Walking down Boylston Street in between classes, the last thing you expect to see is a gun on someone’s hip. In Massachusetts, we benefit from gun restrictions every day; it is illegal to carry a firearm onto a college campus.
But this is not the reality for hundreds of thousands of college students around the United States. On Sept. 10, students at Utah Valley University did not have that same feeling of safety. Nor did conservative influencer Charlie Kirk as he sat down to debate at the first stop on his fall tour of college campuses.
Ultimately, Kirk—like 96 American students and educators so far this year—fell victim to gun violence on school property when he was publicly assassinated just fifteen minutes into his speaking event. Utah, which passed a law in August allowing individuals with permits to openly carry guns onto college campuses, has come under scrutiny for its permissive firearm carry laws. Their irresponsibility has quickly manifested itself in tragedy.
“We worked closely with the Department of Public Safety to make sure we have all the necessary safeguards in place in this bill,” Utah Governor Spencer Cox said in 2024, following the passing of a bill that funded firearm training for K-12 teachers. “We all want schools where our kids are safe and can thrive.”
And yet, in the aftermath of this bloodshed, the most passionate voices have been the ones focusing on moral and political combat. It isn’t a stretch to say that many of the values Emerson students hold stand in direct opposition to Kirk’s, and it’s understandable that Emerson students, many of whom are queer and trans-identifying, may not be mourning Kirk’s death.
Did we agree with Charlie Kirk’s beliefs? No.
Kirk’s aggressive debate style, which gained him viral notoriety, served to make mockery of the college students he disagreed with. He, along with Turning Point USA, strengthened division while he lived, and that division did not die with him; one of Kirk’s final statements reinforced harmful stereotypes about transgender Americans being mass shooters, and, in response to suspect Tyler Robinson’s relationship with his transgender roommate, the FBI is reportedly moving to “categorize trans people as ‘nihilistic, violent extremists’.”
But did Charlie Kirk deserve to die? Also no.
In the grand scheme of things, Kirk, though certainly a major influence in a new wave of youthful conservatism, was one person. We are only half a year into Donald Trump’s four-year term, and his administration would have found a way to target political opposition regardless of whether or not a shift of this magnitude occurred—they’ve already been doing it.
And so, we turn our attention away from Kirk’s political affiliation, and his suspected shooter’s. Similarly, we turn away from that suspect’s family, who that suspect lived with, and that suspect’s motivations. What matters is not a murderer’s political party, but their access to a gun—and their legal right to carry it on a college campus.
You can kill a human being, but you can’t kill an idea with a bullet.
Left-leaning political commentator Hasan Piker, who was supposed to debate Kirk at Dartmouth College on Sept. 25, wrote in a New York Times op-ed,“Pulling a gun or launching a missile has become part of our national character, a sad reduction of morality to the time it takes for fingers to pull triggers.”
Refusing to condemn Kirk’s death serves as an endorsement of political violence against our opponents, and of Utah’s irresponsibility. It suggests that assassination is a justifiable form of political expression, and that faceless anarchy deserves a spot alongside peaceful protest.
Gun violence is and always will be unnecessary. And as long as people continue to be shot on school and college campuses—and everywhere—it is dangerous to act like there is any victory in another senseless death, politically motivated or not.
Dismissing this as a solely Utah issue, or a Texas issue, or an issue confined to the 11 states that allow the open or concealed carrying of firearms on college campuses, is just as dangerous as viewing Kirk’s death as progress, or using it to promote political agendas. This is not a regional or political issue, but an American illness that needs to be healed. Too many people across the political spectrum are focused on Charlie Kirk, a conservative, being killed. We should instead focus on the bullet that killed him, and the dissonant forces that allowed its firing.
For four years, we devote our lives to gaining a college education, going into debt, and sacrificing endless time and effort to our studies. All we ask for in return is a safe learning environment, and now, with this jarring consequence of relaxed gun laws, we cannot even be guaranteed that much.
