# Millions of Gen Z’ers Don't "Feel Bad" About Charlie Kirk's Murder. Here’s Why.

### The online reaction to Charlie Kirk's assassination reveals a generational (and partisan) disconnect on issues of gun violence, systemic injustice, and the nature of political hatred.

[Kahlil Greene](https://substack.com/@kahlilgreene)

Sep 11, 2025

Charlie Kirk, the firebrand founder of Turning Point USA, was shot and killed during a "Prove Me Wrong" debate at Utah Valley University yesterday.

The immediate, top-down response was bipartisan condemnation. President Trump announced he would posthumously award Kirk the Medal of Freedom. Top Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries called for unity and an end to political violence. Even former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden released statements, all echoing: **"Violence has no place in our democracy."**

Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk

Yet, if you logged on to any major social media platform in the hours that followed, the mood was … different. TikTok, X, and Instagram were not filled with unanimous mourning but with a raw, often jarring mix of anger, [morbid humor](https://www.tiktok.com/@plugiana/video/7548640593476341022), and outright refusal to grant Kirk the empathy being demanded on his behalf.

His death, for thousands—if not millions—of (young) people (on the left), wasn't a senseless tragedy that demanded unity. It was a predictable, if horrific, consequence of a system he spent his career building.

* * *

### Why am I writing this?

**Let’s be clear:** the assassination of a political figure is a line that—for practical reasons regarding the health of our society alone—should be unequivocally condemned.

But to simply shake our heads, say "violence is bad," and leave it at that is to completely miss the reason why many people don’t feel the same way. It would be to look away from the very real, visceral arguments that are bubbling up from a generation that has come to view mainstream calls for empathy as a form of cultural gaslighting. They aren't rejecting compassion for Kirk just to be edgy; they're doing it because—to them— **offering such compassion would be an act of profound hypocrisy.**

And if we want to understand how to prevent this kind of violence from becoming the norm, we have to stop finger-wagging and start listening to the messy, uncomfortable reasons for this reaction.

Let’s break it down.

* * *

### Idea #1: “Thoughts and Prayers” Don’t Stop Bullets

The first and most immediate reaction from many on the left, particularly from Gen Z, was an indictment of Kirk's stance on gun violence. The irony was too stark to ignore: a man who spent his career vociferously opposing gun control was killed by a single gunshot. For a generation raised on lockdown drills, active shooter alerts, and horrific instances of school shootings, the silence from many of Kirk’s supporters on this topic felt deafening. That is, until it was their own.

A viral video from a young woman, the daughter of a Sandy Hook survivor, cut straight to the heart of this argument. She recounts her mother's experience, surviving the same meeting where the principal and school psychologist were brutally murdered. She describes the lasting trauma and the grief of the 26 families who can’t tell the same story.

Her words are an indictment of Kirk's hypocrisy and a raw confession of her own numbness to gun violence.

The conclusion she reaches is a logical one. The only thing that could have saved Kirk's life, she argues, was not more security or a bulletproof vest, but gun control. Her video ends with, “Maybe now that Republicans are starting to realize that the unfortunate gun deaths that happen every year to protect our Second Amendment are gonna be them, maybe now things will change.” Then, after a heavy pause, "If they don't, thoughts and prayers." The words mock the hollow platitudes often offered in the wake of mass shootings.

* * *

### Idea #2: Violence Is More Than Just a Bullet

Another, more intellectually rigorous line of critique comes from academic and activist circles, which argues that we need to expand our definition of violence. This view suggests that focusing only on interpersonal, physical acts like a shooting allows us to ignore the vast, systemic violence that is a daily reality for millions of people. In this framework, Kirk’s death, while horrific, is viewed as one form of violence. But his own career, and the policies he championed, are seen as another.

As one creator put it, “Violence is at the heart of politics.” They argued that we conveniently ignore the violence enacted by the police, the violence against immigrants and asylum seekers, and the violence of a healthcare system that lets people die for lack of access, among other things.

* * *

### Idea #3: He Was The Architect of a Polarized Era

The final, and perhaps most damning, category of critique suggests that Kirk was a victim of the very hatred he helped to create. Kirk’s montages of inflammatory rhetoric, often mocking and dehumanizing marginalized groups, are now circulating online. It’s not far-fetched to say that Kirk was the architect of a culture war that has left America more fractured than ever before.

In one viral video that has circulated widely in the wake of his death, a commentator argues that to understand the response from Gen Z, one must first look at the legacy Kirk leaves behind. The video contends that Kirk’s career was defined by a deliberate campaign to dismantle the core tenets of a shared American identity.

To be clear: Kirk’s death should be widely condemned. Violence (interpersonal or otherwise) should not be endorsed in a healthy democracy.

But the widespread condemnation from mainstream media and politicians, without any acknowledgment of the underlying context, feels like a moral plea in a vacuum.

If we want to move forward, we must begin by listening, not just condemning, and work to build a democracy that feels less like a zero-sum game of winners and losers and more like a shared project.