By Alex Sorrells / The Jambar
The recent death of Charlie Kirk was followed by a nationwide call to end political violence.
A school shooting also occurred in Colorado on the same day of his death, where two students were injured and the shooter committed suicide. The news of this incident was overshadowed by the death of Kirk.
As school shootings become commonplace over the last few decades, the public support that victims receive seems to diminish year after year.
Unfortunately, a shooting doesn’t get the attention it deserves unless several die or are injured.
This is in contrast to the death of Kirk, which garnered national support — even prompting President Donald Trump to call for flags to be lowered at half-mast.
There is even public discourse on social media regarding Kirk’s controversial remarks, and whether or not he deserves a national honor instead of acknowledging the school shooting.
People pick and choose who to be sympathetic towards and the shooting in Colorado is not the only instance.
According to edweek.org, in 2024 there were 39 school shootings where someone was injured or killed. There have been 11 shootings this year — so far.
Why doesn’t the murder of children spark the same amount of outrage as a political pundit getting killed for practicing his First Amendment right? Because of selective empathy.
Many people want to believe there’s no place for violence in this country, but the truth is, we pick and choose who to grieve, who to empathize with and who to support. Empathy should be even for all atrocities across the board, but the events that occur in this country prove otherwise.
Affective Science states empathy is influenced by one’s moral compass, making them feel empathy for one situation, but not another, despite how similar the situations may be.
The 18 people who were killed in schools last year did not receive nearly the amount of public outcry as Kirk, but why is that?
According to Kirk at a 2022 Turning Point USA conference in Utah, victims of gun violence are a natural byproduct of the Second Amendment.
“It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights,” Kirk stated.
Kirk was a prominent figure for right-wing ideology and oftentimes spread his beliefs, with many claiming he was killed for practicing his First Amendment rights.
While many disagreed with Kirk, there were those in office and online who supported him and his beliefs, no matter how abhorrent.
One supporter of Kirk, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, said the shooter was radicalized by “leftist ideology,” although this claim has not been supported by officials.
“For 33 hours, I was praying that if this had to happen here, then it wouldn’t be one of us. That somebody drove from another state, that somebody came from another country,” Cox stated.
While his statement doesn’t describe who “us” is, this can be seen as an attempt to utilize the situation to push a narrative. By hoping the shooter was from another country, Cox wanted to push the blame on immigration, which has been a popular topic for politicians in recent months.
This rhetoric mimics the ideals that Kirk himself supported.