On 10 September 2025, right-wing political activist, Charlie Kirk, was killed by gun violence at Utah Valley University — the largest public collegiate institution in the United States. This act of gun violence sparked national debate on empathy and advocacy. Kirk was notorious for inflammatory statements, including at a Turning Point USA (TPUSA) Faith event. Kirk stated, “Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty…I think 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,” (MSN, 2025). Kirk was very present on social media, especially in the right-wing sphere. As he was a notorious figure, many brought attention to his death and its irony. Kirk’s death proved to be a polarizing moment for the left and right, and even the right and the alt-right. 

Kirk had been involved in political activism for decades; he founded Turning Point USA, a conservative organization focused on college campuses, in 2012, at age 18 (BBC, 2025). Kirk invited students to debate with him, recording clips and posting them to social media. These clips garnered Kirk a multi-million following on both TikTok and X. In 2016, the Charlie Kirk Show was introduced. These clips and recordings of Kirk were not without criticism. Kirk was an advocate of the nuclear family, anti-LGBT+, anti-abortion, pro-gun, and pro-Christian. He’s also stated that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a mistake. 

This multitude of controversies was rampantly discussed after Kirk’s death. As Kirk was both a conservative and social media figure, many individuals publicly mourned, or at least publicly acknowledged, his death. The response to Kirk’s death ranged from sorrow to jokes. Many who joked, or declared that his death did not insight empathy, discussed Kirk’s harm to multiple minority communities. His statements and presence normalized harmful rhetoric about marginalized communities. 

The polarization between those supporting Kirk and those who did not sparked significant debate. There is disagreement on what constitutes a major event, and the responsibility each citizen has in bringing awareness to it. Critics of Kirk bring up Kirk’s harms and the multitude of events that both Kirk and Kirk sympathizers ignored or delegitimized — Palestine, gun violence, abortion in cases of assault, etc. On Kirk’s death, there were multiple other gun related deaths; including a high school mass shooting in Denver, CO (CNN; AP News). Critics reiterated that there was a central focus on Kirk, and not other victims of violence. 

It is important to note that Kirk was a notable figure, especially on social media — which is an indication of the large social media wave of support for Kirk after his death. However, the idea of responsibility of civilians is a topic that reemerges after major events. How responsible is each individual to be informed, and further, to bring attention to major events? At least, everyone above 18 has a certain responsibility to be informed about major events — domestic and international. While the amount of knowledge on each event is arbitrary, those with voting power should at least have basic knowledge on these events. However, what is the obligation to share or bring awareness to these events? Are there any? This obligation lies with politicians, journalists, political analysts, etc. There are designated positions to inform, a civilian has no true obligation.

It is suggested by the University of Illinois and LOGO Journal, published by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, that the bombardment of information causes an increase in polarization. How does one manage the twenty-four-hour news cycle with the combination of all-day access to social media? There is no general consensus on this management. If the general population is not subjected to information awareness, then how are they supposed to manage the influx of polarizing information?

There must be some attempt to halt the information overloads many are subjected to on social media, that eventually ends up polarizing them. I am hesitant to suggest just federal intervention, as this intervention may be repressive, and may uplift one party’s view over others. Perhaps the combination of social media executives and the federal government may assist in limiting this, but my original hesitation still stands. This must be a partisan bill that addresses the polarizing content in social media and focuses on informing the population. 

There is a concrete policy that can limit the consequences of polarization and radicalization — gun control. While Kirk advocated for expansive gun rights, he did lose his life because of gun violence. Multiple children and adults also lost their lives that day due to gun violence. Regulations on gun purchases, like mental health assessments and restrictions on automatic and semi-automatic weapons, must occur. While there is no concrete solution to stop the information overload, there are solutions to limit the consequences.