Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use
A Bullet Is Not an Argument
Charlie Kirk deserved to be proved wrong.
by Ari Armstrong, Copyright © 2025
Charlie Kirk was murdered yesterday, September 10, as he sat beneath a tent emblazoned with the words, "Prove me wrong." As much as I disagree with and even detest many of Kirk's political stances, I respect him insofar as he was committed to freedom of speech, a foundational principle of a genuinely liberal society.
Kirk was not only a political activist; he also was a husband, a father, a friend, and a family member. Kirk did not deserve this. Kirk's wife, children, friends, and family did not deserve this. This is a terrible day for America.
I shared on social media, "Whatever you might say about Charlie Kirk, he was sitting in a tent marked, 'Prove Me Wrong.' A bullet is not an argument. . . . Everyone should be free to speak in public, here in America, without fear of violence. A terrible day."
Obviously Kirk loved to argue with people. He asked that people prove him wrong. I criticize him in some of the remarks that follow in that spirit, as a sign of respect, even knowing that he cannot now answer. I want to do what I can at this time to emphasize the social norms of debate to resolve political differences.
Transgender Gun Owners
Strange as it seems, the following really are Charlie Kirk's last public words:
Audience member: "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?"
Kirk: "Too many."
Audience member: "Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?"
Kirk: "Counting or not counting gang violence?"
Then a killer's bullet tore through Kirk's neck. If the scene had been written as fiction people would have thought it unrealistic, but that's how it went down. Maybe the perpetrator waited for a particular moment. Regardless, Kirk was gunned down arguing about gun violence. Which proves . . . exactly nothing.
In this case, the audience member seems to have been on track to winning this mini-debate, which is why Kirk dodged the issue of transgender people by bringing up the issue of gang-related shootings.
Kirk seemed to be leading up to a real issue regarding gang violence. A 2023 JAMA article indicates "from 2014 to 2022, there were 4011 mass shootings," and "15.8% were crime related," whereas "1.4% were school or work related." The sorts of shootings that dominate the news are not the most common. The article's categories are a little dodgy, so it's hard to know how many of the shootings in question were gang-related. The conservative Washington Times found that for the first part of 2022 "arguments or gang violence accounted for 174 deaths (57%) and 869 injuries (75.5%)" associated with mass shootings. Okay, but the "or" here intentionally combines the very different categories. Still, let's take Kirk's suggested point, that many people have a distorted idea of what most mass shootings look like.
But let's get back to the point of the question! What the questioner seemed to be getting at is that only a tiny fraction of mass shootings involve a transgender perpetrator. As the Poynter Institute reported on September 9, evidence "overwhelmingly shows that the majority of shootings are perpetrated by men who are not transgender." Of course, transgender people are a small fraction of the population. Poynter finds "no evidence that transgender people are more likely to commit gun violence than others."
The broader point is that the audience member in question should have been able to press his point, Kirk should have been able to respond, and the rest of us should have been able to make fun of Kirk's dodgy debate tactics later on. Debate is what happens insofar as society is civilized. I continue in that spirit, enraged that Kirk cannot now rebut.
Did Kirk ever even say anything about transgender people owning guns? Here's something odd: Wikipedia claims, "Charlie Kirk said 'The trans movement is radicalizing the mentally ill into becoming violent terrorists who target children for murder,' and advocated against transgender people being allowed to own firearms." But that doesn't seem to be accurate, because Mother Jones has that quote down as by Benny Johnson, and the Twitter link confirms that.
Interestingly, in 2022 Kirk said some things supportive of the right of LGBTQ people to own guns:
Guns are the great equalizer right? And so I think that people like you [gay] need to speak up and be like, 'Look, if you think you're going to be terrorized, or you're going to be hunted, a gun is a moral right to be able to defend yourself and your liberty,' right? . . .
I don't think that gun ownership should be political, and this is one of the arguments I always make for BLM people, right? Like, if you think you're gonna get hunted down, then responsibly own guns, right? . . .
