When Violence Becomes Political Currency

The assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University was more than a political attack — it was an assault on civil society itself. A husband, father, and outspoken Christian leader was gunned down while exercising his right to speak freely. Whatever one thinks of his politics, his death was a tragedy that demands solemn reflection and a unified rejection of violence.

Yet almost immediately, much of the national conversation shifted away from the murderer’s responsibility and toward the same old refrain: gun control. Some commentators even went so far as to suggest that Kirk had “invited” violence through his words. It was a chilling display of how quickly compassion can be drowned out by ideology.

The Rush to Frame It as “Gun Violence”

The gun, not the killer, became the story. Politicians and pundits declared the shooting just another example of “America’s gun problem,” ignoring the reality that a human being chose to climb onto a roof, take aim, and fire. The weapon did not carry itself into place, and it did not pull its own trigger. But for many, blaming the tool was easier than facing the uncomfortable truth that political and religious hatred in this country has reached deadly levels.

The Silence Around Iryna Zarutska

Contrast this with the story of Iryna Zarutska, a young Ukrainian refugee who came to America seeking safety and a new life. Over the weekend, she was brutally murdered in North Carolina — not with a gun, but with a knife.

There were no national headlines calling for “knife control.” There were no sweeping claims about America’s “knife violence epidemic.” In fact, in some corners of the media, the narrative quickly shifted toward sympathy for the suspect, with attempts to frame him as a victim of circumstance rather than as a man who made the deliberate choice to end an innocent woman’s life.

A Clear Double Standard

Why the difference? Why is it that when guns are involved, outrage explodes into calls for legislation, but when knives or other weapons are used, the response is muted — sometimes even protective of the offender?

The answer is as troubling as it is clear: outrage has become political currency. When the narrative fits an agenda, it is amplified. When it doesn’t, it is ignored or reframed. Violence is no longer simply condemned on its own terms; instead, it is filtered through a partisan lens.

But in both cases — Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska — the truth remains the same: the weapon was not the actor. A person made a choice. A person committed an act of evil. And two families are left shattered by the consequences.

What This Says About Us

This selective outrage undermines our ability to stand together against violence. It signals that compassion is conditional, doled out only when the victim or the circumstances align with the “right” political narrative. That is not justice. That is not morality.

Violence should never be celebrated, excused, or politicized. Not when it takes the life of a political leader. Not when it claims the life of a refugee seeking peace. Not ever.

A Call for Consistency

If America is to heal, we must be consistent. We must reject political and religious violence with the same force that we reject domestic brutality. We must condemn the act of murder no matter what weapon was used. And we must stop framing criminals as victims and victims as somehow responsible for their own deaths.

The deaths of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska should unite us in grief and in determination to rebuild a culture that values life, truth, and human dignity above political point-scoring. Anything less is complicity in the unraveling of our society.