Why is outrage selective?

All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not represent The Roar as a whole.

Although political parties in America seem more divided than ever, there is one thing almost everyone can agree on: political violence is unacceptable. However, this appears to be the extent of the agreement. In America, all political violence should be condemned and mourned regardless of the victim’s ideologies. However, the recent assassination of Conservative activist and media personality Charlie Kirk has shown that this is not what happens. Instead, there is an enormous double standard when it comes to caring about the lives lost to political violence. 

Salzburg Global, a nonprofit dedicated to encouraging healthy discussion surrounding pressing topics, defines political violence as “the use of physical force, coercion, or intimidation to achieve political goals.” In the past years, America has seen far more than its fair share of politically-motivated violence, with the most recent and most widely condemned attack being the assassination of Kirk. 

Kirk was shot and killed on Sept. 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University (UVU) while addressing an audience as a part of his American Comeback Tour, a speech and debate series for his organization Turning Point USA. 

Ironically, Kirk’s final debate was on the topic of mass shootings in the United States. UVU student Hunter Kozak stepped up to the microphone to challenge Kirk on the false assertion made by many Conservatives that transgender people are more likely to become mass shooters. Kirk was in the middle of answering Kozak’s question about how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years, of which only 0.1% have been transgender, according to the Gun Violence Archive, when he was fatally shot in the neck. 

Kirk’s death sparked national and even global outrage. However, amidst this uproar, comments were made that only enhanced the political division that contributes to political violence. Almost immediately after Kirk was pronounced dead, President Donald Trump blamed “the radical left” with no evidence of liberal involvement whatsoever. 

In fact, the top suspect in Kirk’s murder was revealed to have grown up surrounded by Conservative political beliefs. A study by the Cato Institute found that 63% of politically-motivated murders were conducted by perpetrators with Right-wing ideologies, compared to 10% with liberal beliefs. 

This is not to say that one political party should be blamed for the abundance of political violence in the United States. After all, the numbers show contributions by both parties. It does show, however, that blaming an entire group of people with no evidence is irrational and does nothing more than advance the country’s divide. 

Is the massive response condemning Kirk’s murder a bad thing? Not necessarily. He died brutally in front of a large crowd for voicing his opinions, which should never happen to someone, regardless of how polarizing their beliefs may be. People are, rightfully so, devastated for his children who will now grow up without a father. However, where was this outrage when Democratic politicians were murdered in front of their children? Where was this outrage when actual children were murdered in a mass school shooting on the same day as Kirk’s death? 

Some people are comparing Kirk’s assassination to the June 14 murder of Minnesota State Lawmaker Melissa Hortman, her husband, and the couple’s golden retriever. The Hortmans (and their dog) were shot and killed in front of their children in their own home. 

This was a similarly politically-targeted attack that took triple the lives of the Kirk shooting. Still, in comparison to the response to Kirk’s murder, no one batted an eye. After making a generic statement about “the great people of Minnesota,” President Trump said that calling Minnesota Governor Tim Walz would “waste time” and moved on from the attack. 

Meanwhile, in the wake of Kirk’s death, President Trump spoke directly about Kirk’s character; had flags across the nation flown at half mast; escorted Kirk’s casket to Kirk’s hometown on Air Force Two; and canceled the talk show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” after its host, Jimmy Kimmel, said that the “MAGA gang” was trying to “score political points from [Kirk’s death].”

Additionally, several sports teams and singers observed moments of silence at their respective games and concerts to honor Kirk. Again, there is nothing wrong with this. Rather, the problem lies in the fact that these recognitions have not been given to children, Democrats, or minorities, such as those killed daily in Gaza. 

The events and comments made following Kirk’s assassination highlight the fact that America only seems to care about political violence when it hurts a Conservative man.

On Sept. 10, President Trump addressed the nation and spoke of recent instances of American political violence. One might think he would be respectful enough to touch on the Hortman murders and other attacks on Democrats, such as the arson attack on the house and family of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, the scheme to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, or the bludgeoning of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband (whose killer Charlie Kirk advocated for, saying that a “patriot” should bail him out of prison). 

There was no mention of any of these attacks in President Trump’s address. Instead, he cherry-picked examples to talk about, which conveniently happened to highlight violence against Republicans exclusively. President Trump spoke about his own survived assassination attempt, Kirk’s shooting, and the shooting of Republican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise in 2017. 

Similar silence surrounded the Evergreen High School shooting, where two students were shot. Just because school shootings are far too common in America does not mean that they can be ignored and dismissed as an inevitable part of American society. If anything, Sept. 10 should be yet another reminder that serious action must be taken to prevent gun violence. And if this is to be done, we must recognize and condemn all political violence; not just that which makes another political party look bad.