When the video of Charlie Kirk speaking—and the shooting that erupted—went viral, it rattled a lot of people. One article in particular stuck with me: “My kid has seen this. Now what?”
That question isn’t just for parents. It’s for all of us. Teachers. Coaches. Aunts. Uncles. Neighbors. Community leaders. Kids are watching all of us. And here’s the reality: once they’ve seen something like that shooting, their brains can’t simply unsee it.
Neurologically, their bodies respond almost as if they were there. Their amygdala (the brain’s alarm system) fires. Their heart races. Their memory circuits lock it in. This is why violent images replay in our minds—it’s the brain’s way of saying, “Remember this, it might be dangerous.”So “Don’t worry, it’s just a video” won’t cut it. What will help? Adults stepping up to be the example of how to handle conflict without violence, blame, or shutdown.
We Have Two Choices
Every time we’re faced with disagreement, we have two paths:
- Dig in, blame, and point fingers.
(Spoiler: this is what fuels division and leaves people believing violence is their only option.) - Pause, get curious, and think about the human dynamics that got us here.
(This is what makes disagreement safe, creates more options, and shows kids there are better answers than violence.)
Which path we choose is the lesson kids learn.
Why It Sticks in Their Brains
Neuroscience makes this painfully clear:
- Empathy networks activate. Watching someone in danger lights up the same brain regions as experiencing danger yourself (Singer et al., 2004).
- The amygdala doesn’t care about context. On a couch or in the crowd—if it looks threatening, the brain sounds the alarm (LeDoux, 2000).
- Emotionally charged memories stick harder. The hippocampus stores violent images with high priority, replaying them again and again (McGaugh, 2004).
In other words, their brains process what they saw as real danger.
The Real Work: Modeling Curiosity, Not Blame
It has to be safe to disagree. It has to be possible for people—especially those who feel powerless—to have more options than violence. And it has to start with us.
If kids (or colleagues, or neighbors) see us roll our eyes, mock, or dismiss others, they learn that disagreement is unsafe. If they see us pause, ask questions, and listen, they learn that dialogue is possible.
So let’s check ourselves:
- Are we blaming, or are we guiding?
- Are we shutting people down, or making space for hard conversations?
- Are we treating conflict like a battlefield, or like a puzzle to solve together?
How We Can Respond
Here are some steps we can all take when kids (or adults, honestly) see violence like this:
- Acknowledge, don’t dismiss. “That was scary to watch. Your brain reacts as if you were there.”
- Reframe the norm. Remind them that most conflicts don’t end in violence—and most people truly want peace.
- Practice conflict curiosity. Ask, “What else could have been done? What options were missed here?”
- Model in everyday life. Show kids what safe disagreement looks like at home, in traffic, at work, or even on Facebook.
- Call yourself out. When you slip into blame or hostility, say, “That wasn’t my best. Let me try again.”
The Challenge
Here’s the bottom line: if we want kids to believe that peace is possible, then we have to model it. Not in theory, but in the daily grind of our own disagreements.
Because when a child asks, “Now what?” after seeing violence, they’re really asking: “How do I live in a world like this?”
And the answer we give isn’t just in our words. It’s in how we show up when conflict gets real.
References:
- Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2006). A social–neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 54–58.
- LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23(1), 155–184.
- McGaugh, J. L. (2004). The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories of emotionally arousing experiences. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27(1), 1–28.
- Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157–1162.