I think it should transcend sexual persuasion, or skin color. I think it's a moral right for all people, especially women, who are, potentially at a physical disadvantage when defending themselves. . . . if you believe you're being targeted, or are in a marginalized position, I mean, that's partially what the Second Amendment is for, right?
But that was before the Trump administration was "mulling a way of limiting transgender people's ability to purchase firearms," as Fox32 summarizes. So would Kirk have sung a new tune? I may never know (unless there's some recent quote out that I'm not finding), because someone murdered Kirk before he could answer.
Kirk's Murderer
As I write (the evening of September 10 and the morning of September 11), the manhunt is still underway for Kirk's killer. How is it that someone can murder someone with a gun in broad daylight in a crowded area and then apparently slip away quietly? Hopefully authorities catch the person soon. As Utah governor Spencer Cox reminded people in discussing the crime, Utah has the death penalty. I'm formally against the death penalty, but in cases such as these I understand the emotional appeal.
The Wall Street Journal reports that an "older-model .30 caliber hunting rifle was discovered in the woods near the scene" of the murder. This helps explain how the perpetrator went unnoticed and then escaped. The kicker: "Investigators found ammunition engraved with expressions of transgender and antifascist ideology inside the rifle that authorities believe was used in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk."
Obviously this fact will be politicized. (I'll stipulate this is a fact; we'll see if additional investigation supports it. [See updates below.]) You know how conservatives always say "don't condemn a whole group based on the actions of a lone individual?" Somehow I suspect that some conservatives will not be following that advice in this case.
To state the obvious: The overwhelming majority of transgender people (and people who support transgender people) are peaceable and do not condone or practice violence.
To state another obvious point: Murdering someone for their speech is a fascist thing to do and in no way "antifascist!"
The breaking news (10:35 am, September 11) is that authorities have released photos of a "person of interest." So I take it this mean that authorities are hot on the trail.
Interlude: Public Support for Political Violence
On January 6, 2021, a mob of Trump supporters, driven by conspiracy-fueled rage about the election results, violently invaded U.S. Capitol and in many cases assaulted numerous police officers in the process. Over a thousand people pled guilty to federal crimes. Earlier this year Donald Trump pardoned all those criminals.
On June 14, 2025, a man murdered Minnesota State Rep. Melissa Hortman along with her husband, and injured a state senator and his wife. The perpetrator had a "hit list" of 45 elected Democrats.
Governor Cox accurately called the murder of Kirk a political assassination. Although we still don't know who the perpetrator was, obviously Kirk specifically was targeted because of his politics.
People's willingness to tolerate or even condone political violence is disturbingly high. A January report finds:
Nearly one-third of respondents [in 2022] (32.8%) considered violence usually or always justified to advance at least 1 of 17 specified political objectives; 13.7% strongly or very strongly agreed with a prediction of civil war in the next few years. These prevalences fell in 2023 . . . to 25.3% for justification of violence to advance specific political objectives and to 5.7% for an expectation of civil war [and little change for 2024].
There's some indication that "right"-wingers are more prone than "left"-wingers to political violence, but I haven't run down all the possible objections to that conclusion. The broader point, however you slice and qualify the states, is that way too many Americans are willing to accept political violence.
Trump Plays the Rule of Law Card
It is the opposite of helpful for Sean Davis to declare "The Democrat Party Is A Domestic Terrorist Organization." This is before we even know the identity of the perpetrator, not that the person's party affiliation (if any) should reflect on other members of that party.
Incidentally, the man who shot and nearly murdered Donald Trump was a registered Republican. But, you know, who cares about niggling things like facts when the aim is to demonize one's political opponents?
Here is what Trump said following a very nice eulogy of Kirk:
It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree, day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass-murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity, and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country. From the attack on my life in Butler, Pennsylvania, last year, which killed a husband and father, to the attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a health-care executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of house majority leader Steve Scalise and three others, radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. Tonight I ask all Americans to commit themselves to the American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died, the values of free speech, citizenship, the rule of law, and the patriotic devotion and love of God.
