I ran straight to your page immediately after I read your comment. Just like you, I found Charlie to be a divisive figure but I don't believe anybody should be killed for their views, even if they're vile. I also find it a bit frustrating that this and the multitude other of gun violence in the country hasn't led to a calm discussion between both sides of the political divide. Instead, both sides have been point scoring.
I think that's part of the problem--characterizing the dynamic as 'sides'. Maybe there are sides, but which one do I belong on? I oppose the current administration, but I think a lot of what the previous administration did wasn't right either. Am I on one side, or am I in the fabled middle? I do point fingers, at anyone I find to be misguided.
In my humble view, Charlie Kirk very deliberately advanced ideas he knew were controversial. By definition, controversy is divisive. Although he was peaceful in his approach and demeanor, his words did upset people. That was his right. He believed strongly in his views. Disagreement with him did not imply violence. It implied debate. The murderer couldn't debate. He didn't have the skill, so he silenced the man that annoyed him. That is madness.