The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy, and the act should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Such condemnation is appropriate, but it should also be directed against the exceptionally large of people who die every year from gun violence.
Gun Violence Statistics & Facts in the US 2025
| Gun Violence Fact | 2023 Data | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Total Gun Deaths | 46,728 | CDC |
| Gun Death Rate (per 100k) | 14.2 | CDC |
| Gun Suicides | 27,300 (58%) | CDC |
| Gun Homicides | 17,927 (38%) | CDC |
| Law Enforcement Deaths | 604 | CDC |
| Accidental Deaths | 463 | CDC |
| Daily Gun Deaths | 128 | CDC |
| Men Victims | 86% | CDC |
| Leading Cause Ages 1-19 | Yes | CDC |
| Economic Cost (Annual) | $280+ Billion | CDC |
| Mass Shooting Deaths | 722 | Pew Research |
| Hospital Emergency Visits | 76,000+ | CDC |
Guns kill 128 people a day in the US, or about one death every 11 minutes, and is the leading cause of death for children aged 1-19.
It is disturbing that the discussion about Kirk’s assassination has not included consideration of these facts. Instead, the discussion has focused on the political polarization in the US. For example, US President Trump made these comments about the assassination:
“It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”
It may be the case that the alleged shooter was indeed a radical leftist. He has been apprehended and we will know more about his motives soon. But to attribute the atrocity to leftists ignores the acts of violence against individuals who were allied with the political left. The list is long, as cataloged by The Huffington Post:
“In just the past year-and-change, there were two attempted assassinations against President Donald Trump, then a candidate, the shootings of two Minnesota state legislators and their family members, the arson attack on Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home and the shooting of the Centers for Disease Control headquarters — and now, what appears to be the assassination of a famous far-right figure with close ties to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
“Other recent episodes included the shooting of Republican congressmen in 2017, the Unite the Right rally at Charlottesville that left one protester dead in 2017, the attempted mail bombing of Democratic congressmen and other political figures in 2018, the attack on Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul Pelosi in 2022, the 2020 plot to kidnap Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and, of course, the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.”
I will not attempt to explain why Trump did not mention these other acts of violence against political figures, but neglecting to mention these facts is in itself reflective of political polarization. Refusing to acknowledge that gun violence seems to be explainable for reasons other than, or in addition to, political ideology leads to a sterile and vapid conversation.
Kirk himself defended the 2nd Amendment in political terms:
“The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — “wow, that’s radical, Charlie, I don’t know about that” — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you’ve not read any 20th-century history. You’re just living in Narnia. By the way, if you’re actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you’re living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don’t know what alternative universe you’re living in. You just don’t want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.”
I have posted about the 2nd Amendment previously, and Kirk’s defense of the 2nd Amendment is fundamentally flawed. I argued on 27 March 2023 that the Militia Act of 1792 required all young men to join the various militias, and that they were required to provide their own weapons:
“That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder…”
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the militias were armed, not to make sure that citizens could overthrow the central government. For those who support an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution, the correct strategy would be to get rid of the newly named “Department of War” and to require universal military service to all National Guard units in the fifty states and the US territories. We should also remember that there was an armed insurrection against the Federal Government in 1861 and that it was suppressed in a very bloody war. The lethality of the Federal Government’s arsenal today far exceeds the alleged strength of armed civilians.
Further, Kirk himself acknowledged the tradeoffs enforced by the 2nd Amendment:
“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.”
I suspect that Kirk’s wife and children might have some questions about his assessment of the risks. We all must acknowledge that the individual right to bear arms, as codified in the Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) was wrongly decided and completely inconsistent with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
World Politics News 
Leave a comment