Does the far right or far left commit more political violence

1. Summary of the results

The analyses provided present conflicting views on whether the far right or far left commits more political violence. According to ^[1], right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and more deadly than left-wing violence, with most domestic terrorists in the U.S. being politically on the right ^[1]. Similarly, ^[2] notes that right-wing ideologies have fueled more than 70% of all extremist attacks and domestic terrorism plots in the US since 2002, citing the Anti-Defamation League ^[2]. In contrast, ^[3] suggests a rise in 'assassination culture' and political violence, particularly among the far-left, citing a study that found support for assassinations is higher among those who self-identify as 'left of center' ^[3]. However, ^[4] presents research comparing political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists, finding that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent ^[4]. Overall, the majority of the analyses suggest that right-wing violence is more frequent and deadly, but there are also concerns about rising political violence from the far left ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

A key missing context in the original statement is the definition of political violence, which can encompass a wide range of actions, from vandalism to terrorism ^[1]. Additionally, the analyses often focus on the US context, with limited discussion of global trends in political violence ^[4]. Alternative viewpoints, such as the role of Islamist extremism in global political violence, are also mentioned in ^[4], highlighting the complexity of the issue. Furthermore, ^[5] and ^[5] note that both Democrats and Republicans have been targeted in recent attacks, suggesting that political violence is a bipartisan issue ^[5]. The analyses also highlight the need for nuanced and evidence-based discussions of political violence, rather than relying on simplistic or partisan narratives ^[6].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be misleading or biased in its framing of the issue, as it implies a binary opposition between the far right and far left, when in fact the reality of political violence is more complex ^{[1] [2]}. The statement may also overlook the role of other factors, such as mental health, social media, or economic inequality, in contributing to political violence ^[4]. Additionally, the statement may be influenced by partisan agendas, with some sources citing studies or data that support a particular narrative, while others may be selectively presenting information to fit their ideological perspective ^[3]. Ultimately, a more nuanced and evidence-based approach is needed to understand the complex issue of political violence, and to develop effective strategies for preventing and addressing it ^{[1] [2] [7]}.