2 Controversies Over Political Rhetoric Illustrate the Perils of Blaming Gun Control Critics for Murder

If you oppose “common-sense gun safety legislation,” politicians and activists who favor new restrictions on firearms often suggest, you have blood on your hands. Both Jay Jones, the Democratic candidate for Virginia attorney general, and Joshua Bregy, the former Clemson University faculty member who was fired for sharing a Facebook post about the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, embraced that argument, which is not just logically fallacious but poisonous to rational debate.

Jones, whose bloodthirsty private remarks about his political opponents recently came to light, has received well-earned criticism for fantasizing about the deaths of people who disagree with him, which he now describes as a “grave mistake.” The employment consequences that Bregy faced, by contrast, seem like a clear violation of his First Amendment rights, since he was dismissed by a state university for political speech unrelated to his work responsibilities. But both cases involve a sentiment that is disturbingly common among advocates of gun control.

In August 2022, National Review reported last Friday, Jones sent a series of text messages to Carrie Coyner, a former colleague in Virginia’s House of Delegates. Coyner, a Republican, apparently received the initial text by mistake, because at one point Jones said, “Damn that was for [M]ark.” Jones nevertheless proceeded with his partisan commentary, condemning Todd Gilbert, then the Republican speaker of the House, as a “POS.” Jones added that if he had only “two bullets” and was forced to choose between killing Gilbert, Adolf Hitler, and Pol Pot, Gilbert would get “two bullets in the head.” If you “put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know,” he emphasized, the Republican legislator “receives both bullets every time.”

When Coyner urged Jones to “please stop,” he replied “Lol.” Coyner did not think it was funny, saying, “It really bothers me when you talk about hurting people or wishing death on them,” because “it isn’t ok…no matter who they are.”

In a subsequent phone call, Coyner reported, Jones defended his rhetoric, adding that he wished Gilbert’s children would be murdered so Gilbert would understand the harm caused by gun violence. Coyner said she hung up the phone in disgust, only to receive further text messages in which Jones elaborated on his logic.

“You were talking about [hoping] [J]ennifer Gilbert’s children would die,” Coyner noted, referring to the House speaker’s wife. “Yes, I’ve told you this before,” Jones replied. “Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy.” Later he added: “I mean do I think Todd and Jennifer are evil? And that they’re breeding little fascists? Yes.”

Coyner told National Review that Jones’ remarks were “not just disturbing but disqualifying for anyone who wants to seek public office.” Jason Miyares, the Republican attorney general whom Jones is trying to unseat, unsurprisingly agreed. “Jay Jones has proven he is reckless, biased, and willing to trade away his integrity,” Miyares said on Saturday. “This conduct is disqualifying.”

This week the National Rifle Association (NRA) piled on, noting in an emailed press release that Jones had “slammed a Republican politician for opposing gun control legislation by wishing the politician’s children were murdered.” Jones’ “disgraceful and disgusting texts” are “unequivocally disqualifying,” said John Commerford, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Affairs.

The Facebook post that Bregy shared on his personal account in the wake of Kirk’s September 10 assassination was mild by comparison. But it assumed a similar premise: that critics of gun control are, at best, blithely oblivious to the harm inflicted by their views. The author prefaced the post by emphasizing that “violence is never okay,” adding that “as much as I dislike someone and their cruel ideas, I would never want their life to be taken in an act of violence.” But the message went on to imply that Kirk had it coming:

I’ll never advocate for violence in any form, but it sounds to me like karma is sometimes swift and ironic. As Kirk said, “play certain games, win certain prizes.”…

I truly grieve for Kirk’s family and friends. No one deserves to go through tragic loss like that. No one should be gunned down—not a school child, not an influencer, not a politician—no one. But am I going to allow people to make a martyr out of a flawed human being whose rhetoric caused notable damage? Not a chance.

According to a federal lawsuit that Bregy filed last week with help from the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, his implicit endorsement of those sentiments initially “drew no significant attention.” But after Bregy “removed the post from public view,” an X message from Clemson College Republicans condemned the “now-deleted post assenting to the idea that Kirk’s assassination” was “the result of KARMA.”

The group described Bregy, who taught courses in Clemson’s Department of Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, as “ANOTHER leftist assistant professor,” noting two earlier posts about climate change and Black Lives Matter. It added: “WHO ARE YOU HIRING @ClemsonUniv @clemsonpres??? END THIS NOW.” According to the lawsuit, “a firestorm ensued,” including demands from Republican state legislators that Clemson can Bregy. “Take action,” said Rep. Thomas Beach (R–Anderson). “Fire these radicals.”

The university initially responded by calling for “mutual respect, integrity, and personal responsibility” while adding that it “stand[s] firmly on the principles of the U.S. Constitution, including the protection of free speech.” That position was consistent with Clemson’s avowed commitment to “the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.” Clemson has officially embraced the free speech principles adopted by the University of Chicago. Under that policy, “it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.” It adds that “concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”

All of that went by the boards in the face of continuing public pressure from state legislators. On September 15, Clemson announced that it had dismissed Bregy because of “inappropriate social media content in response to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.” That decision, Bregy argues in his lawsuit, was inconsistent with the First Amendment, which constrains disciplinary decisions by public universities.

Bregy’s “right to engage in core political speech as a university professor far outweighs the University’s interest in avoiding the ire of a conservative internet mob,” the complaint says. “To hold otherwise would turn the First Amendment on its head and risk constitutionalizing a heckler’s veto.”

That argument seems sound to me. But the same cannot be said for the argument that got Bregy in trouble. While the Facebook post’s general complaint about Kirk’s “rhetoric” presumably goes beyond the gun control debate, the reference to murdered schoolchildren and the claim that his death was “ironic” allude to his support for the Second Amendment. In particular, as Reason‘s J.D. Tuccille notes, Kirk famously argued that the constitutional right to arms is vitally important as a safeguard against “tyrannical government” despite the risks that guarantee entails.

“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty,” Kirk said in April 2023, comparing the benefits of wide gun ownership to the benefits of driving, which is implicated in a similar number of deaths each year. “You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense.” But he added that “I think it’s worth it,” saying it was “a prudent deal” so “we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

Although the Framers likewise viewed that “deal” as “prudent,” maybe they were wrong, and maybe Kirk was wrong to agree with them. But as Tuccille emphasizes, Kirk’s recognition that liberty “comes with a price” hardly makes it “ironic” that he was killed by a rifle-wielding assassin. If anything, that crime confirms Kirk’s point.

Kirk’s detractors are on even shakier ground when they suggest that, in a country where people already own something like half a billion firearms, opposing specific gun control proposals demonstrates a reprehensible disregard for human life. As I note in my new book Beyond Control, legal, political, and practical realities severely constrain what gun control can reasonably be expected to accomplish.

Decades of research have produced little evidence that popular prescriptions such as “assault weapon” bans, “universal background checks,” and “red flag” laws work as advertised. Gun policies, which tend to impose broad restrictions in the hope of reaching a small subset of concern, often seem ill-designed to alleviate the problems they aim to address, and they impose undeniable burdens on peaceful, law-abiding Americans.

In this context, even someone who thinks we would be better off without a Second Amendment might reasonably be skeptical that the benefits of new restrictions outweigh their costs. But instead of making the case for those policies by citing relevant evidence, gun control advocates frequently seek to end the debate by charging their opponents with complicity in murder—a premise that rejects the possibility of sincere disagreement and invites dark musings like the comments at the center of the Jones and Bregy controversies. That strategy may be emotionally satisfying, but it persuades no one.