SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gun violence
Slaughter at Michigan Mormon Church the 324th Mass Shooting in US This Year
"Our leaders MUST act now—before another community is shattered and more lives are lost to a crisis that we know is preventable," said one advocacy group.
Sep 29, 2025
On the 271st day of 2025, researchers on Sunday counted at least three mass shootings around the United States, bringing the total number of attacks to 324 this year so far.
At least four people were killed and eight were injured at a meetinghouse of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church, in Grand Blanc, Michigan, where the alleged attacker also set the church on fire.
The suspect, Thomas Jacob Sanford, is accused of “firing several rounds at individuals inside the church” with an assault rifle and setting a fire that quickly engulfed the building. The FBI is leading an investigation into the attack, which authorities believe as "an act of targeted violence."
Journalist Mehdi Hasan emphasized that the deadly attack 60 miles north of Detroit was part of a torrent of gun violence-related news, posting on social media about another shooting in Southport, North Carolina shortly after he had commented on the church shooting.
"I literally can’t keep track of the mass shootings in this country," said Hasan. "This is different to the Michigan mass shooting I just posted about."
Police also said the shooting at a waterfront bar in the port town near Wilmington was "targeted" and "highly premeditated." At least three people were killed and five were injured. Like Sanford, the suspect in the Southport shooting, Nigel Edge, was a former US Marine who had served in the US war in Iraq.
The gun violence prevention group Giffords noted on Sunday that at least two people were also killed in a shooting at a casino in Eagle Pass, Texas, with all three shootings taking place within a 24-hour period.
"Gun violence is tearing communities apart across America," said Giffords. "The scale of this horror is unimaginable. Our leaders MUST act now—before another community is shattered and more lives are lost to a crisis that we know is preventable."
Authorities were still investigating a motive in the shooting in Michigan on Monday, while President Donald Trump—who has spent recent weeks since the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk falsely asserting that people harboring left-wing political views are the driving force behind political violence in the US, contrary to extensive research on the subject—suggested the suspect had committed "yet another targeted attack targeted attack on Christians."
Kris Johns, a candidate for city council in a town near Grand Blanc, told USA Today that the suspect had recently railed against the Mormon church when Johns canvassed at his home. Their conversation did not delve into political leanings, Johns said, but he said "he spotted a Trump 2024 sign on the suspect's fence."
Unlike the administration's response to other recent violent attacks, Hasan noted, top officials such as FBI Director Kash Patel and Vice President JD Vance have refrained from making proclamations about the need to hold left-wing activists and groups accountable for this shooting.
The anti-gun violence group Brady noted Sunday that the public was "awaiting more details on the shooting," but emphasized that the attack and others like it are preventable.
"This does not need to be our reality," said Brady. "We have the solutions. Our leaders simply need the will to act!"
US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) added that "we must move with urgency to end gun violence in our country."
A majority of Americans say it is too easy to obtain a firearm in the US, and a review of thousands of studies by the RAND Corporation found that requiring universal background checks for gun purchasers and a federal ban on high-capacity magazines and assault weapons sales would be likely to reduce gun violence and mass shootings. The most recent major legislation passed to address gun violence was the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022, but advocates warned that its "enhanced" background checks for people under age 21 and other incremental provisions would do too little to save lives.
"The near daily barrage of deadly mass shootings in America feels like low-level warfare against normal citizens who just want to live in peace," said journalist Aaron Rupar Sunday. "And because people keep electing Republicans who won’t do anything about it there’s no solution in sight."
The suspect in the North Carolina shooting had filed a federal lawsuit against the US government alleged he had suffered a traumatic brain injury during his service in Iraq. He had also accused the Department of Veterans Affairs of medical negligence in a lawsuit that was filed last week before being withdrawn a day later.
Shannon Watts, founder of the gun violence prevention group Moms Demand Action, pointed to reports of other legal complaints filed by Edge, including some that claimed conspiracies had been masterminded by the LGBTQ+ community against him.
With its weak gun control laws, said Watts, "America gave him access to an AR-15 and a silencer anyway."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Defense of True Dialogue: Why Charlie Kirk's Methods Should Not Be Our Model
In our collective shock at yet another shooting, we must not make a critical error: conflating condemnation of political violence with endorsement of Kirk's approach to political engagement.
