Lou's Views: Don't Let Charlie Kirk's Death Be In Vain

On September 10, 2025, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Kirk had been addressing a crowd of nearly 3,000 as part of his “American Comeback Tour” when a single rifle shot, fired from a rooftop more than 200 yards away, struck him in the neck. Despite the presence of both local police officers and his private security team, the attack was swift, precise, and fatal. Within hours, news of Kirk’s death spread nationwide, shaking the political landscape and sparking renewed debate about security, political polarization, and violence in America.

Charlie Kirk’s rise to prominence was as fast as it was controversial. Born in 1993, he co-founded Turning Point USA at just 18 years old, quickly building it into a major force in conservative youth politics. Known for his outspoken style and sharp attacks on what he called “woke culture,” Kirk became a central figure for the MAGA movement and a close ally of Donald Trump. Through his organization, media appearances, and The Charlie Kirk Show, he influenced a generation of young conservatives, focusing on issues such as free speech on campus, Christian nationalism, opposition to abortion and diversity initiatives, and unwavering support for Israel. His outspoken defense of the Jewish state, particularly during times of heightened conflict in the Middle East, made him a prominent voice in pro-Israel activism within the conservative movement. Loved by supporters and loathed by critics, Kirk represented a new style of combative, media-savvy conservatism.

The question many are now asking is whether Kirk’s death could have been prevented. Despite a significant security presence, the sniper managed to set up undetected on a rooftop overlooking the event. This oversight is especially alarming given that the assassination came just months after two separate attempts on President Donald Trump’s life. If those incidents had prompted stronger security measures for other high-profile conservative figures, the attack on Kirk might have been deterred. The tragedy underscores the urgent need to rethink how public events—especially those involving controversial political figures—are secured in an era where threats are no longer hypothetical but proven realities.

Beyond security failures, Kirk’s assassination forces a deeper look at the climate of political rhetoric in the United States. Violent language, demonization of opponents, and constant escalation in political discourse create fertile ground for acts of violence. This is not limited to one side of the aisle. On the right, Donald Trump has repeatedly used language suggesting that political opponents are “enemies of the people” or threats that must be “crushed,” framing politics as a war rather than a debate. On the left, figures like Congresswoman Maxine Waters once urged crowds to publicly confront and harass Trump officials in restaurants and public places, rhetoric that encouraged mob-style intimidation. Even former President Joe Biden has, at times, described “MAGA Republicans” as a fundamental “threat to democracy,” which opponents interpreted as painting millions of Americans as dangerous adversaries rather than political rivals. 

In addition, the growing perception that the justice system is being weaponized against political opponents only fuels resentment and deepens mistrust, making compromise and civility harder to achieve. Together, these dynamics make clear that America is not just polarized—it is in the midst of a silent civil war, fought not on battlefields but in rhetoric, institutions, and increasingly, through acts of political violence.

Perhaps most disturbing in the aftermath of Kirk’s assassination has been the reaction from some corners of social media. While many mourned his death and condemned the violence, others openly mocked him or celebrated the killing. It is baffling—and deeply troubling—to see offensive comments made about the dead in such a public and gleeful way. What happened to civility and respect? Who speaks ill of the dead, regardless of their politics? The willingness to dehumanize even in death shows just how far the nation’s divisions have corroded basic decency.

Charlie Kirk’s life was defined by his belief in challenging ideas and sparking debate, often in the most contentious ways. His assassination silenced his voice, but it also poses a sobering challenge to the nation: to confront the dangers of violent rhetoric, to protect the safety of public figures regardless of ideology, and to restore a measure of civility to the political arena. Unless those steps are taken, Kirk’s death will not just mark the loss of one man—it will mark a warning unheeded. We owe it to him, and to his family, not to let his death be in vain.