Fact check: Who has been responsible for more fatalities as a result of Political violence in the United States over the past 10 years - the Left or the Right?

1. Summary of the results

The question of who has been responsible for more fatalities as a result of political violence in the United States over the past 10 years is complex and multifaceted. According to ^[1], right-wing terrorists have accounted for 11% of murders, while left-wing terrorists have accounted for 2% ^[1]. However, ^[2] indicates that far-right extremists were responsible for the bulk of ideologically motivated deaths, with 227 events taking more than 520 lives, while far-left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives ^[2]. ^[3] also reports that since 2002, right-wing ideologies have fueled more than 70% of all extremist attacks and domestic terror plots in the U.S. ^[3]. On the other hand, ^[4] suggests that liberals are more likely to say that political violence is sometimes justified, but does not provide data on the number of fatalities attributed to the left or right ^[4]. ^[5] and ^[6] report on several instances of political violence in the US, including the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, but do not provide a clear breakdown of the ideological affiliations of the perpetrators ^{[5] [6]}.

• Key findings:

Right-wing terrorists have accounted for a higher percentage of murders ^[1]

Far-right extremists have been responsible for the bulk of ideologically motivated deaths ^[2]

Right-wing ideologies have fueled more than 70% of all extremist attacks and domestic terror plots in the U.S. ^[3]

Liberals are more likely to say that political violence is sometimes justified ^[4]

• Main conclusion: Based on the analyses, it appears that right-wing extremists have been responsible for more fatalities as a result of political violence in the United States over the past 10 years ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Some sources suggest that the threat from politically motivated terrorism is relatively small ^[1], and that political violence in America rarely follows left-right politics ^[6]. ^[7] provides a look at recent acts of political violence in the US, including the killing of Charlie Kirk, the killing of a Democratic state lawmaker and her spouse in Minnesota, and the shooting of another Democratic lawmaker and his spouse ^[7]. However, the sources do not provide a clear comparison of the number of fatalities attributed to the left and right. ^[8] finds that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent, and that right-wing and Islamist extremists are more likely to engage in violent acts ^[8].

• Alternative viewpoints:

The threat from politically motivated terrorism is relatively small ^[1]

Political violence in America rarely follows left-right politics ^[6]

Radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent ^[8]

**3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement**

The original statement asks who has been responsible for more fatalities as a result of political violence in the United States over the past 10 years, implying a binary left-right divide. However, **^[6]** suggests that political violence in America rarely follows left-right politics ^[6]. Additionally, **^[2]** and **^[3]** indicate that far-right extremists have been responsible for the bulk of ideologically motivated deaths, which may not be immediately apparent from the original statement.

Potential biases:

Oversimplification of the left-right divide ^[6]

Lack of context regarding the prevalence of far-right extremism ^{[2] [3]}

• Who benefits from this framing: The original statement may benefit those who seek to downplay the role of far-right extremism in political violence, or those who wish to perpetuate a narrative of equal blame between the left and right ^{[1] [2] [3]}.