I was so ready to fight you with that first half, not gonna lie. I'm very much so in the camp that Charlie Kirk no longer being alive is a good thing, however, I do think the way he died may be a bad thing in that it kinda makes him a martyr. I think one huge mistake that people make with things like this is to not recognize that truly evil people were indeed still human. The most evil humans to ever live in Imperial Japan's Unit 731 needed to die by any means necessary, but they were still human.

I think that the belief that all humans are good or that all humans are bad is something that fundamentally distorts how we think about others, especially in political spaces. Humans aren't innately morally aligned, work is put in to align anyone one way or another. People change, and, again, work must be put in to do so. All that to say that someone deserving death for how evil they are isn't something easily determined, neither is it so black and white, nor can you ignore the potential for change. I think Charlie Kirk is a good example as I'm not really convinced he was reasonably unlikely to change versus someone like Nick Fuentes. However, the damage he has done to political discourse would be something difficult to overcome and can't be ignored due to the scale. While I agree that him being dead is a net positive for humanity, I can't agree with anyone saying it's an easy slam-dunk determination to make.