The shooting of right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk shocked people on all sides of the political spectrum. Whether one agrees with Kirk’s politics or not, the attack served as a disturbing reminder that violence is becoming an alarmingly common part of our political environment.

But incidents of political violence don’t exist in a vacuum. They’re part of a much larger and more dangerous trend. And while it’s easy to focus only on high-profile moments of violence, this crisis runs deeper than any one person, party, or ideology.

To fully understand what’s happening, we need to take a step back and ask: What is political violence, really? Where is it coming from? And why has it become such a prominent force in American life?

What Is Political Violence?

Political violence is the deliberate use of force or harm to achieve political objectives. It occurs when individuals or groups use physical aggression, intimidation or destruction to influence power structures, policies or social order. This can includes armed uprisings, terrorism, assassinations, voting intimidation or violent protests. What sets political violence apart from ordinary violence is its intentions; it is motivated by political aims rather than personal gain or individual disputes. Because it seeks to shape or maintain systems of power through fear and force political violence often destabilizes societies and deepens political conflict. 

A Sharp Increase Since 2016

The problem of political violence in the U.S. didn’t begin in 2016, but that year marked a turning point as the presidential campaign and success of President Trump marked a change to the America public; the political climate became more divided, more angry, and more hostile. As extremist rhetoric gained ground in mainstream politics, acts of political violence began to rise.

The events speak for themselves:

In 2017, a white supremacist drove his car into a crowd of anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville, killing Heather Heyer. In addition, Steve Scalise, the then Republican Minority House Whip, was shot during practice for the Congressional baseball game.

In 2018, 11 people were murdered in a mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the deadliest attack on Jews on American soil.

In 2019, a gunman targeting immigrants killed more than 20 people in a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, after posting a white nationalist manifesto online.

On January 6, 2021, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of a fair, democratic election. At least seven people lost their lives in connection with the attack.

In 2022, a white supremacist killed 10 Black people at a Buffalo, New York supermarket, motivated by racist conspiracy theories.

In 2023, Paul Pelosi, husband of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked in his home by an intruder seeking to harm the Speaker, citing political grievances.

In 2024, Donald Trump was the target of an attempted assassination at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. 

As Louis Jacobson and Amy Sherman point out in the article, How recent political violence in the U.S. fits into ‘a long, dark history’:

“In 2025 alone, Minnesota Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband were fatally shot; an arsonist set fire to the Pennsylvania governor’s residence with Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family inside; an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer was shot and injured outside a detention facility in Texas; the New Mexico Republican Party headquarters was set on fire; and a shooter attacked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters.” 

These were not random acts of violence; they were political acts, driven by ideology and fueled by misinformation, hate and fear. And they’re not isolated either. In recent years, political threats against elected officials have skyrocketed. Armed groups have shown up at protests and polling stations. Voter intimidation is back in the headlines.

What we’re seeing is a shift in political norms. The american public is more likely to supporting the breaking the “rules” of democracy and political violence is increasingly viewed as a legitimate tool in political conflicts.

Guns Make It All More Dangerous

In no other wealthy country is this trend of political violence more deadly than in the United States, and that’s because of one defining factor: gun. While it is true that there are many factors leading to a rise in political violence, the number of fatalities is unique to America.

America’s deep-rooted gun culture means that political violence here isn’t just loud—it’s lethal. In an already polarized climate, widespread access to firearms turns heated disagreements into potential battlefields.When armed groups show up to polling places or rallies, it’s no longer just speech, it’s intimidation. And when people with extreme views believe they have both a cause and the firepower to fight for it, innocent lives are often caught in the crossfire.

The United States has far greater access to firearms than any other country.  In fact, the United States is the only country where civilian guns outnumber people. This creates a unique cultural of gun violence, “In 2023, 46,728 people died by firearms in the United States — an average of one death every 11 minutes.”  The connection is simple: the easier it is to access guns, the deadlier political violence becomes.

Why It Matters and What We Can Do

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed or helpless in the face of rising political violence. But apathy will solve nothing. We, as American citizens, have an obligation to protect the democratic norms that keep people safe. This means questioning what we see in the media, holding leaders accountable for their words and actions, and rejecting ideologies that dehumanize others. It means understanding that democracy cannot survive if people believe violence is the only way to be heard.

Fiorina entered the world of politics after an extensive career in corporate business. Her last job in the corporate world was at Hewlett-Packard Company, an information technology firm, where she served as Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Fiorina held other noteworthy job titles, such as senior vice president at AT&T and president of the consumer products sector at Lucent Technologies.

During her career in corporate, Fiorina received multiple “first female” statuses. Fiorina was the first female to hold an executive officer position at AT&T in the company’s history. She was the first woman to lead what “Fortune” magazine refers to as a top-20 company. Fiorina is looking to add to her list of “first female” statuses; she is vying for the title of first female president.

After being forced to leave HP in 2005, Fiorina attempted to enter the political world. In 2008, she was an adviser for presidential candidate John McCain. Two years later, she received the Republican nomination for California’s senatorial seat but ultimately fell short in the election.

