Last updated 4 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The murder of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, has reignited national debate about gun violence prevention.
Kirk, the 31-year-old conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder, was shot and killed during a campus speaking event, leaving behind a wife and two young children. He was engaged in a debate about the importance of Second Amendment protections.
Given these circumstances, this analysis attempts to examine four major gun policy proposals through the lens of this devastating incident: universal background checks, extreme risk protection orders, assault weapon bans, and mandatory waiting periods. It clarifies which policies would not have applied to this specific incident.
It is important to note that the investigation remains ongoing and details about the perpetrator and weapon remain unknown. However, this educational review explores how different regulatory approaches might apply under various scenarios.
In respect for Kirk, this review begins with the philosophical reasons that Kirk advocated for an interpretation of the Second Amendment that leads to no policy restrictions.
| Regulation | Primary Goal | How It Works | Key Proponent Argument | Key Opponent Argument |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Universal Background Checks | Prevent prohibited persons from acquiring firearms | Requires a background check for all gun sales, including private transactions, typically facilitated by a licensed dealer | Closes the “private sale loophole” that allows prohibited individuals to buy guns without scrutiny | Will not be followed by criminals, is unenforceable without a national gun registry, and burdens law-abiding citizens |
| Red Flag Laws (ERPOs) | Temporarily remove firearms from individuals in crisis | Allows courts to issue Extreme Risk Protection Orders based on evidence that a person poses an imminent threat | Provides a critical tool for family and law enforcement to intervene and prevent violence before it happens | Raises significant due process concerns by allowing seizure of property based on an ex parte order without criminal conviction |
| Assault Weapon Bans | Reduce the lethality and casualties of mass shooting events | Prohibits the manufacture and sale of certain semi-automatic firearms with specific military-style features | These weapons are designed for rapid, high-casualty attacks and have no place in civilian society | Bans are based on cosmetic features, not function, and have an inconclusive effect on overall crime rates |
| Mandatory Waiting Periods | Prevent impulsive acts of violence, including suicides and homicides | Imposes a mandatory “cooling-off” period between the purchase and physical acquisition of a firearm | Creates a crucial buffer that can de-escalate temporary crises of anger or despair | Unfairly burdens law-abiding citizens who may need a firearm for immediate self-defense |
The Tragic Events at Utah Valley University
What Happened
Charlie Kirk was speaking at Utah Valley University’s Sorensen Center courtyard as part of Turning Point USA’s “American Comeback Tour.” The event followed his signature “Prove Me Wrong” debate format, where he invited students to challenge his political views.
At approximately 12:10 PM Mountain Time, about 20 minutes into the presentation, a single shot was fired. Videos posted to social media captured the moment Kirk was struck, showing him reaching for his neck as blood became visible. The crowd gasped and screamed before fleeing in panic.
A university spokesperson indicated the shot was believed to have been fired from a nearby building, approximately 200 yards away. However, eyewitness accounts vary, with some describing it as seeming like a close-range shot.
Kirk was transported to a local hospital by his security team, initially reported in critical condition. President Trump later announced on Truth Social that Kirk had died from his injuries.
The Investigation
The campus was immediately closed and evacuated. A multi-agency investigation launched involving Orem Police, UVU Police, the FBI, and Utah Department of Public Safety.
Initial reports suggested a suspect was in custody, but these were later retracted. Officials confirmed that a person had been detained but was determined not to be the shooter and was subsequently released. The suspected shooter remains at large.
Context of Political Violence
The shooting occurred amid a documented increase in politically motivated violence across the United States. The event was not without prior controversy—an online petition calling for the university to prevent Kirk from appearing had received nearly 1,000 signatures. The university had issued a statement affirming its commitment to free speech under the First Amendment.
In tragic irony, the attack occurred just as Kirk was engaged in a debate with an audience member about mass shootings and gun violence.
