Fact check: What role do guns play in left-wing and right-wing violence in the U.S.?

1. Why counts and lethality tell different stories about political violence

Counting incidents and measuring deaths produce different pictures: the CSIS finding that left-wing attacks outnumbered far-right attacks in 2025 describes incident frequency, not lethality, and analysts stress the attacks by the left remained low in casualties ^{[1] [2]}. Other reporting and analyses emphasize that historically and cumulatively, right-wing extremists have produced more deadly attacks and account for the lion’s share of domestic terrorism fatalities, a claim echoed in broader data assessments ^[6]. Both claims can be true together: more frequent low-lethality acts by one side do not negate fewer but deadlier episodes by the other, so policymakers should track both incident counts and fatality-weighted metrics to understand risk ^{[1] [6]}.

2. How guns affect lethality and operational choices across ideologies

Firearms increase the potential lethality of politically motivated attacks regardless of ideology, but access, target selection, and weapon choice shape outcomes. Reporting connects the gun lobby and permissive access to firearms with higher risks that extremists can find guns ^[3]. The CSIS analysis notes left-wing plots in 2025 were often less lethal, which may reflect differences in tactics, targets, or the types of weapons used, or law enforcement disruption; none of the summaries fully disaggregate whether weapon access or intent primarily explains lower lethality ^{[1] [2] [6]}. Understanding how guns interact with attack planning requires data on weapon types, procurement paths, and interdiction timing.

3. The gun lobby, policy debates, and the political incentives shaping access

Analyses assert that the gun lobby influences policy and public debate in ways that can expand access and affect how easily extremists obtain firearms, with organizations like the NRA named as influential actors in shaping norms and laws related to ownership ^[3]. Simultaneously, mass shootings and political attacks spur calls for new gun-safety laws, exposing a partisan divide in solutions and framing: some advocates prioritize restrictions and background checks, while opponents cite Second Amendment rights, complicating consensus on measures that target extremist access ^{[7] [5]}. Absent unified policy responses, lobbying and legal outcomes will continue to shape access pathways for motivated actors.

4. Legal changes and court cases that could change who can own guns

Recent legal developments can materially alter the landscape: the Supreme Court’s decision to review whether federal law may bar certain drug users from gun ownership exemplifies how judicial rulings can expand or restrict regulatory tools used to keep guns from at-risk populations ^[4]. Changes to legal standards for disqualification, due process, and statutory scope will influence whether administrative or criminal markers—such as drug-use findings—can be used to limit access by people deemed risky. These doctrinal shifts interact with counterterrorism and public-health approaches to preventing political violence by changing the baseline of who can legally obtain firearms ^{[4] [8]}.

5. Divergent narratives: numbers, blame, and political framing

Media and analysts advance different narratives: CSIS and some outlets frame 2025 as a notable uptick in left-wing incidents, linking factors like political grievances to the trend, while other analysts emphasize a continuing pattern of right-wing predominance in deadly domestic terrorism and spotlight the gun lobby’s role in enabling violence ^{[1] [9] [6] [3]}. Each framing carries potential agendas: highlighting left-wing activity can mobilize attention toward one ideological threat, while emphasizing right-wing lethality and lobbying points to structural and policy drivers. Robust policy responses require reconciling incidence trends with lethality data and supply-side factors.

6. What the existing analyses omit or leave uncertain

Available summaries leave critical gaps: they do not consistently report weapon-specific data, procurement pathways (legal purchase vs. illicit markets), or demographic profiles of perpetrators—details necessary to link guns causally to ideological violence patterns ^{[1] [6] [7]}. They also rarely show time-series data on how gun-policy changes or lobbying actions correlated with extremist violence over decades, limiting causal interpretation. Without consistent, disaggregated datasets on incidents, weapons, and legal status of firearms used, forming targeted interventions to reduce ideological violence remains hindered by these evidence gaps ^{[2] [3]}.

7. Bottom line for policymakers and the public: focus on access, data, and legal tools

To reduce political violence involving guns, policymakers must address access pathways, strengthen data collection, and clarify legal levers. The CSIS finding about left-wing incident counts in 2025 signals changing patterns in frequency; broader analyses about right-wing lethality and the gun lobby highlight supply and policy drivers that elevate risk ^{[1] [6] [3]}. Improving transparency about weapon types, purchase histories, and legal disqualifiers—alongside adjudication of pending Supreme Court questions—will be essential to craft targeted policies that reduce both the frequency and deadliness of ideology-driven violence ^{[4] [5]}.