When Fiorina’s candidacy is discussed, her views on Planned Parenthood and abortion are typically brought up. During the Sept. 16 GOP primary debate, Fiorina, who is anti-choice and anti-Planned Parenthood, alluded to a Planned Parenthood video that may have been edited. After this debate, she received criticism from the public eye and started falling in the polls.

Whether her fall in polls resulted from her remarks against Planned Parenthood or not, Fiorina had not led the polls until recently. The Nov. 9 Minnesota KSTP/SurveyUSA poll showed Fiorina ahead of democratic candidate Hillary Clinton by four.

Dr. Ben Carson, the second outsider candidate, previously worked as a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital until his retirement in 2013. Carson first stepped into the media spotlight in 1987 when he became the first person to separate conjoined twins successfully.

Carson’s first appearance in the political world occurred in 2013 when he expressed his political opinions during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. Carson sparked controversy when he publicly scorned decisions made by President Barack Obama, who was present at the event.

In addition to being new to the political world, Carson has also shown inconsistency in his political affiliation, having been registered as a Democrat, Independent and Republican. According to Carson, he was raised in a democratic mind set in which Republicans were seen as the enemy. After listening to Republican politicians, specifically Ronald Reagan, Carson formed his own views and registered with the Republican Party. He remained with this party until 1999 when he became an Independent as a result of the actions of both political parties during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. In 2014, Carson returned to the Republican party and began to consider running for the 2016 election.

Carson, aware of his lack of political experience, has used religion as a foundation for his campaign, sharing his own story about how his religion transformed his life. According to his website, Carson acknowledges and complies with the constitutional right for citizens to practice freedom of religion, but he also supports people who choose to abstain from religious beliefs.

Polls have been back and forth between Carson and his opponent Donald Trump. The most recent 2016 Republican presidential nomination poll has Carson leading Trump by one point.

The media has quickly taken to the third outside candidate, Donald Trump. The public is quick to criticize Trump and plaster their opinions all across the Internet through memes and gifs.

Trump entered the presidential race with a wide range of career experience but no political background. Trump worked jobs within the real estate market and the entertainment industry. In 1971, Trump inherited his father’s New York City real estate company Elizabeth Trump & Son and renamed it The Trump Organization. Trump has become a large part of the entertainment industry through his buildings, hotels and casinos, which have hosted events such as WrestleMania. Trump also hosted the reality game show “The Apprentice.”

Much like Carson, Trump has flip-flopped between political parties, but unlike Carson, Trump has made the switch six times. Originally a member of the Democratic Party, he moved to the Republican Party in 1987. He remained a Republican until 1999 when he changed to the Reform Party. After a three-year stay in the Reform Party, Trump rejoined the Democrats from 2001-2009. After 2009, Trump spent two years as a Republican and one year as an Independent before returning to the Republican Party where he remains currently.

Trump gained most news coverage after proclaiming his beliefs on immigration laws and polices. He has based his plan on actions made by former president Dwight Eisenhower who deported approximately one and a half million immigrants from the United States. Trump advocates for the removal of all 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in America.

Carson is one of the “outsider” candidates because he has no experience holding public office. The critics to this will say he is not qualified to serve as our next president, but when an individual looks at the current political structure of Washington D.C, he should come to the conclusion that we need someone with fresh ideas from outside the scope of politics. Dr. Carson sets himself apart from the other GOP candidates in the race because he is the most educated and the most well-spoken candidate. However, he is given little time to speak during debates.

As a result of Carson’s background, he has the advantage of looking at controversial issues in a unique way. As a medical doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath, an obligation to help other people. He is a pro-life candidate who believes that life begins at conception. He has operated on infants pre-birth and can assure us that they are very much alive. Abortion is controversial but it cannot be a simple question of yes or no. It is open to interpretation of when life begins.

If elected president, Dr. Carson would work to urge both houses of Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Our national debt has surpassed 18 trillion dollars. We need to balance the budget to ensure that future generations will not be burdened by debt. We have to stop carelessly spending billions of dollars a year; that has led to our current situation.

Carson is in favor of the Second Amendment. He supports that law-abiding citizens should be able to carry a weapon. He does not support the idea that everyone is guaranteed that right. There has to be stricter background checks to ensure that criminals do not have access to weapons.

Carson wants to abolish Common Core and make setting curriculum the power of the states and give influence back to local teachers and parents. The responsibility of educating future generations should be left to parents and local teachers, who know what each student needs. The Department of Education will need to help with this process, but Common Core, among other government operated education plans, should be abolished. It does not meet the needs of individual students and instead approaches education as “one size fits all.” Not everyone thinks the same, and we need people who can think in different ways to improve our nation. We need to get children to love the concept of learning again and realize that through hard work and dedication, the “American Dream” is possible.

There is not enough room to list how Dr. Carson could improve our nation. For those reading this, I encourage you to do research by going to his website  to form your own conclusions. Dr. Carson signed the U.S. Term Limits pledge which would set term limits for all members of Congress if elected. He understands that we do not need politicians who have been in Congress for 30 years or more, and that they have grown distant from the American people. We need someone who has the intellect to change the status quo and to restore us as the dominant global power that supports liberty for all.