Do right wing people commit more murders

1. Summary of the results

The analyses reveal a complex picture regarding political violence and murder rates that requires careful examination of different data sets and methodologies. Multiple sources consistently indicate that right-wing extremist violence accounts for the majority of domestic terrorism fatalities in the United States ^[1]. The data shows that most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically positioned on the right, with right-wing attacks responsible for the vast majority of fatalities from domestic terrorism.

However, the statistical picture becomes more nuanced when examining different time frames and categories of violence. One analysis reveals that right-wing terrorists are responsible for 11% of murders in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 1975, while Islamist ideology accounts for 87% of those murdered ^[2]. This dramatic shift occurs when the 9/11 attacks are included in the data. When excluding the 9/11 attacks, the numbers change significantly: right-wing terrorists account for 63% of murders, while left-wing terrorists account for 10% ^[2].

A removed Department of Justice study provides additional supporting evidence, showing that far-right extremists were responsible for 227 events taking more than 520 lives, compared to 42 events by far-left extremists that took 78 lives ^[3]. This represents a substantial disparity in both the frequency and lethality of attacks between different political extremes.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements that significantly impact any meaningful analysis. First, the question conflates general murder rates with politically motivated violence, which represents only a small fraction of overall homicides in America. The analyses focus primarily on extremist violence and domestic terrorism rather than broader criminal homicide patterns.

The data assessment is inherently subjective and depends heavily on how researchers categorize and define political violence ^[4]. Different methodologies, time frames, and inclusion criteria can dramatically alter conclusions. For instance, the inclusion or exclusion of the 9/11 attacks fundamentally changes the statistical landscape of politically motivated murders.

Economic and social factors appear to be more significant drivers of overall murder rates than political affiliation. One analysis concludes that pandemic-induced instability and economic inequality are more plausible explanations for recent increases in homicides than political factors such as bail reform or progressive prosecutors ^[5]. This suggests that broader socioeconomic conditions may be more relevant to understanding murder rates than political ideology.

Additionally, research indicates that the political affiliation of mayors has little impact on crime rates ^[6], suggesting that political leadership and ideology may not directly correlate with local violence patterns. This finding challenges assumptions about the relationship between political orientation and criminal behavior.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains several problematic assumptions that could lead to misleading conclusions. The framing implies a direct causal relationship between political ideology and propensity to commit murder, which oversimplifies the complex factors that drive violent crime. This type of broad generalization about entire political groups can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and political polarization.

The question also fails to distinguish between different types of violence - conflating everyday criminal homicides with politically motivated terrorism and extremist violence. These represent fundamentally different phenomena with different causes, perpetrators, and contexts. Most murders in America are not politically motivated, making political affiliation largely irrelevant to overall homicide statistics.

Furthermore, the binary framing of "right wing people" versus the implied alternative ignores the spectrum of political beliefs and the fact that most people across the political spectrum are not violent. The question risks promoting a false dichotomy that could be exploited by those seeking to demonize political opponents.

The timing and selective presentation of data can also introduce bias. The removal of the DOJ study mentioned in the analyses ^[3] raises questions about potential political motivations behind data suppression or selective reporting. This highlights how powerful individuals and organizations across the political spectrum may have incentives to manipulate or suppress data that doesn't align with their preferred narratives about political violence.