Which party has committed more violence including riots.

1. Summary of the results

The question of which political party has committed more violence lacks a straightforward answer based on the available analyses, as the data presents a complex and nuanced picture. The academic research suggests that while the majority of political violence historically comes from the right, incidents from the left are increasing ^[1]. This finding is supported by multiple sources that indicate right-wing actors have been more willing to act on violent feelings, though both parties have been implicated in inciting violence.

Political violence remains statistically rare in the United States, accounting for only 0.35% of all murders since 1975 ^[2]. However, recent years have seen concerning trends, with 59% of U.S. adults considering political violence a very big problem and 28% calling it somewhat of a problem ^[3]. The analyses reveal that violence has targeted figures across the political spectrum, including incidents involving conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro ^{[4] [5]}.

The Department of Homeland Security has specifically highlighted threats against ICE law enforcement, attributing these to "hateful rhetoric from the media, leftist groups, and politicians" ^[6]. This suggests significant left-wing violence targeting federal law enforcement agencies. Conversely, the analyses note that the false narrative of a stolen election has increased support for political violence, with politicians particularly on the right playing a role in fueling this violence ^[1].

Media coverage varies significantly depending on the outlet's political orientation, with some networks downplaying or justifying violence while others are more critical ^[7]. This disparity in coverage makes it challenging to assess the true scope and attribution of political violence objectively.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question fails to acknowledge several critical contextual factors that complicate any simple comparison. The analyses reveal that partisan division, electoral rules, and weak institutional constraints all contribute to the rise of political violence ^[1], suggesting that systemic factors beyond party affiliation drive violent behavior.

A significant missing element is the role of rhetoric and incitement versus actual violent acts. While one analysis shows that liberals are more likely than conservatives to defend feeling joy about the deaths of political opponents, it also notes that even among the very liberal, those who say it's unacceptable to feel joy about political opponents' deaths outnumber those who say it's acceptable by more than 2 to 1 ^[3]. This nuance suggests that attitudes toward violence don't necessarily translate directly into violent actions.

The question also overlooks the distinction between different types of political violence. The analyses mention various forms, from targeted assassinations to broader civil unrest, but don't clearly categorize or compare these different manifestations across party lines ^[4]. The complexity of attributing riots and mass violence to specific political parties is not addressed, as such events often involve diverse participants with varying motivations.

Historical context is largely absent from the discussion. The analyses reference "a long, dark history" of political violence in the United States ^[5], but the original question doesn't account for how current patterns compare to historical trends or whether recent increases represent a fundamental shift or cyclical phenomenon.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an inherent bias by framing political violence as a zero-sum competition between parties rather than a complex societal problem requiring nuanced analysis. This framing encourages partisan point-scoring rather than constructive dialogue about addressing political violence as highlighted by the bipartisan House caucus working to combat such violence ^[8].

The question assumes that political violence can be neatly categorized by party affiliation, ignoring the reality that violence is not limited to one particular group or ideology ^[4]. This oversimplification could perpetuate harmful stereotypes and prevent effective solutions that address root causes rather than symptoms.

By asking "which party has committed more violence," the question implicitly suggests that one party is inherently more violent than the other, potentially reinforcing dangerous us-versus-them mentalities that the analyses suggest contribute to political violence in the first place. The academic sources emphasize that both parties have been guilty of inciting violence ^[1], making the comparative framing potentially counterproductive to reducing overall political violence.

The question also fails to distinguish between official party positions, individual party members' actions, and violence committed by supporters who may not represent official party stances, creating potential for misleading attributions.