In all recent mass shootings and assignations, who is the side most commonly responsible?

1. Summary of the results

Recent analyses and datasets converge on several measurable patterns but stop short of a single simple answer to “which side” most commonly commits mass shootings or assassinations. Empirical work on mass shooters emphasizes overwhelming male predominance, with research noting roughly 98% of perpetrators are men and a worrying concentration among younger males ^{[1] [2]}. Separate research focused on domestic terrorism finds that right‑wing extremists account for a disproportionate share of lethal incidents and fatalities in the U.S., based on compilations of domestic‑terror events and trend analyses ^{[3] [4]}. High‑profile assassination cases are more heterogeneous: individual motives often reflect personal grievances, online subcultures, or mixed ideological cues rather than clear partisan directives ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The existing sources emphasize demographic and ideological trends but omit several important contexts that complicate a binary “left vs. right” framing. First, the term “mass shooting” is operationalized differently across datasets—some count public indiscriminate shootings, others include family or gang homicides—yielding divergent incidence counts and perpetrator profiles ^{[7] [2]}. Second, datasets on domestic terrorism typically focus on politically motivated violence; attacks motivated by personal grievance, mental illness, or criminal motives may be excluded, undercounting non‑ideological actors ^{[8] [9]}. Third, individual assassination cases frequently show mixed or evolving motives, influenced by online radicalization, gaming memes, and personal pathology, complicating attributions to a single “side” ^{[5] [9]}.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

Framing the question as “which side is most commonly responsible” creates a partisan binary that can mislead audiences and benefit actors with political incentives. Emphasizing a single side risks weaponizing selective statistics: political groups may cite domestic‑terror tallies to portray opponents as uniquely violent, while others cite demographic patterns (male, young) to deflect from ideology ^{[3] [1]}. Media narratives around singular high‑profile assassinations can amplify incomplete early evidence—such as engraved casings or social‑media posts—leading to premature ideological labeling that serves advocacy or outrage economies ^{[5] [6]}. A balanced reading requires separating demographic risk factors, ideological terrorism datasets, and idiosyncratic motives to avoid overgeneralization ^{[2] [8]}.