Why am I more upset over Charlie Kirk, then the Ten Keddoshim Murdered?

Many are asking why so many of us are more bothered by the murder of Charlie Kirk, over the ten Jews that were also murdered in cold blood 2 days before? I’m asking myself this, and I guess what I assume the answer is this.

If given a choice, would we undo the death of the ten or Charlie? Ten lives outweigh one, so the decision is clear. Even choosing between one Jew in Israel and Charlie, most of Acheinu Bnei Yisrael would stand with our brothers and sisters, though we deeply appreciate Charlie’s support.

Given those options, it follows logically that I should be feeling the sting of what happened in Israel way more than what happened to a conservative I never met or really listened to.

With that in mind, the answer that makes sense for me is this.

Based on how I feel when tragic events happen, there are 2 reasons why I feel the sting.

1 – Empathy: for example, I hear “A soldier was killed in Gaza,” I feel sad but not devastated. I see a smiling picture of him, and I feel some pain. I see a video of that soldier days before in his mother’s embrace with tears in her eyes, and she can’t let go, since she knows the danger he is going into, then there’s tears in my eyes, and the whole day, my mood has completely changed and here and there , flashes of that video go through your mind, but within 2 days (for me) the sting is not felt anymore unless something triggers that memory.

2 – Avoidable: The more avoidable a tragedy is, the more it hurts. The brutal truth is, we know what we are up against in Israel and Gaza, and we do everything we can to avoid deaths, but the fact remains that we are up against such despicable and suicidal people who are so determined to cause pain that some just make it through. There’s really not so much more we can do (from a hishtadlus point of view) to prevent tragedies from happening. There are gun carriers everywhere, and security is super tight.

The loss of the kedoshim was hard to prevent. There could have been more casualties, but with Hashem’s hashgacha, someone quickly neutralized the animals before more harm occurred.

Charlie Kirk is dead, only because someone didn’t like his viewpoints. Nothing else. Charlie Kirk never personally attacked him, nor did he mock him or people like him. All he did was call out the hypocrisy and lunacy of the left. So this creature’s justification essentially was “I don’t like what Charlie Kirk believes in and what he says, therefore, to make ME feel better, I need to take him out.” For that, two children no longer have a father, an innocent lady is now widowed, and a 31-year-old is dead, just because someone didn’t like what he was saying.

In other words, because of the lack of justification, it never should have happened. So much so, the security team didn’t deem it necessary to check for lunatics. At best, the security team was prepared for a disgruntled debater to become unhinged. The only reason it happened is that the left justifies violence against anyone who dares to disagree with their viewpoints and validates hatred and rage. Had the left agreed to disagree or encourage dialogue and debate, Charlie Kirk would still be alive, Erika would have a husband, and the two children would grow up with a Daddy.

If Charlie Kirk had a heart attack that day, or just never woke up, I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t feel much. Still, I wouldn’t be happy, since he stands up for us and all that’s wrong. Even so, heart attacks are mostly hard to prevent.

Those are my thoughts. I’ve never studied psychology or emotions. Does this make sense? Do you agree or disagree?