Do right wing or left wing commit more mass shootings
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available research and databases do not support a simple tally that attributes most U.S. mass shootings cleanly to either “right wing” or “left wing” actors; many mass shootings are non‑political, the political affiliation of shooters is often unknown or unreliable, and contemporary analyses flag a notable rise in right‑wing extremist attacks even as most mass shootings remain driven by varied motives [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the data actually measure — and what they don’t
Large, respected compilations of mass‑public shootings such as the Rockefeller Institute factsheet and long‑running databases like Mother Jones collect event, casualty and motive variables, but they do not produce a clean partisan breakdown because political affiliation is frequently unverifiable and motivations are heterogeneous; the Rockefeller dataset documents totals and event details across decades but is not a partisan accounting [1] [5].
2. Many mass shootings are not politically motivated
Decades of research summarized by the National Institute of Justice find that motivations for mass shootings have shifted over time but are dominated by personal grievances, domestic incidents, mental‑health contexts and other non‑ideological drivers rather than clear partisan politics, with only certain categories showing long‑term change [3]. Complementing that, analysts and civil‑libertarian scholars emphasize that overtly politically motivated violence still represents a minority of mass shootings relative to the overall phenomenon [6].
3. Political identity is often unknowable or misleading
Journalistic and fact‑checking reviews have repeatedly warned against easy labels: investigations of high‑profile cases show “very few” shooters whose party registration or reliable political activity could be verified, and early media framing has sometimes produced false impressions about partisan leanings [2]. The Guardian’s reporting and interviews with researchers argue that over‑reliance on binary party labels obscures drivers of violence and can mislead policy and prevention work [4].
4. Right‑wing extremist violence has risen and deserves distinction
That said, multiple sources and academic reviews in recent years document an uptick in ideologically motivated attacks from the right‑wing extremist milieu — especially single‑issue and white‑supremacist inspired acts — making right‑wing political violence a growing and salient subset of mass attacks that merits law‑enforcement and public‑policy attention [7] [4]. Coverage of incidents targeting political figures, institutions and members of a party in 2025 underscores that politically targeted attacks cut across the spectrum but that several high‑profile deadly assaults have been tied to right‑wing actors [8] [4].
5. Trends: more shootings overall, with complex geographic and legal correlates
Epidemiological studies tracking recent years show the total number of mass shooting incidents, injuries and deaths rose in 2020–2021 beyond earlier extrapolations, and analyses link some variation to state‑level gun laws and other contextual factors rather than straightforward partisan causes [9] [10]. Those trend findings mean the aggregate increase in mass shootings complicates any simple partisan accounting: more incidents overall increase the chance that both ideological and non‑ideological actors will appear more often in headline counts [9].
6. Bottom line and caveats for readers and policymakers
The best evidence compiled by researchers and fact‑checkers indicates that most mass shootings are not reliably classifiable as “right wing” or “left wing” because motives and affiliations are often absent or ambiguous; however, right‑wing extremist violence has grown as a distinct and dangerous strand that is disproportionately visible in politically targeted attacks and therefore commands targeted prevention efforts [3] [2] [4] [7]. Reporting and policy should avoid reductionist partisan tallies while differentiating non‑political mass violence from ideologically driven terrorism — the datasets and expert commentary make those distinctions essential but also reveal limits in what public data can prove [1] [5].