Charlie Kirk’s Philosophy on Gun Rights
Understanding Kirk’s own deeply held views on the Second Amendment provides important context for analyzing gun regulations in relation to his death. Kirk frequently articulated a position that framed the right to bear arms as the foundational liberty securing all others against potential tyranny.
Kirk argued that an armed citizenry comes with an inherent cost he deemed acceptable for preserving freedom. In a widely circulated statement from a 2023 Turning Point USA event, he said: “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
Kirk often compared gun deaths to automobile fatalities, arguing that society implicitly accepts approximately 50,000 traffic deaths annually in exchange for transportation benefits. He advocated for a “clear reductionist view of gun violence,” focusing on measures like increasing armed guards at schools rather than restricting firearm access.
The circumstances of his death cast this philosophy in stark light. He was killed by a firearm while exercising his First Amendment right to free speech—the very type of right he argued the Second Amendment existed to protect. He became part of the “cost” he had described as a “prudent deal” for liberty.
Utah’s Gun Laws and Legal Context
The shooting occurred within Utah’s generally permissive firearm legal framework. Understanding these laws is essential for contextualizing the event and analyzing alternative regulatory approaches.
State Preemption and Campus Carry
Utah has state-level preemption, meaning the state legislature is the primary authority on firearm laws. Local jurisdictions like Orem cannot enact more restrictive gun ordinances than state law.
Most relevant is House Bill 128, passed in 2025 and effective May 7, 2025. This bill expanded rights of permit holders on public university campuses. Previously, individuals with valid Utah concealed weapon permits had to keep firearms concealed on campus. The new law explicitly allows anyone 18 or older with a Utah concealed weapon permit to carry either concealed or openly on campus grounds.
This is not “constitutional carry”—a valid permit requiring a full criminal background check is still required. The law reflects a policy philosophy emphasizing deterrence, with the premise that lawful firearm presence can discourage potential attackers who might fear armed response from bystanders.
Missing State Laws
Utah lacks several major regulatory policies debated nationally. As of September 2025, Utah does not have:
- An Extreme Risk Protection Order (“Red Flag”) law
- A ban on “assault weapons”
- A ban on high-capacity magazines
- A mandatory waiting period for firearm purchases
Policy Implications
The Kirk shooting presents a direct challenge to deterrence theory in the context of planned, targeted attacks. The event took place in a public square where law-abiding citizens could have been legally armed. Despite this, the attacker successfully executed the shooting with a single shot and escaped, with no indication of armed intervention from any member of the public.
This doesn’t invalidate deterrence theory in all circumstances, but suggests its effectiveness may be limited against determined assassins, particularly those firing from concealed or distant positions.
Universal Background Checks: Closing the Private Sale Gap
How the Policy Works
Universal background check legislation aims to ensure individuals legally prohibited from owning firearms cannot acquire them through any channel. Under current federal law established by the Brady Act of 1993, background checks are mandatory only for gun sales by Federal Firearms Licensees like retail gun stores.
When purchasing from an FFL, the dealer contacts the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The buyer’s information is checked against federal and state databases for disqualifying factors like felony convictions, domestic violence misdemeanors, serious mental health adjudications, or other prohibiting factors.
Since launching in 1998, NICS has conducted over 500 million checks and resulted in over two million denials to prohibited persons.
The central issue is the “private sale loophole.” Federal law doesn’t regulate firearm sales between private, unlicensed individuals. This means in states without specific laws, someone can sell a gun at a gun show, online, or in private transactions with no background check.
Universal background check laws would close this loophole by requiring nearly all firearm transfers, including private sales, be facilitated by a licensed FFL. The private seller and buyer would meet at a gun store where the dealer processes the transfer, runs the NICS check, and maintains required records.
Potential Impact on the Kirk Shooting
The relevance depends entirely on two unknown factors: the legal status of the shooter and how they acquired the firearm.
