Are mass shootings in the U.S. more often linked to individuals with conservative or liberal political affiliations?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Available evidence does not show a clear, sustained link between mass shooters being predominantly “conservative” or “liberal”; researchers and major trackers emphasize motive, online radicalization, and personal grievance over party labels [1] [2]. Databases that count mass shootings focus on definitions and incident characteristics rather than shooters’ partisan registration, and reporting finds politically motivated mass violence remains a small share of total mass killings [3] [4].
1. What the data collections actually record — and what they don’t
Major public trackers such as Gun Violence Archive and aggregated lists of mass shootings catalogue numbers, locations and victim counts; they do not systematically classify shooters by partisan affiliation, and researchers stress definitions that count four or more shot or killed rather than political motive [3] [5]. The Rockefeller Institute’s factsheet documents case counts and fatalities back to the 1960s but treats mass shooting as an incident type, not a political-demographic category [6]. Available sources do not mention consistent, database-level coding of shooters as Democrats or Republicans [3] [5].
2. Researchers caution against reducing shooters to left vs. right
Scholars and practitioners warn that sorting shooters by partisan identity misframes the problem and obscures common drivers such as grievance, mental health, and online radicalization. The Guardian highlights a growing body of research saying high-profile shooters are often shaped more by online subcultures than traditional party politics [1]. The University of Arkansas Terrorism Research Center likewise notes debates about whether ideology helps identify risk versus focusing on shared backgrounds and grievances [2].
3. Politically motivated attacks are numerically rare
Analysts who track politically motivated killings emphasize that explicitly political violence makes up a small fraction of mass murders. A Cato review shows politically motivated terrorist murders are a tiny share of all murders since 1975 and that counts of political killings since 2020 remain small — undercutting the idea that party-aligned extremists alone drive the mass-killing trend [4]. That does not deny the existence of political attackers, but it places them in context: most mass killings are not tagged in reporting as partisan terrorism [4].
4. High-profile cases and partisan narratives distort perception
Media and political figures often seize on partisan symbols after shootings — yard signs, social media posts, or past statements — and that drives public impressions about a shooter’s beliefs. Fact-checking outlets have repeatedly debunked blanket claims that “many” shooters are Democrats or Republicans, showing such assertions lack systematic support [7]. The Guardian piece also warns that this focus can distract from prevention efforts centered on online radicalization and behavioral risk assessment [1].
5. Public reactions track ideology, not shooter affiliation
Research into how people process mass-shooting data shows political ideology shapes public emotional responses to incidents more than race or other attributes; liberals and conservatives view the same visualizations differently, which amplifies partisan storytelling around events [8] [9]. This means reporting and social-media discourse can entrench opposing narratives even when the underlying data do not support a clear partisan pattern [8] [9].
6. What the research gaps and limitations are
Available sources document definitions, counts and scholarly debate but do not offer a definitive, peer-reviewed dataset that classifies all mass shooters by party registration or consistent political ideology [3] [5]. Studies that address ideology tend to focus on ideologically motivated subsets and note methodological limits; others emphasize that online ecosystems complicate the traditional left-right framing [2] [1]. In short: current reporting and databases do not settle the question because they were not designed to.
7. How to interpret claims that favor one side
When politicians or commentators assert that “many” shooters are from one party, those claims should be checked against fact-checks and the scope of available data. PolitiFact’s review of earlier claims found no evidence that mass shooters “end up being Democrats” as a general rule [7]. The more reliable frame is to separate explicitly political attacks (a small subset) from the broader phenomenon of mass shootings driven by personal grievance and online radicalization [4] [1].
8. Bottom line for readers
Do not treat partisan labels as the primary explanatory variable for mass shootings; authoritative trackers catalogue incidents and fatalities but do not assign consistent party labels [3] [5], and scholars point to online radicalization, grievance and situational risk factors as more useful avenues for prevention [1] [2]. Claims that mass shooters are “more often” conservative or liberal are not supported by the sources assembled here [7] [1]; available sources do not mention a comprehensive dataset proving such a partisan skew.