I guess Trump just accidentally left out the name of Melissa Hortman (as others also have noticed). Or maybe her murder didn't fit his narrative?
Federal investigators looked for, found, and prosecuted the many domestic terrorists who assaulted police officers on January 6. Again, Trump pardoned the people who perpetrated the violence. Trump has a rather narrow vision of the rule of law. In practice, he upholds "rule of law for thee, capricious power for me."
In saying that calling Kirk a "Nazi" and the like is "directly responsible" for terrorism, Trump is playing precisely the "words are violence" card also played by some on the left. It's fair to say that overheated language that demonizes one's political opponents contributes to an atmosphere in which political violence is more likely. But to say that words are "directly responsible" for violence is to undercut the right to freedom of speech that Trump says Kirk championed. (We might recall here that J. D. Vance once publicly wondered whether Trump might be "America's Hitler.")
Incidentally, I have called Trump a fascist, and that is justifiable because Trump, in fact, is a fascist. I also pointed out that comparing Trump to Hitler "would be unjust." I've also claimed that Trump is building the foundations of a fascist state, and that too is justifiable, because Trump, in fact, is building the foundations of a fascist state. Obviously a lot of people disagree with me, but I've laid out reasons for my claims, and I'm on solid ground in making them. (I don't think Kirk is a fascist.)
What Trump seems to be saying is that people who call him a Nazi (or a fascist?) should be silenced by the government, because such speech supposedly is "directly responsible" for violent crime and terrorism. Right after the "directly responsible" line about rhetoric Trump threatens to send the U.S. government after those "responsible." That is not a very good way for Trump to prove that he isn't a fascist!
As for Trump's concern about people demonizing others, perhaps someone could buy Trump a gold-encased mirror? This is a guy who built his entire political career on demonizing people. Remember back in 1989 when Trump strongly insinuated that the "Central Park Five," later exonerated, should get the death penalty? Remember that time when Trump said his treatment by the "Biden Crime Family" was "reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s?" Remember when Trump said of his political opponents, "It is the enemy from within, and they're very dangerous. They're Marxists and communists and fascists, and they're sick." Remember when Trump called Kamala Harris a "Marxist, communist, fascist, socialist?" Remember when Trump said immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country?"
As is so often the case, Trump's recent speech largely is a case of projection.
What Kirk Said about the Second Amendment
Lots of people have quoted snippets of Kirk's remarks; Snopes offers the entire thing:
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you—"wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that"—well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. . . . So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.
Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000 . . . people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving—speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services—is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I—I think it's worth it. I think it's worth 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. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?
This is all . . . pretty reasonable. I interviewed Dave Kopel and he made a comparable point about guns and tyranny.
There were, of course, armed police officers at the event at which Kirk was murdered. There were not secured access points or metal detectors, as there are in airports.
The point I would add is that repealing the Second Amendment and officially banning guns would not end gun violence in America, although those actions would reduce certain types of gun violence. In such a scenario, lots of Americans would continue to own guns illegally, and violent criminal gangs would traffic guns. If you don't like the police state that America is turning into over immigration, just wait until the federal government starts enforcing gun bans.
Obviously "reductionist" policy matters. I think well-written and enforced "red flag" laws can help, for example.
Proving Kirk Wrong
Kirk was a smart, well-informed person but hardly a deep intellectual. He frequently let partisanship get in the way of logical consistency, and often he went for what was inflammatory rather than what was useful. He had every right to make his case, and the rest of us had every right to prove him wrong.
I think Kirk was wrong to compare abortion to the Holocaust, for reasons I've laid out.
I think Kirk was wrong to drum up antagonism toward black people by claiming that "all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people."
