When political violence is weaponized

Following the assassination of a prominent American political commentator, this column argues that the rush to weaponize tragedy is a dangerous symptom of a public discourse broken by divisive rhetoric.

Horrific news broke this week that American commentator Charlie Kirk was shot and killed. No matter what you think of his politics, violence like this is unequivocally tragic. However in the aftermath, many conservative voices have rushed to portray his death as proof that the political left is dangerous.

It’s an important moment to pause and think about how words shape action. For years, much of the divisive speech — the “culture war” talk, the constant framing of “us” versus “them” — has come from the right. Instead of adjusting to a society that has grown more accepting of women, LGBTQ people, Indigenous folk, immigrants, and other minorities, many conservatives have argued that traditional views which exclude certain groups should be treated as just another perspective worthy of respect. But when your belief depends on denying another person’s identity or dignity, it stops being a neutral opinion; it becomes something more insidious.

And the evidence supports this. Research from the U.S. National Institute of Justice shows that since 1990, far-right extremists have committed more than **200 deadly attacks** that killed over **520 people**, compared to about **40 attacks** from far-left extremists with under **80 deaths**. There are examples of extremist violence on both sides, but the statistical pattern is unmistakable: violence linked to the far right is far more common and more deadly.

What makes this even more troubling is how quickly the narrative around Kirk’s death was framed _before anyone knew who the shooter was, or what their motivations might have been_. Within hours, figures like Elon Musk were already calling the political left “the party of murder.” Fox News host Jesse Watters went further, declaring, _“They are at war with us … We are going to avenge Charlie’s death in the way Charlie wanted it avenged.”_ Representative Derrick Van Orden pointed the finger at the media, saying, _“You are responsible for that assassination yesterday.”_ Some outlets reported that there were “pro-trans” inscriptions on bullet casings — a detail that turned out to be completely false. Even Donald Trump leaned into the narrative, declaring that “the radical left” was directly responsible for Kirk’s assassination. None of this was based on facts. Tyler Robinson, the suspect, was later revealed to come from a conservative family of gun enthusiasts in Utah.

There is also a major difference in how each side tends to use language. On the left, the focus is usually on widening access and recognition, while on the right it more often emphasizes boundaries and who does or doesn’t belong. The latter kind of framing makes it easier to justify hostility, because it shifts the debate away from ideas and onto people’s very existence.

It’s also important to acknowledge: incidents like this do not help anyone working toward social change. Violence of this kind tends to set back the very causes it becomes associated with, rather than advancing them. Every time something like this happens, the focus shifts away from solutions and toward a cycle of blame that only deepens division.

Meanwhile, responses from progressives in the U.S. have been consistent with the message heard after every school shooting or random act of gun violence: the call for common-sense gun laws, fewer weapons in circulation, and fewer grieving families. That’s not about targeting one side or another — it’s about reducing violence for everyone.

Here in Canada, we are in a very different position. We already have strong, responsible gun laws — and they work. Like every other country with similar regulations, Canada has far fewer shootings than the U.S. does. And it’s not because America is uniquely violent overall; their rates of non-lethal violence aren’t much higher than other wealthy countries. The difference is that when violence does occur, the easy availability of guns makes it much more likely to end in death. That is the real problem.

And that brings us back to Charlie Kirk. His death has sparked a wide range of reactions — some compassionate, others disturbingly cruel. There’s no denying that some people are speaking about it in horrible ways, and that sort of commentary doesn’t help anyone. If there is a lesson here, it’s that our public conversation has to change. Real open debate isn’t about walking into a room certain you’re right — it means entering a conversation with the humility to accept that you could be wrong, and the willingness to listen as much as you speak.

Because words do lead to action. If we let our public dialogue revolve around tearing people down, we should not be surprised when violence follows. But if we approach one another with empathy and respect — even across deep disagreements — then we have a chance to prevent tragedies like this from repeating. That doesn’t mean we will always agree, but it does mean keeping the bridges open between us, so that debate remains possible and community remains whole.