Sep 22, 2025
On the same day Charlie Kirk was killed, there was yet another school shooting in Colorado in which two young people were critically injured. Two weeks before, there was a mass shooting at a Catholic church in Minnesota where two children were killed and 21 other people were injured. Yet Kirk's murder is the only instance of gun violence over this period that has been treated as a national tragedy deserving of prolonged mourning and wall-to-wall media coverage. US President Donald Trump refused to allow flags to fly at half-mast on his inauguration to honor Jimmy Carter but demanded that on September 11, the anniversary of the attack on New York City, flags be lowered for Charlie Kirk.
Political violence is never acceptable, and as researcher Erika Chenoweth has demonstrated, it is not an effective way to enact social change. While Kirk's death represents a dangerous escalation in our national discourse that further threatens our fragile democratic foundations, how we talk about it will determine whether we move toward our shared humanity or whether we reinforce the dehumanizing context that Kirk himself, along with Trump, contributed to creating.
In our collective shock at yet another shooting, we must not make a critical error: conflating condemnation of political violence with endorsement of Kirk's approach to political engagement. As voices across the political spectrum, including that of Ezra Klein, have rushed to characterize Kirk as someone who was "practicing politics in exactly the right way," we risk elevating a model of engagement that was antithetical to the kind of meaningful dialogue our democracy desperately needs right now.
As an educator who has spent years understanding and facilitating genuine political dialogue, I feel compelled to speak up. We stand at a crossroads where our response to this moment will shape how we understand political engagement going forward. We can choose to learn from this moment—to honestly name political polarization as an urgent crisis requiring our collective attention, and to truthfully acknowledge how Trump, his MAGA movement, and weaponized social media have directly fueled this polarization. Or we can miss this crucial opportunity for thoughtful national reflection and make the devastating mistake of holding up Kirk's methods as an example to follow.
What Real Dialogue Looks Like
Extensive research in psychology has given us clear insights into what constitutes meaningful political dialogue. Patricia Gurin, Biren Nagda, and Ximena Zúñiga's groundbreaking work on intergroup dialogue shows that structured conversations across differences can foster insight into others' worldviews, increase empathy, and motivate collaborative action toward equity and justice.
In my classroom, if someone acted the way Kirk did with students, I would feel obligated to redirect the conversation back to our class agreements about respectful dialogue,
Dr. Tania Israel, whose research forms the foundation for meaningful cross-political conversation, emphasizes that true dialogue requires active listening, "listening to understand instead of listening to respond." It involves creating space for elaboration through open-ended questions, demonstrating genuine curiosity about different perspectives, and building the kind of connection that allows people to share their stories and values authentically.
This is not what Kirk practiced. What Kirk did on college campuses was not dialogue, it was performance art designed for viral content and ideological point scoring. His social media accounts documented a consistent pattern of cruel, confrontational bullying that prioritized entertainment value over genuine understanding.
The Kirk Model: Bullying as Entertainment, Not Engagement
An examination of Kirk's campus appearances reveals a pattern that consistently violated the basic principles of respectful dialogue. Faculty members who witnessed his events noted that Kirk routinely interrupted students, mocked young people for entertainment value, and engaged in what can only be described as organized bullying. His "prove me wrong" format was designed not to genuinely engage with differing viewpoints, but to create gotcha moments that would play well on social media. Like Trump, he was first and foremost a social media influencer.
In my classroom, if someone acted the way Kirk did with students, I would feel obligated to redirect the conversation back to our class agreements about respectful dialogue, agreements that establish ground rules ensuring no one's humanity is denied and no one's reality is erased. Kirk's approach consistently violated these basic principles of respectful discourse.
Students at California State University, Northridge recognized this when they organized against his appearance on their campus, noting that Kirk had routinely engaged in antisemitic conspiracy theories, racist rhetoric against civil rights, and discriminatory language targeting LGBTQ+ students. These weren't political differences; they were fundamental violations of the respect required for genuine dialogue.
