Charlie Kirk’s political rhetoric should not have resulted in his assassination; let’s start there.

Presumably, almost the entire nation has not only heard about, but also graphically seen Kirk suffer a gruesome public death. He was shot in the neck at Utah Valley University during the first stop of Turning Point USA’s “The American Comeback Tour.”

There has been an immense circulation of varying opinions, not specifically about Kirk’s death and whether he deserved it or not, but questions such as: Did he have it coming? Should people feel remorse or sympathy for him? Why are people celebrating his death? Will our nation be a better place from now on?

None of us condone political violence, nor the celebration of death. We all fully recognize that Kirk was a man who shared his beliefs and political views under the protection of the First Amendment.

He was a husband and a father, a man who was passionate about his work and said he wanted to have respectful debates with students across the nation as he traveled to different college campuses.

However, some, including several editors, deemed his debates as disrespectful, or even harmful. 

Kirk is viewed by many as a misogynist, white supremacist, racist, fascist – the list goes on — and the people he was bigoted towards should be sympathized with. He argued for policies and spread rhetoric that were harmful to minority groups, the youth and different communities. He lacked empathy for specific groups, which led individuals to lack empathy for him after he passed. He protested against gun reform, stating that the harm that resulted from the public use of guns was worth it to maintain the country’s right to the Second Amendment. 

Some editors believe he experienced the very thing he fought to maintain, which was the lack of gun reform; it is almost as if he should have known it was coming. 

With that being said, some believe the problem isn’t directly related to gun violence. Gun reform should be extensively implemented; however, the problem of the spread of political violence is more directed at ourselves. Some believe that it is more of a mental health crisis and a virus of hate than anything. Once we recognize the necessity to be able to agree to disagree with each other and coexist peacefully, society will experience a surge of unity. Change starts within the heart. 

Apart from all of the negative things Kirk was viewed as, many looked up to him as a public figure with immense impact. Some people believe he was someone who preached biblical truth unapologetically, fought for the lives of the unborn and was a mentor who didn’t intend to bring harm, but different perspectives. He defended the Second Amendment because he believed taking away guns wouldn’t stop harm from being done; he thought it would take away our ability to protect ourselves from danger. To many, he was looked up to for his lack of fear to share his beliefs and sparked motivation throughout the upcoming generation to be bold. Regardless of which side you land on, his death was a saddening and shocking occurrence that should never be justified.

Where does social media fall in all of this?

Everything and anything can be accessed on social media, regardless of how traumatic or graphic the content is. Kirk was shot, and the video of his neck gushing blood was released within minutes of it happening for everyone around the world to see. 

We have become desensitized as a society because of the things we consume daily. Not only is it because of the things we consume, but also the things we are comfortable enough to share behind the safety of a screen. 

Think about the number of issues that aren’t covered by the news and spread across social media as much as they should be. The heinous crime of school shootings has become so frequent that we have become desensitized to this reality, too; for example, the Evergreen High School shooting in Colorado that happened the same day as Kirk’s assassination.

A lot of individuals didn’t agree with any, or at least most of what Kirk stood for, but some did. He was a controversial figure. Some criticized him and some stood in support of him. Even within our editorial board, there are differing views on him, but we agree on one thing: People can criticize his views and political impact while still holding true to the moral principle that killing is unjust, no matter what. Political violence does not lead to conversation, let alone change; it only leads to more violence.

Regardless of what you viewed Kirk as, he was a human being above all else and was the victim of a public execution that should not have happened.