Scenario A: Prohibited person acquiring gun through private sale If the perpetrator had a disqualifying criminal record, mental health adjudication, or domestic violence history, they would be legally barred from purchasing from a licensed dealer. The private sale loophole would represent an accessible avenue to obtain a weapon from a seller not legally obligated to perform a check. Universal background checks would subject the transaction to NICS verification, resulting in denial and potentially preventing the attack.
Scenario B: Acquisition through theft or black market If the firearm was stolen or purchased from an illicit dealer, universal background checks would be irrelevant. Individuals operating outside the legal system don’t comply with regulations governing legal sales. Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys show most prison inmates who possessed guns during crimes acquired them through informal or illegal channels rather than retail establishments.
Scenario C: Legally eligible purchaser If the perpetrator had no criminal record or prohibiting history, they would pass a background check regardless of whether it was from a licensed dealer or private seller. The policy enforces existing prohibitions rather than creating new ones.
The Evidence Debate
Arguments For
Proponents cite exceptionally high public support, with 85% to 95% of Americans supporting background checks for all gun sales, including large majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and gun owners.
Research suggests effectiveness. A 2019 Boston University study examining state homicide rates from 1991 to 2016 found states with universal background check laws had homicide rates averaging 15% lower than states without such laws.
Supporters emphasize the proven success of the existing system. Since 1994, federal background check requirements for licensed dealers have blocked millions of illegal gun sales to prohibited individuals.
Arguments Against
Opponents contend criminals don’t follow laws, so determined prohibited persons will turn to black markets or theft regardless of background check requirements. The law primarily impacts law-abiding citizens wanting to sell firearms to friends or family, criminalizing otherwise innocent behavior.
A major concern is that universal checks are unenforceable without a national gun registry—a comprehensive database of every firearm and owner. Without such a registry, currently prohibited by federal law, there’s no way for law enforcement to know if private transfers occurred without background checks unless firearms are later recovered in crimes.
Academic research shows mixed results. While some studies demonstrate positive effects, others yield null or inconclusive results. A 2023 NCBI study analyzing states that implemented comprehensive background check policies found they weren’t sufficient to achieve significant reductions in firearm fatalities. RAND Corporation’s review categorizes evidence for background checks’ effect on violent crime as “moderate” and effects on mass shootings and suicide as “inconclusive.”
Extreme Risk Protection Orders: Intervening Before Crisis
How Red Flag Laws Work
Extreme Risk Protection Order laws create mechanisms for temporary, preventative intervention when individuals show clear signs of being dangerous to themselves or others. Unlike other gun laws focusing on broad categories of prohibited persons based on past records, red flag laws target specific, acute crisis situations.
The process begins through civil court petition, not criminal proceedings. Eligible petitioners vary by state but typically include law enforcement officers. Many states allow family or household members to file, and some include medical professionals or school administrators.
Petitioners must present evidence—recent threats, acts of violence, or dangerous behaviors—suggesting the individual poses imminent risk of causing harm with a firearm.
The legal process generally occurs in two stages:
Temporary Ex Parte Order: Based on initial petition, a judge can issue temporary, emergency ERPO. This is often issued ex parte, meaning the respondent isn’t present for the initial hearing. This allows immediate, temporary firearm removal by law enforcement to prevent potential tragedy. These orders typically last one to two weeks.
Final Order Hearing: Before the temporary order expires, courts must hold full hearings where respondents have rights to be present, be represented by counsel, and challenge evidence. Petitioners must meet higher burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence) to demonstrate continued significant risk. If judges agree, final ERPOs can be issued, typically lasting up to one year and sometimes renewable.
As of 2025, 21 states and the District of Columbia have enacted red flag laws. Utah does not have such a law.
Potential Impact on the Kirk Shooting
Applicability depends entirely on whether the perpetrator exhibited observable warning signs of violent intent prior to the attack.
