The attack on Charlie Kirk was not just a murder. It was an assault on the thousands of attendees who were there, victimizing them by making them unwilling participants in a sniper assassination. More broadly, it was an attack on civic participation and open debate—the lifeblood of democratic governance.
There is, unfortunately, a risk of copycat attacks. In recent days, credible threats have been reported against individuals and organizations all over the country. These threats are not limited to political violence; some are motivated by a personal desire for infamy. Historically, deadly attacks driven by personal motives have far outnumbered politically motivated lethal attacks.
It is understandable that fears of further political violence are widespread. However, now is a time for vigilance, not despair. There are practical steps that can be taken to help protect Americans from political violence and other attacks on the public.
First, know the warning signs of a violent plot. These are not isolated outbursts on social media. Instead, look for signs of real commitment to carrying out a violent attack. Look for evidence of both motivation and preparation—concrete steps towards committing violence.
There are practical steps that can be taken to help protect Americans from political violence and other attacks on the public.
Examples of motivation include claims that their targets are so harmful or threatening that they have no choice but to attack; claims that they have been inspired by past attacks; and claims that they will be the ones to fulfill the extremist cause, especially if they were previously kicked out of a radical group for being too violent. Also, of high concern are claims that they feel increasingly compelled to kill (whether by their own instincts or, delusionally, by some outside force) and warn that they can no longer control those impulses.
Examples of preparation include written plans for an attack or conducting research to carry out an attack, especially to learn how to kill as many as possible. Traveling to get paramilitary training for an attack is also of high concern. Socially, coordinating online with known violent extremists or attempting to recruit others to their cause is a warning sign. Seeking arsenals of weapons and ammunition, without a benign reason (hunting, sport shooting, etc.) is a red flag. Finally, attempting to travel to a target site and probe its defenses is a concern.
Second, know how to report genuinely suspicious activity. For imminent threats, call 911. If you do not want to use 911—if, say, you are uncertain about what suspicious activity means—the Department of Homeland Security maintains a directory of state and regional tip lines. The FBI also accepts tips at https://tips.fbi.gov. Most tips are handled without arrests and often result in individuals getting the help they need.
If you are responsible for the safety of an organization or community, RAND's Mass Attacks Defense Toolkit, offers guidance on preventing, protecting, and responding to mass attacks. The RAND report Keeping Soft Targets and Crowded Places Safe provides recommendations on security and response measures to protect specific locations.
Next, resist the pull of fear, rage, and despair. Terror and anger sell online. As marketing professor and podcaster Scott Galloway put it: “We used to think sex sells. What we found is something better, and that is rage.” Or as Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah put it, “there are conflict entrepreneurs out there who benefit from radicalizing us.” The temptation is to overhype the risk of being attacked by political adversaries or, worse, of “civil war.” Yet even those claiming they are engaging in “civil war” have engaged principally in online vituperation or cancel campaigns, which are far removed from shootings or other violence.
Consider the math regarding assassinations: Over the past year, there have been two attempted assassinations of the president, one attempted assassination of a governor via arson, one assassination of a CEO, two assassinations of state legislators, and now one assassination of major political figure. Given the U.S. population is over 340 million, that works out to be a bit more than one major political attack per 50 million people.
While online threats are far too common, actual physical political violence is rare.
While online threats are far too common, with close to 9,500 threats against members of Congress in 2024 alone, actual physical political violence is rare. From years of working on terrorism and mass violence prevention and comparing what physical violence has been like and how rare it is compared to online activity, I can say comfortably that most online agitators seek influence, money, and power, not prison or death. Americans are far more secure, and much more responsible regarding political violence, than they think they are.
The nation's strength lies in its ability to confront political violence not with despair, but with resolve and unity. Americans overwhelmingly reject political violence by a ratio of millions to one. Remaining vigilant, supporting one another, and refusing to succumb to online rage and despair can ensure that acts of violence do not define America's future. The nation has endured far greater challenges, and with vigilance and understanding, the current challenge can be met as well.