The Dangerous False Equivalence
As journalist Maria Ressa reminds us, good journalism requires a courageous commitment to facts and ethical standards in the face of disinformation. Its central mission is to hold power accountable and serve as a bulwark against democracy's erosion. Yet in the aftermath of Kirk's death, much of our media has failed this test by creating a false equivalence between condemning political violence and celebrating Kirk's methods.
How can we discuss the conditions that led to political violence while celebrating someone whose entire approach was designed to demean and dehumanize his political opponents?
Columnist Jamelle Bouie captured the essence of this problem: "That the Trump administration and the MAGA movement are less interested in deliberation and governance than they are in domination and obedience should shape and structure our sense of this political moment." When one faction's explicit goal is to curb the rights of opponents and force them into political inequality, calls for dialogue that deny that reality are harmful.
Kirk was not engaged in the kind of good-faith dialogue that democracy requires. He was, as Bouie notes, part of a movement more interested in domination than deliberation. His campus appearances were not exercises in democratic engagement, and no, he was not practicing politics the right way. Kirk’s campus appearances were trolling operations designed to humiliate and dehumanize students who disagreed with him.
The Stakes of Getting This Wrong
As we grapple with the epidemic of gun violence, school shootings, and the dismantling of democratic norms, we cannot afford to elevate models of engagement that contributed to these problems. How can we address the tragedy of bullying in schools—which then contributes to school shootings—while simultaneously holding up someone who made his career bullying college students? How can we discuss the conditions that led to political violence while celebrating someone whose entire approach was designed to demean and dehumanize his political opponents?
My friend recently told me that "a neighborhood is resistance." This resonated deeply because it speaks to the patient, relationship-building work that real democratic engagement requires. Kirk's approach was the opposite—designed to break down communities and relationships for entertainment value. He dehumanized students to generate viral content, endearing himself to Trump and the MAGA movement that thrives on such cruelty.
A Path Forward
We all want to talk to each other. We see this in our neighborhoods—we nod to one another, notice when someone hasn't been around, look out for each other. This fundamental human desire for connection is precisely why we must distinguish between genuine dialogue and its performative imitations. True dialogue, as Dr. Israel's research demonstrates, requires communication strategies that emphasize active listening, acknowledge differences while finding common ground, and approach disagreement with intellectual humility rather than ideological dominance—the opposite of what Kirk's social media documented from his campus visits.
Political violence is never acceptable and will not move us toward justice. And importantly, a majority of political violence is perpetrated by the right-wing extremists and Trump’s MAGA movement has contributed to the conditions of this violence. Such violence reflects the brokenness of our system and the urgent need for repair. But we must not respond to this tragedy by celebrating Kirk's mockery of political engagement. There should be no statues erected in his honor on college campuses, no elevation of his name alongside figures like Martin Luther King Jr. who actually advanced democratic discourse. Kirk's methods were not a model for democratic engagement, they were part of the problem that contributed to our current crisis.
The memory we should be blessing is not that of viral confrontations and campus trolling, but of the patient, respectful work of building bridges across difference.
If we truly want to honor democratic dialogue in the wake of this tragedy, we must commit to the harder work of genuine conversation—the kind that builds understanding rather than scoring points, that creates community rather than destroying it, and that treats our political opponents as fellow human beings rather than targets for entertainment. This stands in stark contrast to Kirk's approach, which was designed precisely to bolster his influence within the Trump ecosystem through cruelty and division.
A free society depends on our ability to engage across difference without fear of violence. But it also depends on our commitment to engagement that is grounded in respect, curiosity, and genuine democratic values. In this moment of national reckoning, we must choose models that build democracy rather than undermine it.
The memory we should be blessing is not that of viral confrontations and campus trolling, but of the patient, respectful work of building bridges across difference. That is the dialogue our democracy needs, and it's the opposite of what Charlie Kirk practiced.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Responding to Charlie Kirk's Killing With the Wisdom of Our Inner 3 Year Old
Valuing life and understanding its profound complexity is humanity’s future. Snorting at life, laughing at life, killing it, is humanity’s suicide.
Sep 17, 2025
Charlie Kirk’s killing last week—and the aftermath of grief and political outrage—are too overwhelming to ignore, even though I couldn’t possibly have anything to say that hasn’t already been said.