Scenario A: Observable threats or warning signs
Research shows that in significant percentages of mass shootings and targeted violence, perpetrators communicate intent beforehand through direct threats, social media posts, or concerning behaviors witnessed by others. If Kirk’s shooter had engaged in such behavior, a red flag law in Utah would have provided a legal pathway for concerned family or law enforcement to petition courts to temporarily remove firearms, potentially disrupting the planned attack.
The law specifically fills gaps where individuals are clearly dangerous but haven’t yet committed crimes triggering other firearm prohibitions.
Scenario B: Lone actor concealing plans
If the perpetrator was highly secretive, didn’t communicate intentions, and exhibited no outward signs of violent plans, red flag laws would be completely inapplicable. The law isn’t mind-reading—it requires observable, reportable basis for concern. Without petitioners aware of danger and willing to come forward with evidence, the ERPO process cannot be initiated.
The Constitutional Debate
Arguments For
Advocates present red flag laws as targeted, life-saving tools that de-escalate crises before they turn deadly.
The strongest evidence lies in suicide prevention. Because firearms are the most lethal commonly used suicide method with approximately 90% fatality rates, temporarily removing gun access during suicidal crises can be life-saving. Studies have linked red flag laws to significant reductions in firearm suicide rates. Connecticut’s law was estimated to avert one suicide for every 10 to 20 gun seizure orders issued, while Indiana’s was associated with 7.5% decrease in firearm suicides over a decade.
Proponents argue laws can prevent homicides and mass shootings, pointing to cases where ERPOs successfully disarmed individuals who made credible mass violence threats. A Florida study found the state’s red flag law was associated with 11% reduction in firearm homicide rates from 2019 to 2021.
Regarding constitutional concerns, proponents maintain red flag laws include robust due process protections meeting Supreme Court standards. They argue ex parte temporary orders are necessary emergency measures justified by strong government interest in preventing imminent death or injury, followed by full hearings where respondents can defend themselves.
Arguments Against
Criticism centers almost entirely on belief that laws violate fundamental constitutional rights, particularly due process.
The primary objection is to ex parte nature of initial temporary orders. Opponents argue allowing judges to order seizure of legally owned property based on accusations from one party, without respondents being present to defend themselves, clearly violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
They contend this effectively treats respondents as guilty until proven innocent, forcing them to go to court to reclaim constitutional rights taken away without criminal convictions or full initial hearings.
Critics express concern about potential for abuse, worrying laws could be weaponized by disgruntled family members, former partners, or neighbors to harass and disarm law-abiding gun owners based on false or exaggerated claims.
Opponents question evidence regarding laws’ effectiveness in reducing homicides, pointing to studies showing inconclusive or null results for homicide rates. RAND Corporation’s analysis finds only “limited” evidence that red flag laws reduce violent crime.
Assault Weapon Bans: Targeting Military-Style Features
How These Bans Work
Bans on “assault weapons” aim to restrict civilian access to certain semi-automatic firearms possessing military-style features that proponents argue make them particularly dangerous in mass casualty events.
Definitions typically aren’t based on internal operating mechanisms but on external, often cosmetic, features. The model for most proposals is the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, which was in effect for ten years before expiring in 2004.
That law defined semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons” if they could accept detachable magazines and had at least two of five features: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor or threaded barrel, and grenade launcher.
These bans are almost always paired with prohibitions on “large” or “high-capacity” ammunition feeding devices, typically defined as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The rationale is that limiting magazine capacity forces shooters to pause and reload more frequently, creating opportunities for victims to escape or law enforcement to intervene.
Irrelevance to the Kirk Shooting
An analysis of known facts leads to a clear conclusion: an assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban would have had no direct bearing on this incident.
The attack was carried out with a single shot. The defining characteristics of firearms targeted by these bans—high rate of semi-automatic fire and ability to accept large magazines—were completely irrelevant to the crime committed. The perpetrator didn’t engage in mass shooting or spray crowds with bullets; they executed a targeted assassination with one round.
Any firearm, from a simple hunting rifle to a handgun, could have achieved the same tragic result. While this policy is central to national gun control debate and often raised after high-profile shootings, it’s not factually applicable to Kirk’s death.
