Disproportionate Response?

Charlie Kirk was shot by Tyler Robinson. Nobody should kill another person, no matter their differences, violence is not how disputes are resolved in a civilised society. But the question remains: when one person has all the power, all the tools to amplify their voice and shape actions for others, is a disproportionate response ever justified?

Charlie Kirk was more than a commentator. He was a powerful media figure, head of a multimillion-dollar political machine, advisor to the President, and a man moving within circles of the nation’s elite. His words carried weight, his actions shaped lives. How could an ordinary citizen, unknown, without wealth, without connections stand against that disproportionate power?

Issues like abortion, gay rights, women’s rights, and immigration are deeply personal. Only those living them can truly understand their meaning. Yet, decisions are too often made by people untouched by these realities, people wielding disproportionate power. There is no escape from the state they run and the laws they create, how does one live in such a disproportionate world?

Life isn’t a Bollywood film. There is no lone hero to expose the villains, topple the system, and restore justice. When people are pushed into a corner, stripped of choices, they will create their own however desperate, however disproportionate.

Shooting someone does not solve the problem; power simply shifts to another hand, another voice, another Kirk. The cycle continues. Charlie Kirk paid a price for trying to force his convictions on others, but Tyler Robinson changed nothing. There will always be another Charlie as long as people believe their morality must be imposed on everyone else and another Tyler as long as there are people forced into a corner without options. The real answer is neither domination nor retaliation, both of which are disproportionate. The harder, wiser path is to live and let live.