Keep Factually independent

Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.

Loading...Time left: ...
Loading...Goal: $500

Fact check: Who is most likely to commit mass shooting liberal or conservatice

Checked on October 6, 2025

Executive Summary

Research and reporting show no simple partisan answer to “who is more likely to commit a mass shooting”; data and expert analysis indicate right-wing political violence has been more deadly historically, but recent mass shootings include perpetrators across the political spectrum and often involve factors like online radicalization, substance abuse, and meme culture rather than clear partisan motives [1] [2] [3]. Claims that either “liberals” or “conservatives” are categorically more likely to commit mass shootings oversimplify complex, evolving evidence [3] [4].

1. Why the partisan question oversimplifies a complicated problem

Debates framing mass shootings as a Left-versus-Right phenomenon ignore how researchers and reporters define and track incidents. Definitions vary widely — from narrow lists of ideologically motivated attacks to broad tallies of all mass-casualty shootings — and that changes conclusions; the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium and the Gun Violence Archive produced very different counts for 2025, underscoring how measurement choices shape claims about perpetrators [3]. Scholarly and journalistic sources caution that assigning shootings to a partisan category often requires clear evidence of motive, which is frequently absent or ambiguous at the time of reporting [3] [2].

2. What recent data say about ideological violence and lethality

Multiple analyses find that right-wing extremist attacks have accounted for a disproportionate share of fatalities from domestic terrorism, with established studies and reporting in 2025 asserting that right-aligned actors caused far more deaths than left-aligned actors [1] [4]. Some commentators dispute methodology and accuse opponents of cherry-picking studies; for example, critics argue that some liberal-leaning narratives rely on skewed datasets, while conservative commentators point to studies showing right-aligned perpetrators are responsible for more fatalities [4] [1]. The tension reflects real methodological debate rather than a single settled metric.

3. Why single-event reporting can mislead — the Charlie Kirk case

High-profile incidents can produce immediate partisan labeling that later proves uncertain. Reporting about the accused shooter of Charlie Kirk shows how quick attributions (e.g., “leftist”) can be premature; extremism analysts noted the clearer evidence pointed to online meme culture and ambiguous radicalization patterns, not orthodox political ideology [2]. This illustrates a broader pattern: individual shooters may display idiosyncratic mixes of grievances, internet subculture signals, and personal pathology that resist simple Left/Right classification [2] [5].

4. The growing role of online radicalization and cross-ideological influences

Journalistic and expert accounts in late 2025 emphasize that online extremism and meme culture are major drivers of recent youth radicalization, shaping grievances in ways that cross traditional ideological boundaries. Reporting on school shooters and younger perpetrators highlights how social media and forums can accelerate violent ideas without a clean ideological label, creating hybridized belief systems and performative violence motives [5] [3]. This complicates efforts to map shooters onto conventional partisan categories and suggests prevention must target online ecosystems as well as overt ideologies [5].

5. Mental health, substances, and the mistaken attribution to psychiatric drugs

Rigorous reviews and reporting find no credible evidence that antidepressants or mental disorders alone explain mass shootings; experts argue substance abuse and socioeconomic factors are stronger correlates of violence than mental illness per se [6] [7]. Misattributing shootings to psychiatric medication or diagnosing perpetrators simplistically allows political narratives to distract from structural drivers like access to firearms, community disconnection, and substance misuse, which are more consistently linked to violent outcomes [3] [6].

6. How partisan agendas shape interpretation of data

Media and advocacy groups from across the political spectrum selectively emphasize aspects of the evidence that support their policy goals. Some conservative outlets criticize studies showing right-wing lethality as methodologically biased, while some progressive voices stress right-wing extremism based on aggregated fatality counts [4] [1]. Both strategies are predictable: highlighting particular datasets or definitions advances policy aims such as expanded counterterrorism focus or gun regulation, so readers should treat single-source claims with caution and seek cross-checked analysis [3].

7. Practical takeaway: focus on drivers, not labels

Across the sources, the clearest consensus is that prevention requires addressing common risk factors—online radicalization pathways, substance abuse, social isolation, and firearm access—rather than relying on partisan labels for perpetrators [5] [3]. Whether an individual self-identifies with a political label often matters less to outcomes than their social networks, role of online communities, and access to weapons, which are actionable targets for policymakers and communities seeking to reduce mass shootings [3].

8. What to watch next and why the debate will persist

Expect ongoing contention because new incidents, evolving datasets, and partisan narratives will continually reshape public understanding; scholars and journalists will likely refine definitions and include longer-term analyses to settle disputed claims about ideological patterns [3] [1]. Readers should watch for transparent methodological notes (how incidents are defined and coded), corroborated motive evidence in prosecutions, and longitudinal studies that disaggregate ideology, demographics, and online activity to move the conversation beyond partisan talking points [3] [2].

Want to dive deeper?
What are the most common demographic characteristics of mass shooters in the US?
Is there a correlation between political ideology and mass shooting incidents?
How does mental health factor into mass shooting events, regardless of political affiliation?
Can social media activity predict potential mass shooting behavior?
What role do gun control laws play in preventing mass shootings, and do they differ by state?