This illustrates how broader, often symbolic, debates over certain firearm types can overshadow specific details of individual acts of violence.
The Cultural Divide
Arguments For
Proponents argue these firearms are uniquely dangerous with no legitimate place in civil society.
Their primary argument centers on weapons’ use in mass shootings. They contend these military-derived firearms are engineered for maximum lethality, allowing shooters to inflict devastating casualties in short time periods. Research supports claims that when these weapons and high-capacity magazines are used in mass shootings, events are far deadlier. Analysis of mass shootings from 2015 to 2022 found incidents involving high-capacity magazines resulted in nearly five times as many people shot per incident on average.
Proponents argue these are “weapons of war” whose primary function is combat, making them unsuitable for civilian purposes like hunting or home defense.
Arguments Against
Opponents argue bans are ineffective, unconstitutional, and based on misunderstanding of how firearms function.
A central argument is that “assault weapon” is a political misnomer and bans target firearms based on cosmetic features rather than mechanical operation. A semi-automatic rifle with pistol grip and telescoping stock fires one round per trigger pull, exactly like a semi-automatic hunting rifle with traditional wood stock. They argue these features don’t make firearms more powerful or lethal, and bans regulate aesthetics.
Opponents argue bans infringe on the Second Amendment by prohibiting firearms in “common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Rifles like the AR-15 are among the most popular and best-selling firearms in the United States, with millions owned for home defense, sport shooting, and collecting.
They point to data showing rifles of any kind, including “assault weapons,” are used in very small percentages of homicides nationwide. FBI data consistently shows handguns are used in vast majorities of gun murders, while all rifle types combined are used in only fractions of cases. A congressionally-mandated study of the 1994 federal ban concluded it had no measurable impact on overall gun crime rates, precisely because banned weapons were so rarely used in crime. RAND Corporation’s review finds “inconclusive evidence” for assault weapon bans’ effects on both total homicides and mass shootings.
Mandatory Waiting Periods: The Cooling-Off Approach
How Waiting Periods Work
Mandatory waiting period laws introduce compulsory delays between firearm purchases and when individuals can legally take physical possession. These laws don’t restrict who can buy guns, but when they can acquire them. Waiting periods typically range from three to ten days.
The policy has dual purposes grounded in public safety and behavioral science. The primary rationale is creating “cooling-off” periods intended to prevent impulsive acts of violence driven by temporary, intense emotional states—fits of rage in interpersonal conflicts or moments of acute despair leading to suicidal ideation.
The theory is that by imposing delays, laws allow time for volatile emotions to subside, potentially preventing tragedies that might occur if firearms were available immediately.
The secondary purpose provides law enforcement sufficient time to conduct thorough and accurate background checks. While NICS is often “instant,” some cases require additional investigation. Federal law contains the “Charleston loophole,” allowing licensed dealers to proceed with sales if background checks haven’t been completed within three business days. Mandatory waiting periods longer than this window can help ensure checks are fully completed before transfers, preventing prohibited persons from acquiring guns through “default proceed” sales.
Currently, there’s no federal waiting period requirement. The original Brady Act included a five-day waiting period, but this was phased out with NICS implementation in 1998. However, several states and DC have implemented their own waiting period laws. Utah does not have mandatory waiting periods.
Irrelevance to Planned Violence
Mandatory waiting periods are policy tools designed to counter impulsive violence. The Kirk shooting, a targeted attack on a public figure at a pre-scheduled event, bears all hallmarks of premeditated action.
An assassin who has planned their crime, selected their target, and chosen the time and place is highly unlikely to be an impulsive actor. For such individuals, waiting periods of three, five, or even ten days wouldn’t serve as deterrent but would merely be logistical delays to incorporate into planning.
Therefore, a mandatory waiting period would almost certainly have been ineffective in preventing this specific crime. The policy’s value lies in interrupting violence driven by temporary crises, not in stopping determined, calculating perpetrators of planned assassinations.
This highlights crucial nuance often missed in broader gun debates: not all gun violence is the same. Different forms of violence have different motivations and root causes. Policies highly effective for one type may be completely irrelevant to another.
Evidence for Cooling-Off Effects
Arguments For
Advocates point to strong and growing evidence demonstrating life-saving potential, particularly in reducing homicides and suicides.
The most influential research is a 2017 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Analyzing 45 years of state-level data from 1970 to 2014, researchers found robust causal links between handgun waiting periods and reduced gun deaths. The study concluded waiting periods reduce gun homicides by approximately 17%.
Authors estimated states with existing waiting periods avoid roughly 750 gun homicides per year, and expanding the policy to all 50 states could prevent an additional 910 gun homicides annually. The study found no evidence this reduction was offset by increased non-gun homicides, suggesting perpetrators didn’t simply substitute other weapons.
Evidence is also strong for suicide prevention. The same study found waiting periods lead to 7-11% reductions in gun suicides. This is particularly significant because firearms are exceptionally lethal as suicide methods; approximately 90% of gun suicide attempts are fatal, compared to less than 5% for most other common methods.
Proponents argue that since vast majorities of people who survive suicide attempts don’t go on to die by suicide, creating delays that allow temporary suicidal crises to pass is highly effective life-saving intervention.
Arguments Against
Opponents argue waiting periods are unconstitutional burdens on Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and ineffective against criminals causing the most harm.
The primary criticism is that waiting periods can dangerously inhibit individuals’ abilities to defend themselves. They argue people facing credible and immediate threats—domestic violence or stalking victims—shouldn’t be forced to wait several days to acquire means to protect themselves. In such cases, delays could be fatal.
Opponents challenge “cooling-off” rationale as illogical in several contexts. First, it has no effect on criminals planning crimes in advance. Second, it’s irrelevant for majorities of gun owners who already possess other firearms; people in fits of rage who already have guns at home aren’t affected by waiting periods on new purchases.
Critics dispute research cited by proponents. Organizations like the NRA argue studies purporting to find causal links between waiting periods and reduced violence are fundamentally flawed. They point to literature reviews, including some from RAND Corporation, which have deemed evidence on waiting periods’ effects inconclusive.
Learning from Tragedy
The assassination of Charlie Kirk represents a devastating loss of life and a stark reminder of the complex challenges surrounding gun violence in America. This analysis has explored how four major policy proposals might apply under various scenarios, highlighting both the potential benefits and limitations of different regulatory approaches.
Several key insights emerge from this examination:
Different types of violence require different solutions. The single-shot assassination differs fundamentally from mass shootings, domestic violence, or suicide attempts. Policies effective against impulsive violence may be irrelevant to planned attacks, and vice versa.
Policy effectiveness depends on specific circumstances. Without knowing the shooter’s background, mental state, or method of firearm acquisition, it’s impossible to definitively say which policies might have prevented this tragedy. This uncertainty underscores the importance of evidence-based policymaking rather than reflexive responses.
Constitutional and practical tensions persist. Each policy proposal involves trade-offs between public safety goals and individual rights, between theoretical effectiveness and practical implementation challenges.
The human cost transcends political debates. Charlie Kirk’s death reminds us that behind every statistic is a person with family, friends, and contributions to make. His young children will grow up without their father, and his wife has lost her partner.
As the investigation continues and more facts emerge, policymakers and citizens alike must grapple with how to balance competing values and interests in pursuing solutions to gun violence. The memory of Charlie Kirk and all victims of gun violence deserves nothing less than thoughtful, evidence-based approaches to these challenges.
The ongoing investigation will eventually provide more clarity about the specific circumstances of this attack. Until then, this analysis serves as an educational framework for understanding how different policy approaches might apply to various scenarios of gun violence, always keeping in mind the profound human cost at the center of these debates.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
