Charlie Kirk’s death was a turning point for America. Humanity was never meant to watch someone lose their life so violently while scrolling on social media. We were never meant to watch someone bleed out in between The Summer I Turned Pretty reels. What we collectively witnessed was traumatic — whether you liked the guy or not. In an age of rampant desensitization, we often treat our feelings as moral tests. After news of Charlie Kirk’s death, we shamed those who didn’t mourn, we condemned those who lashed out in rage and ridiculed those who cried. Vice President JD Vance chimed in to this discourse by stating that finding common ground with those who “celebrated the assassination of his friend is impossible.” Relatedly and for the sake of clarity, I want to point out that the absence of mourning is not dichotomous to empathy and lack of grief is not synonymous with celebration. Regardless, to divide ourselves into two opposing camps — those who mourned and those who didn’t — was an oversimplification of the emotional bounds of humanity.
I want to draw attention to the fact that, political affiliation aside, we all felt activated by America’s recent display of gun violence — and here’s the truth: all emotions in the aftermath are valid. Gun lobbyists and politicians who profit from inaction sighed in relief as we all desperately searched for a moral high ground to stand on. For once, gun violence was not partisan, yet we were too busy picking each other apart to acknowledge the common ground in front of us. That is exactly how the status quo survives. My feed has been flooded with articles indicating an uptick of political violence, calls for civil war, and rhetoric that is meant to further fuel the division between the left and right. The complexity of American political discourse is vast, but I can assure you that ‘we the people’ do not benefit from infighting. Political polarization and interest group politics pose structural barriers that hinder essential progress and in arguing about the morality of each other’s emotional responses, we abandoned our opportunity to mobilize for gun reform.
Let me be clear: We don’t need to agree on how we feel, we need to agree on what to do. As Nelson Mandela once said, “The best weapon is to sit down and talk.” So, let’s talk. There is something to learn in each and every emotion people are feeling. john. a powell*, the leader of UC Berkeley’s Othering and Belonging Institute, urges us to see the humanity in others during times of tense division. Instead of condemnation, we need curiosity — curiosity breeds collaboration. Community is built not by uniformity of emotion but by compassion and a shared commitment to act. So, demand reform.
How do you do that? I’m so glad you asked! There are a myriad of ways you can get involved — whether that be social media advocacy or direct action. Everytown, the largest gun violence prevention organization in the United States, has a page dedicated to ways you can take action to help end gun violence. If petitions aren’t your thing, you can volunteer with a local advocacy group, such as Students Demand Action. But why stop there? If you want to broaden your advocacy, New Era Colorado has a Boulder Chapter that is dedicated to educating and mobilizing young Colorado voters on several issues that foster progress, justice and equity. Whatever your background, political affiliation, age, etc., there’s a form of advocacy for you — if there’s a will, there’s a way.
Cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead once said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Accordingly, I urge you to let go of the overwhelming need to be right. There is power in unity — don’t forget that.