The best I can do is wander into the spiritual unknown and perhaps ask an impossible question or two. The first one is this: Are words adequate for the exploration of life and death? I ask this question as a writer. To me, words are virtually magical entities. They give us the means to shape, if not the world itself, at least our comprehension of it... and thus we assume we know what’s going on around us.
For instance, here I am, sitting at my desk, looking out my window on a beautiful, blue-sky afternoon. The leaves on the tree in front of me flutter in the breeze. A woman in a red coat walks through the parking lot, which is mostly empty. Everything is calm. The time is 2:43 pm on a Tuesday. This all seems simple enough, right?
But of course this is nothing more than the surface of this moment—a real-life postcard, you might say. Putting it into words, at least in one sense, limits what I see. I see what is “known,” categorize it all as normal—and move on. If I were 3 years old, I’d still be staring at the tree, perhaps one leaf at a time. I could well be lost in its beauty and complexity.
Why is his death shocking while a 5-year-old Palestinian child’s death by bombing, or by starvation, is nothing at all? Is Kirk the only one of them who’s human?
As I return to the news, I’m suggesting that we bring with us our inner 3 year old. The news of the Kirk assassination is given to us with simple us-vs.-them clarity. He was speaking at an event in Utah. Someone fired a rifle from several hundred feet away. He was hit in the neck. He died.
And then it turns political. Well, it does and it doesn’t. Charlie Kirk was a husband, the father of two young children. No matter where you stand in regard to his right-wing, MAGA politics, the horror of his death—the horror inflicted on his family—is explosive. "No!” screams our inner 3 year old. The nation is stunned.
But almost immediately, things turn political. US President Donald Trump and others instantaneously blame the “radical left” and let their hatred spew. Kirk is now their martyr, and they feel they have permission to make the most of his death politically that they can. Eliminate the left. I can feel the joy oozing from their hatred, which gushes like blood from a bullet wound.
All progressives can do is express shock and grief. Kirk’s murder isn’t “political.” He was a human being! And here’s where words can too easily fail us. This isn’t Side A vs. Side B. This is “We are all one” vs. “We’re great and you’re evil, and we’re comin’ for ya.”
But the divide is infinitely deeper even than that. Charlie Kirk’s murder is international news, but it’s also only one murder out of unknown thousands and thousands every day. Why is his death shocking while a 5-year-old Palestinian child’s death by bombing, or by starvation, is nothing at all? Is Kirk the only one of them who’s human?
Killing requires dehumanization. That’s the nature of war—every war. And the larger the number we kill, the easier the dehumanization becomes. Oh, they’re just “the enemy” or, ho hum, collateral damage. Any questions?
And here’s where language deeply, deeply, deeply fails us. “Left” and “right”—life and death—are simply equal opposites, at least in much of the media coverage of this. Nothing could be further from the truth: Valuing life and understanding its profound complexity is humanity’s future. Snorting at life, laughing at life, killing it, is humanity’s suicide.
Here are the words of Zohran Mamdani, New York City mayoral candidate, speaking at a Jews for Racial and Economic Justice award ceremony the day of Kirk’s killing:
Before I begin, I do want to take a moment to address the horrific political assassination that just occurred today in Utah. Charlie Kirk is dead, yet another victim of gun violence in a nation where what should be a rarity has turned into a plague. It cannot be a question of political agreement or alignment that allows us to mourn. It must be the shared notion of humanity that binds us all...
We hold a common belief in the shared dignity of every person on this planet, and the refusal to draw a line in the sand, as it so often is done, when it comes to Palestinian lives...
We know, because the United Nations tells us, that by the end of the month, millions will be facing starvation, if they are not starving already. This is not accidental. This is not due to a freak blight. This is not because the world now lacks the means to feed the hungry. It is because those decisions made by the Israeli government and by our government here continue to ensure that that is a reality. And if that does not stagger the conscience, what will?
Let me repeat these words: “the shared notion of humanity that’s behind us all.”
Our inner 3 year old knows this. How do we start embracing it politically? Humanity is a collective entity. We can’t kill our enemy without eventually killing ourselves.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular