The context of the civil rights act is a little more nuanced than what this implies.

He stated that he understands the act was drawn up to combat segregation, but bemoaned it because it was now being used a weapon against white people.

Instead of shooting him, someone should have drawn his attention to the 2009 case of Ricci v. DeStefano. The case was about the New Haven, CT firefighters’ promotion exam results showing that white and Hispanic candidates scored highest, but the city discarded the test results fearing a lawsuit from minority firefighters who did worse.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favour of the white and Hispanic firefighters, finding that discarding the test results violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits discrimination based on race).

Basically, the civil right act that he said harmed white men, protected them here. Thus, proving Kirk to be wrong.

You dont need to kill the Charlie Kirks of the world, you only ever needed to hit them with words and facts.

Even if you were to look at more recent examples that have been filed, they are not around the act itself, but the actions of individuals who are acting out their social media fantasies as crusaders for what they feel is right. Kirk was just straight up wrong here. There was zero need for this to escalate to murder. None at all.