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.

American Public Square at Jewell will gather panelists and audience members virtually Feb. 17 to discuss solutions to the gun violence epidemic in Missouri. “Gun Violence in Missouri: Seeking Solutions” will start at 12:30 p.m. and is co-hosted by the Kansas City Star. 

The event is a part of American Public Square’s series on gun violence. Denesha Snell, program director for American Public Square, said the organization’s goal with these events is to help people understand the root causes of gun violence. 

“With the first three programs, we’ve really talked about what was going on in Kansas City, the things that were happening in Springfield, as well as St. Louis,” Snell said. “That’s probably one of the biggest things is really just helping people understand that there is a gun violence issue and depending on where you are in the state it may look different.”

The event will feature panelists with a variety of expertise. One panelist will be Missouri Rep. Ashley Bland Manlove. Bland Manlove, who is from Kansas City, will help discuss state laws and policies surrounding gun control and gun violence. 

Another panelist is Dr. Marvia Jones, head of violence prevention and policy for the Kansas City Health Department. Snell said she thinks it is important for people to understand gun violence as a public health issue. 

American Public Square hopes to put the social determinants of health at the center of their conversation on gun violence. Social determinants of health are the different factors that make a community healthy.

These determinates include education, access to healthcare, discrimination, incarceration housing, economic stability and access to transportation. All of these factors impact the health of members of a community. 

Violence also makes an impact on the health of a community. In 2018, there were 249 arrests per every 100,000 adolescents for violent crimes. Kids who enter the justice system are more likely to struggle in school, deal with mental health issues and have problems with substance abuse.

“Something as simple as a high school diploma can help make for a healthy community,” Snell said.

American Public Square is working with the Kansas City Star on its gun violence initiative. Snell said the Kansas City Star recently received grants from the Missouri Foundation for Health and Report for America. They are using these grants to report on gun violence in Missouri and to uncover what gun violence looks like across the state.

The Kansas City Star’s gun violence investigation articles have been running for the past year. These articles have also been printed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Springfield Newsleader.  The goal is to both bring attention to the state of violent crime in Missouri and brainstorm practical solutions.

“They’re writing the articles, we’re putting in the programs to support those articles and to support that gun violence prevention,” Snell said. 

Recordings of American Public Square’s past programming on gun violence in Missouri can be found on their website. Registration for the upcoming event is free and also available on the American Public Square website.

I’ve gone to the last two William Jewell College CUAt the Movies nights in a row.

For me, that’s huge progress. My intrusive thoughts fixate heavily on death, and the occasions wherein people have shot up movie theaters in our country fueled my anxiety.

Before getting help, I had panic attacks throughout any movie I saw in theaters. I don’t remember exactly when it started – when theaters stopped being exciting and started being nerve-wracking – but I remember the movies I had the worst panic attacks during.

In England, I went to movie theaters without the same intense anxiety. Though this correlated with my new treatment, it also was impacted by the fact that it was much less likely for death to occur during a movie.

Still, seeing “Love Simon” was mildly terrifying, mostly because there was always the chance of bigoted violence, no matter what country I was in.

But, within the past few weeks, I’ve seen the new “Spiderverse” movie again, as well as that awful new cyborg girl movie – you know, the one where the cyborg girl’s eyes are obnoxiously huge, where her design is both pedophilic (sexualizing characteristics of children) and sexist (sexualizing femininity to suit the ever-present heterosexual male gaze).

I digress. The point is: I was in the same movie theater, twice, recently. The point is that last semester, I went to two or three movie theaters.

There was a huge improvement in my anxiety. I didn’t have a panic attack, nor did I feel like I was actually in danger.

I did notice, however, that the awareness itself of the possible violence hadn’t left. What remained felt like a callously casual awareness of gun violence possibilities. A little bit of fear did surface during those moments, but it was muted.

When thinking back on these moments, I’m reminded of the gun violence drills I experienced during middle school and high school. They were moments of distant terror and excitement – the excitement coming from the fact that sometimes, these drills incorporated toy or water guns.

I’m now well aware of the bizarreness of making these drills exciting or fun. Everything about them felt awkward, and even without the nonlethal guns, the drills allowed for morbid conversations. We would informally plan attacks, utilizing whatever we had in our disposal to maim or kill in self-defense.

Being on a college campus now only makes the conversation continue in its bizarre-ness. When we have drills for campus intruders I’ve been in my room, and I’m unfazed.

Sometimes, these drills just feel like they’re for the adults, so they have a game plan.

They have to think about violence as separate from their daily lives, probably because for them, for the most part, it has been.

Of course, my experiences are nuanced by being a white person who passes as female. Although I do experience the additional anxiety of male violence, I do not have the same anxieties as people of color do, nor do I face the same oppression.

Gun violence within our country is an issue that must be approached from an intersectional perspective. It must be said that my experiences are informed by my social positions.

I am interested in the additional trauma our generation faces from school shootings.

Yes, I waited to say that directly until the middle to end of the article. Yes, I know, it probably seems like an overstated political topic right now.

