Are more shootings done by left or right?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses provided do not offer a straightforward answer to the question of whether more shootings are done by the left or the right ^{[1] [2] [3]}. However, some sources suggest that right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and deadly than left-wing violence, with approximately 75% to 80% of U.S. domestic terrorism deaths since 2001 attributed to right-wing extremist violence ^[4]. Additionally, research indicates that mass shooters are predominantly male and often have a history of trauma, mental health issues, or radicalization, but does not specifically address their political affiliations ^[3]. Other sources note that right-wing groups have greater potential for mounting a significant effort due to their espousal of traditional American values ^[5]. The role of guns in rising political violence is also highlighted, with data showing a growing tolerance for political violence and an increase in gun purchasing ^{[1] [6]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Key omitted facts include the definition of "left" and "right" in the context of political violence, as different sources may have varying interpretations ^{[1] [4]}. Additionally, the motivations behind mass shootings and political violence are complex and multifaceted, and may not be solely attributed to political ideology ^{[3] [7]}. Alternative viewpoints include the idea that political violence is a growing concern that affects both Democrats and Republicans, and that the proliferation of guns in civilian hands could make it easier for those who wish to cause harm to access weapons ^[1]. It is also important to consider the disproportionate targeting of female legislators and legislators of color by threats of violence ^[6]. Furthermore, the comparative analysis of political violence by different ideologies suggests that left-wing extremist groups are less likely to engage in violent acts compared to right-wing and Islamist extremist groups ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be misleading or biased as it implies a simplistic binary distinction between "left" and "right" in the context of political violence ^{[1] [4]}. This framing may benefit those who seek to politicize violence and blame one side or the other, rather than addressing the complex underlying issues ^[8]. The lack of clear data and analysis on the political affiliations of perpetrators may also contribute to misinformation and bias ^{[2] [3]}. Moreover, the emphasis on political ideology as the primary motivator for violence may overlook other factors, such as mental health, trauma, and radicalization ^{[3] [7]}. Ultimately, a more nuanced understanding of political violence requires consideration of multiple viewpoints and factors, rather than relying on simplistic or binary distinctions ^{[4] [5] [1] [6]}.