I think Kirk was wrong to endorse the xenophobic and racist "replacement" conspiracies.
I think Kirk was wrong and frankly racist to demean Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
I think Kirk was wrong when he claimed that hydroxychloroquine effectively treated Covid.
I'm sure I could find an endless list of things about which I disagree with Kirk. The point is, now that argument has been violently cut short.
This morning I am thinking of Kirk's wife, undoubtedly overwhelmed with anguish. I am thinking of Kirk's children, now fatherless, too young to fully understand what is happening around them. I am thinking of our country, again ripped apart by senseless violence.
We are at a very dangerous place in this country. It is up to all of us to push in the direction of human decency, individual rights, civic virtues, liberty and justice for all. Some say America will destroy itself from within. Prove them wrong.
Update: Mid-Afternoon September 11
Kirk also called transgender people an "abomination" and said "some amazing patriot out there . . . should go and bail this guy out . . . and then go ask him some questions," in reference to the man suspected of beating Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer.
Update: September 11, 8:10 pm Mountain
Here is what the Wall Street Journal currently states at the same web page:
An early bulletin circulated widely among law enforcement officials said investigators found ammunition engraved with expressions of "transgender and anti-fascist ideology" inside the rifle that authorities believe was used in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk. But some officials later Thursday cautioned against reaching conclusions based on the internal report.
The bulletin said an older-model .30 caliber hunting rifle was discovered in the woods near the scene of Wednesday’s shooting at Utah Valley University, wrapped in a towel with a spent cartridge still in the chamber. There were also three unspent rounds in the magazine, all with wording on them, it said.
Justice Department officials said the probe was in its early stages, investigators were still analyzing the evidence and the bulletin may not accurately reflect the messages on the ammunition.
Okay, I should have known better than to trust even one of the most important, most widely-respected newspapers in the world about such a thing. I apologize to my readers for doing so. I seriously thought to myself something like, "This is the Wall Street Journal, composed of serious journalists, so surely they wouldn't run a story this significant, this inflammatory, without actually verifying the facts first." Obviously I was a fool to trust these reporters. I should have known better.
To be as clear as I can be: Authorities still have not arrested a suspect. They have released photos of a "person of interest" who may or may not be the perpetrator. I know of no solid evidence that the shooter left anything behind indicating a motive or an ideological bent. I do not know if authorities believe they know who committed the murder or what the motive of the perpetrator might have been.
This is a typical pattern in high-profile cases such as this. Early-reported "facts" often turn out to be confused, misleading, or flatly untrue. You'll notice that I did hedge a bit when bringing up the original report, but obviously I did not hedge nearly strongly enough or bring enough skepticism to the table.
Update: September 12, 11:50 am Mountain
Earlier this morning authorities arrested a suspect in Kirk's murder. The evidence seems overwhelming.
According to USA Today and Governor Spencer Cox, fired and unfired bullet casings believed to have been left by the murderer were inscribed, "Notices, bulges, OwO what's this?," "Hey fascist! Catch!," "Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao," and "If you read this, you are gay LMAO."
USA Today says the OwO message "is part of an internet meme and iterative slang that circulated in 2018 and 2019. It has ties to animated videos and furries. 'OwO' references an emoticon, and 'what's this?' denotes cuteness or curiosity. The terms [are] frequently referenced by video game streamers." And "'Bella Ciao' is an Italian song dedicated to resistance fighters against the Nazi troops occupying the country during WWII."
I take it, given this is coming from Cox and given the level of specificity, that this time the facts are reported correctly.
According to Cox, a roommate of the alleged perpetrator (or at least the roommate's device) received messages via Discord from the suspect detailing plans of the murder. I wonder if the roommate has or will need a lawyer.
The rifle found was a .30-06 bolt action, a standard hunting rifle.
The suspect is a 22-year-old male.
NBC reports that, as of 2021, the suspect was registered to vote unaffiliated.
USA Today reports, "Robinson has no criminal history according to state records."