I mean, I guess my response to that sentiment is that it could be an overstated political topic if you’re just that apathetic and disconnected from the issue of prevalent violence?

The truth of things is that for us students, on some level, being on a college campus or a school means there’s automatically an awareness of potential gun violence. We’re living in a constant drill, a constant moment before the violence.

And, again, that’s just one moment of shared violence awareness – one that is complicated by other social issues.

I hope that we can find ways to heal from this and change our circumstances so that future generations don’t have to deal with it.

For now, I think it is important that we keep talking about this, that we fight against the normalization of prevalent violence. When we stay silent about our numerous experiences being drilled on and prepared for imminent violence, we allow the conversation to be dominated by less helpful perspectives and voices.

Officer Hamline instructs members of the William Jewell College community on how to respond in the event of an active shooter on campus.

Approximately 20 people dotted Yates-Gill Room 221/222 on the evening of Aug. 28 while Officer Kyle Hamline from the Liberty Police Department held an active shooter training course. The training was open to faculty, students and staff and was the second of two courses, the first being held Aug. 14.

Hamline began the course with a brief overview of past shootings and explained that the victim count in these events could have been reduced had victims received proper training to defend themselves against attack.

“The purpose of this course is to give you the mindset to take action,” Hamline said.

Liberty Police Department utilizes FBI tactics, based upon analysis of past mass shootings, in their active shooter training courses. Officer Hamline outlined three defense tactics that should be used in the event of an active shooting: “Run. Hide. Fight.”

The Department of Homeland Security details this three-point plan on their emergency preparedness site. The plan emphasizes the chronology of “Run. Hide. Fight.,” recommending that victims try to run from the scene before anything else and, if escape is not possible, to hide in a secure area with lights turned off, phone on vibrate and doors locked and reinforced against intruders by heavy objects, like copy machines or tables and chairs. If these options are impossible, victims should fight as a last resort using whatever objects available to incapacitate the shooter.

Officer Hamline, using a table pre-set with items ranging from golf balls to fidget spinners, offered various ways to attack a shooter. He demonstrated with Jacob Shutts, sophomore Oxbridge: Institutions and Policy and economics major how an everyday item like a belt could make all the difference in preventing a shooter from entering a room.

Officer Hamline demonstrates using a belt for leverage to ensure that a door cannot be pulled open from the outside.

Shutts was one among the several resident assistants who made up the majority of the 20 individuals who attended the training. Officer Hamline noticed the dozens of empty seats in the room and explained that so many people choose not to attend training courses like this because, when considering being involved in an active shooter event, their mentality is “if” and not “when.”

“We have to be in the mindset of when it does happen,” Hamline said.

Hamline repeatedly emphasized the importance of awareness and said that, had people reported past perpetrators’ suspicious behavior, many mass shootings could have been prevented.

“When you see that kid that’s getting ready to explode – when they’re not having resilience …   You guys have got to be watching,” Hamline said.

Though the sole purpose of the course is to give students the knowledge necessary to defend themselves in an instance of immediate danger, Liberty Police Department makes an effort to connect mentally unstable individuals to the appropriate authorities to stem attacks before they are carried out.

“We’re actually talking to those kids that have the killing mindset, and we’re getting them help,” Hamline said. “They’re getting psychological help. They’re getting parental help. They’re meeting with school counselors.”

Among the community that researches mass shootings, a consensus has been reached that defines a mass shooting as an isolated, public incident that results in the death of four or more people by a firearm.

Besides defining what a mass shooting is, however, researchers have not made much progress in determining why they happen, most likely due to minimal federal funding and the classification of mass shootings under general homicide research.

Trends can be tracked, however, and one of the most concerning shows an evident uptick in the amount of victims per mass shooting.

Graph courtesy of sciencenews.com

Mass shootings have also increased in frequency over the past few years, though these increases are comparative to others in the past. Still, combined with the fact that they are getting more deadly, campus safety organizations believe it is more important than ever to offer training courses to prepare students to defend themselves in the event of a mass shooting.

Graph courtesy of nycrimecommission.org

Graph courtesy of nycrimecomission.org

College gun violence in particular has skyrocketed since the millennium began. The increase was most profound in southern states and states that had more lax firearm acquisition laws.

While safety organizations advocate the implementation of active shooter training courses and other safety procedures, it is hard to tell how effective these precautions are at reducing casualties and preventing attacks, especially as mass shootings become deadlier and more frequent.

Some psychologists have even raised concerns about the psychological impact of going through active shooter training courses. One psychological study showed that, though students felt more prepared after watching a training video, they also experienced increased fear about being a victim in an active shooter situation.

Researchers who fear the implications of exposing students, especially the younger and more vulnerable ones, to the prospect of being a victim of a mass shooting advocate the redirection of school safety funds away from active shooter courses and toward less tangible tactics to prevent school shootings at their source, such as anti-bullying and mental health initiatives.

Still, the debate over the best response to the increasing severity of mass shootings does not have a clear leading player. In the face of this epidemic for which science offers no concrete explanations, schools are attempting to protect their students.

Photos courtesy of Sofia Arthurs-Schoppe.