When High Control Politics Meet High Capacity Firepower

Recent events have demonstrated a dangerous convergence of heated political rhetoric and the easy availability of powerful weaponry. The targeted assassination of political figures and commentators is rising. The impact of such acts on society’s sense of safety and democratic norms is profound. As fear and fury increasingly mix with firearms, it’s critical to examine how we got here and how we can respond.

As someone who studies cults, I recognize familiar patterns in today’s extremist politics. Propagandists employ classic tactics to secure power and loyalty. They foment an us-versus.-them siege mentality in followers, often portraying political opponents as existential threats.

The modern twist is how such inflammatory narratives spread through mass media ecosystems. Traditional guardrails against demagoguery have increasingly eroded. Cable news and social media now allow propaganda to flourish seemingly unchecked. Grievance and crisis rhetoric can become self-reinforcing, normalizing extreme ideas.

Stochastic Terrorism and "Lone Wolf" Violence

One important concept to understand in today’s political ecosystem is stochastic terrorism. In plain terms, it refers to the statistically predictable acts of violence that emerge when hateful or dehumanizing rhetoric is spread widely. A leader doesn’t need to explicitly order followers to commit violence. Instead, their repeated vilification of a target group or person increases the odds that someone, somewhere, will feel justified in attacking.

The originator of the message may claim, “I never told anyone to do that”, all the while spreading messages that frame opponents as an imminent danger, with allusions to violence as the solution. History itself reminds us that when political speech paints opponents as less than human, it breeds atrocity. In such a situation, we cannot predict who will commit violent acts or when, but we know the odds increase.

Media coverage of such “lone wolf” events often falls into a psychological trap known as the fundamental attribution error. Social psychologists recognize this as the human tendency to attribute someone’s actions solely to their character while discounting the situational influences on their behavior. After an episode of gun violence, many ask, “What was wrong with that person? Did they have a mental illness? Were they naturally violent?”

Such a perspective obscures the role of the social environment. It also unfairly stigmatizes those with mental illness. Propaganda radicalizes many, overriding their normal moral restraints. In short, those who act are not just “bad apples” who randomly turn violent. By focusing solely on individual pathology, we ignore how explosive political narratives and group dynamics set the stage for violence in society.

A healthier approach is to ask why such extreme actions felt justified to the attacker. What voices were the perpetrators listening to? Which fears were stoked, and by whom? Such a broader perspective doesn’t excuse violence but helps us identify and, hopefully, address its root causes in the social climate.

Hate Is Armed to the Teeth

An AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle, millions of which are in civilian circulation in the United States, makes any violent outbreak far more lethal.

The U.S. is awash in firearms originally designed for military use. This kind of weapon, lightweight, semi-automatic, with high-capacity magazines, has been used repeatedly in mass shootings, precisely because it can kill many people quickly.

Such availability is fuel to the fire. A fistfight at a protest may leave bruises. An AR-15 can leave dozens dead. Some argue that arming more “good guys” will deter or stop deadly attacks. Unfortunately, this idea collides with psychological reality.

The training and composure required to respond effectively in a live gunfight are enormous. Even police officers struggle to perform with accuracy under high stress. More guns in more hands can increase confusion and unintended harm. I argue, then, that the focus must remain on prevention. We can’t continue fantasizing that we can shoot our way out of political violence.

Politics Essential Reads

Finding Common Ground in a Divided Nation

To Boldly Go: A History of Human Migration

Cooling the Temperature

Given escalating political tensions, we need deliberate cooling structures in our politics and media. One key step is rebuilding norms of respect and cooperation. Societies with more genuine social ties between people of differing political views are more resilient against spirals of violence.

When you know that your neighbor or brother votes for the other party but is still an outstanding individual, it’s harder to swallow narratives that cast those with differing political opinions as monsters.

Political elites on all sides must step up to condemn violence unequivocally and stop indulging in the language of dehumanization. Media figures and openly partisan influencers also have a responsibility here. Social sanctions against dehumanizing speech can make a difference, too. It should not be taken lightly in civil society to joke about killing political opponents or to celebrate when violence happens to “the other side.”

A free society can tolerate disagreements. What we cannot afford is to normalize dehumanization when weaponry is ubiquitous The result of doing so endangers us all, no matter what political views a person expresses.