How do motives (racial, anti-government, political) differ between partisan gun violence perpetrators?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Motives for partisan gun violence vary across ideological lines: researchers and watchdogs report that right-wing violence has often been driven by racial supremacy and opposition to government authority, while recent analyses show rises in left-wing incidents tied more to anti-government and partisan opposition — CSIS and FactCheck document this shift [1] [2]. Surveys and public-health studies show racial and political violence also shape private behaviors: new gun owners were 4.5 times more likely to cite racial violence and 3.2 times more likely to cite political violence as a purchase motivator in the 2023 National Survey of Gun Policy [3] [4].
1. The headline: ideology maps imperfectly to motive
Political labels do not translate to single motives. CSIS characterizes left-wing incidents in 2025 as often motivated by anti-government sentiment or partisan extremism, while FactCheck and other analysts note historically dominant right-wing violence motivated by racial or ethnic supremacy and anti-government ideas [2] [1]. Academic reviews caution that ideology is only one axis of variation; attack lethality and targets depend on many factors beyond left/right labels [5].
2. Right-wing motivations: race, supremacy, and resisting authority
Multiple sources link right-wing political violence to racial or ethnic supremacy and opposition to government institutions. FactCheck and CSIS cite white-supremacist motives and anti-government themes as common drivers of right-wing attacks, which historically produced the bulk of U.S. domestic terrorist incidents [1] [6]. Advocacy researchers and watchdogs also document cases — such as El Paso and Pittsburgh — where racist ideology was central [7] [8].
3. Left-wing and anti-government violence: a rising, but different profile
CSIS and related coverage report an increase in left-wing incidents in early 2025, with many motivated by opposition to state institutions, immigration policy, or partisan targets rather than race-based supremacy [2] [9]. NPR and CSIS analysts emphasize that left-wing violence in 2025 appears more focused on state actors or policy-specific targets than on ethnic or racial extermination narratives [2] [10].
4. Overlapping motives and the danger of simple binaries
Experts warn against binary thinking. The PNAS review and Guardian analysis argue that motives overlap — grievance, identity-based hatred, nihilism, and imitation can appear across ideologies — and that focusing only on political labels can obscure common pathways to violence such as radicalizing online subcultures, grievance fixation, and access to firearms [5] [11]. Media framing differences also skew public perception of who is motivated by what [12] [13].
5. Race as both motive and context
Racial motives operate two ways: as explicit drivers of hate-motivated massacres and as structural context shaping everyday gun violence. Public-health research, Brookings, and advocacy groups show Black Americans face disproportionate risk from community gun violence rooted in inequality — a different dynamic than ideologically driven mass attacks, but one where race is central [14] [15] [16]. These distinct phenomena are often conflated in public debate [17].
6. Behavioral consequences: fear, ownership, and policy preferences
Surveys find fear of racial or political violence affects civilian behavior. The 2023 National Survey of Gun Policy reports new gun owners were much more likely to cite racial (4.5x) and political (3.2x) violence as purchase motivators; these concerns shape support for policies like permit-to-purchase or “stand-your-ground” [3] [4]. Other studies link partisan identity to different firearm behaviors after exposure to violence [18].
7. What the data cannot settle — and why method matters
Different datasets use different definitions (mass shooting, terrorism, partisan incident), producing divergent narratives. FactCheck and CSIS stress that recent rises in left-wing incidents are from a low baseline and that long-term data still show substantial right-wing activity historically [1] [2]. PNAS and other scholars note that cross-ideological comparisons are limited by inconsistencies in coding and small sample sizes [5].
8. Policy and prevention: tailored responses, not one-size-fits-all
Sources converge on one policy point: motives determine prevention strategies. Anti-racist interventions and community investment address structural racialized violence; countering online radicalization, targeted policing of extremist networks, and enforcing weapons laws address ideologically driven attacks — Giffords, CSIS, and public-health reports all call for multi-pronged approaches [8] [2] [19]. What works for community homicide is not the same as what prevents an ideologically motivated assassination.
Limitations: available sources cover surveys, CSIS analysis, academic reviews, and advocacy research but do not provide a unified causal model linking every motive to specific incident types; differences in definitions and timeframes limit direct comparability [5] [1].