A recent Front Poll regarding student and staff opinions on violence in the United States – including the assassination of Charlie Kirk – amassed a large number of responders.
FRCC students and staff – though the poll was not scientific – could generally agree on two general sentiments in spite of their opinion of the president: Charlie Kirk’s death was unwarranted and extreme, and violence can impact the United States as a whole in a variety of ways.
The poll, lasting for the month of September and into early October, saw nearly as many responses as the previous two Front Polls combined. An uptick, particularly on the Larimer campus, of support for Donald Trump was seen.
15.9 percent of – or seven – respondents who attended the Larimer campus in May said they strongly or somewhat approved of Trump. 29.3 percent of respondents – 29 respondents in all – felt the same about Trump in September.
Above: FRCC’s approval rating of President Donald Trump between September 2025 and May 2025, the date of the previous Front Poll.
Questions about the opinions of the answerer on the death of Charlie Kirk, if and how violence can impact America, and the deployment or the threat thereof of the National Guard to major U.S. cities were discussed.
Nearly everyone who responded felt violence can impact America. One person said, “It contributes to an obvious lack of safety, specifically at educational institutions and toward the press, and that is a FAR cry from how our country was intended to function.”
Another placed blame for the violence on one side of the political spectrum. “Most of the violence is not coming from the Republican party, most of the violence is coming from the radical left,” they said.
Other responses brought up examples of school shootings, the death of Charlie Kirk, a possibility of civil war, and the division of Americans from one another in how violence could impact the nation at large.
A substantial number of responses talked about violence in a general sense, with one saying, “if someone gets injured or killed, it can upset other people creating a ‘war’ between people.” It is unclear what the “war” they are referring to is.
The political assassination of Charlie Kirk was discussed at length. Most respondents, whether or not they felt approval of president Trump, felt “it is awful to murder anyone” and condemned the death, despite his controversial standing as a political commentator. Some additionally expressed condolences towards his family.
Below: The approval rating of president Trump at FRCC’s Larimer Campus between May and September 2025.
“I didn’t agree with a damn thing Charlie Kirk said, I thought he promoted a hateful, bigoted, sexist, racist rhetoric,” another person said. “But I think his murder was still unjust and a tragedy.”
One person who somewhat approved of Trump’s performance in his second term felt the shooting had “radicalized me more than I was. He was killed for speaking his opinion, killed because the shooter disagreed with him.”
“I wouldn’t wish that type of death even on my worst and vile enemy,” someone who heavily disagreed with Kirk’s stances – and who strongly disapproved of Trump – stated. Extremely few expressed contentment with Kirk’s death.
Traditional media and social media coverage – the latter partly comprising videos of the shooting uncensored and in detail – about the murder were criticized, too. Some felt there was a celebration of his death on social media and that it was “disgusting.”
One person felt “it was an assassination, not a murder. Referring to it as anything else is a minimization. Both the traditional and social media outlets demonstrated extreme biases.” It is unclear what biases they were referring to.
Some felt traditional media was “giving him too much respect” or were – along with social media – “cherry picking the Charlie Kirk assassination for their own goals and to deliver their own opinions.” Again, it is unclear what goals this person perceived the media as appealing to.
Despite mostly condemning the assassination, many could not agree on how they felt traditional and social media platforms covered the event – or how the Trump administration and their supporters handled the death of Kirk.
One person who strongly disapproved of Trump said that “I believe he was a detriment to the unity of the nation. Kirk did not deserve death but he also doesn’t deserve the ridiculous amount of honors. Where are all these emotional MAGA’s when kids are killed? Nowhere.”
A few people said traditional media covered the facts, but social media was different. “I unfortunately had seen the unblurred video of Charlie Kirk being shot on TikTok and it just ain’t right,” one of these people stated.
Some also expressed disdain for coverage of the Kirk shooting, while shortly thereafter, there had been a shooting at Evergreen High School. One person said, “It was odd, a white man who supports gun rights died, and everyone is talking about it. Though the same day, a school was shot up, and very little media coverage was on it.”
Others felt more strongly on the administration’s reaction to Charlie Kirk: “It [his death] does not impact me in any way except how annoying it has been dealing with grown children hooping and hollering over a mediocre white guy who calls for the death of trans people, constantly made fun of George Floyd’s murder, and believes women should be in the kitchen only. Appalling and disgusting but fitting for the current administration.”
Above: The approval rating of president Trump across the Larimer, Westminster, Boulder County campuses and strictly online attendees for the month of September 2025.
Still others felt that traditional media was biased, and that social media helped to let “normal people to [be able to] communicate about what’s going on – it’s even allowed normal citizens to do the job journalists are no longer able to do.” Traditional media generally blurred out or stopped the moment Kirk was shot.
About the National Guard deployments, those who disapproved of Trump’s second term thus far unanimously felt that the deployments would have a negative impact. Among these were the opinions that the deployments were “terrifying”, “ridiculous”, “unnecessary”, “bullshit”, “blatantly illegal and fascist”, a “form of martial law,” or that they “scare me.”
Much of the sentiment among Trump non-supporters also focused on the opinion that these deployments were unconstitutional, “tyrannical”, or signs of a dictatorship by the Trump administration. Such an opinion stated the deployments are “blatantly illegal and fascist, a move that any normal leader wouldn’t be allowed to do.”
People who approved of Trump felt the opposite, however. One said it was “pretty awesome, the presence of the National Guard or any presence of force and strength makes people feel secure.”
A feeling of security or a way to handle crime was also expressed among other Trump supporters, too. “I think it was the only solution,” another said. “When the mayor will not do anything about crime in a city, and the governor in a state, then it is necessary to go to extreme measures to maintain order.” Other supporters agreed with them, while a few – as well as those who held a neutral or no opinion on Trump – had no opinion or comment.
Generally speaking, those who support Trump felt positive reactions to the deployment, realized or potential, of the National Guard to major U.S. cities. Those who do not support Trump’s actions in his second term rebuked these deployments.
CORRECTION: Evergreen High School was mistakenly referred to as Everglades High School. This article was last updated October 15, 2025 at 1:16 PM.
