been a prevalent issue since the 1990s, and yet there have been barely any reforms; they are now morbidly routine on the news. The moment people start collectively celebrating a man’s death because of differing views is when we start to fatally stray from a chance at progress. All gun violence is violence, whether it be Charlie Kirk or Hasan Piker, it is all the same. The standard should never change, whether or not the victim was a Democrat or a Republican.
The moment people start collectively celebrating a man’s death because of differing views is when we start to fatally stray from a chance at progress.
Political podcasters and commentators play an integral role in democracy by allowing free discussion. Whether you lean left or right, everyone has a place and community to discuss their ideas and opinions. That principle lies at the heart of the First Amendment—not just the right to speak, but the right to dissent through protest. If one group disagrees, they march, they speak out, they challenge. If the other side disagrees with that, they protest back. That back-and-forth, however messy or uncomfortable, is the democratic process in action; resolved through words, not bullets. When people start to get murdered for what they have to say, and certain opinions and ideologies become censored, a greater question must be asked: at what point can your political opinions get you killed?
America should not be treating gun violence “differently” based on party alignment.
As politicians and public figures continue to use Kirk’s assassination as a way to fuel further polarization and political warfare, America drifts farther and farther away from actual progress between the two parties. Political opponents are increasingly not viewed as rivals but as existential enemies. America should not be treating gun violence “differently” based on party alignment. The death of Melissa Hortman is just as much a tragedy as the death of Charlie Kirk. Kirk’s assassination wasn’t just the death of a conservative activist. It’s a message that people can be murdered for what they say, and as people continue to celebrate Kirk’s death, the more it becomes true.
Thomas Lu ‘29 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at lu.thomas@wustl.edu.