https://youtu.be/1r4SMnWMTcA
An by two researchers challenges common assumptions about gun violence and mental illness that often emerge in the aftermath of mass shootings.
When a mass shooting occurs, there seems to be a familiar narrative that untreated mental illness is the primary cause for the terrifying act. But a new study published in the by and finds that an isolated focus on mental illness is misguided.
鈥淕un discourse after mass shootings often perpetuates the fear that 鈥榮ome crazy person is going to come shoot me,鈥欌�� said Metzl, the study鈥檚 lead author. 鈥淏ut if you look at the research, it鈥檚 not the 鈥榗razy鈥� person you have to fear.鈥�
Mentally ill not violent
In the article, 鈥淢ental Illness, Mass Shootings and the Politics of American Firearms,鈥� Metzl and MacLeish analyze data and literature linking guns and mental illness over the past 40 years. They found that despite societal pre-conceived notions, most mentally ill people are not violent.
鈥淔ewer than 5 percent of the 120,000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001聽and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness,鈥� they write.
Four myths arise after mass shootings
Their research uncovered four central myths that arise in the aftermath of mass shootings:
- Mental illness causes gun violence.
- Psychiatric diagnosis can predict gun crime before it happens.
- U.S. mass shootings 鈥減rove鈥� that we should fear mentally ill loners.
- Because of the complex psychiatric histories of mass shooters, gun control 鈥渨on鈥檛 prevent鈥� mass shootings.
They stress that all four of these are incorrect, though understandable, assumptions.
鈥淥ur research finds that across the board, the mentally ill are 60 to 120 percent more likely than the average person to be the victims of violent crime rather than the perpetrators.鈥�
Misdirected blame
Metzl and MacLeish find that the focus on mental illness after horrific, yet statistically rare, mass shootings misdirects people from the bigger issues tied to preventing gun deaths in the United States.
鈥淭here are 32,000 gun deaths in the United States on average every year, and people are far more likely to be shot by relatives, friends or acquaintances than they are by lone violent psychopaths,鈥� Metzl said.
鈥淲e should set our attention and gun policies on the everyday shootings, not on the sensational shootings, because there we will get much more traction in preventing gun crime.鈥�
Mental health screening can’t prevent gun crime
The presumed link between mental illness and gun violence has led to calls for mental health screening for gun owners. But the authors find that psychiatric diagnosis is in and of itself not predictive of violence.
鈥淓ven the overwhelming majority of psychiatric patients who fit the profile of recent U.S. mass shooters 鈥� gun-owning, angry, paranoid white men 鈥� do not commit crimes,鈥� Metzl and MacLeish write.
鈥淏asing gun crime-prevention efforts on the mental health histories of mass shooters risks building 鈥榗ommon evidence鈥� from 鈥榰ncommon things,鈥� all while giving mental health providers the untenable responsibility of preventing the next massacre.鈥�
Signs to predict gun violence
The authors detail how focusing solely on mental illness ignores those factors that do predict gun violence more broadly:
- Drug and alcohol use
- History of violence
- Access to firearms
- Personal relationship stress
鈥淧eople are far more likely to be shot by relatives, friends, enemies or acquaintances than they are by lone violent psychopaths,鈥� according to Metzl and MacLeish鈥檚 research.
Mental health systems
The authors argue in the paper that lawmakers and voters should pay much more attention to mental health systems such as access to mental health care, medication and health insurance.
鈥淚n a way, it is a failure of the system often that becomes represented as a failure of the individual,鈥� Metzl said.
Race, gender and anxiety
The authors also delve into to the ways that responses to mass shootings reflect cultural anxieties about race and gender.
鈥淭he rhetoric in which people are accumulating guns in the present day has a lot to do with the fear of the unknown stranger. 鈥楽omebody could come attack me or my family, so we need to protect ourselves.鈥� And that rhetoric is most common among suburban white men,鈥� Metzl said.
The authors uncover how the political and racial strife in the 1960s led some African Americans to push for their constitutional right to own and carry guns, while some white Americans at the time, including the National Rifle Association, pushed for stricter gun control laws.
鈥淭he gun rights statements of the Black Panthers and other black power groups in the 1960s reads almost exactly the same as the pro-gun rhetoric of the Tea Party today,鈥� Metzl said. 鈥淏oth groups argued that they鈥檙e protecting themselves from government tyranny and have a constitutional right as individuals to bear arms.鈥�
Yet Metzl adds that in the ’60s, American society rushed to pathologize 鈥渂lack culture鈥� while restricting gun rights, while in the present day our narratives locate the problem on individual white brains while at the same time encouraging further gun ownership.
Metzl and MacLeish teach at the聽 at Vanderbilt, an innovative multidisciplinary center that studies the social and societal dimensions of health and illness. Its scholarship, teaching and wide-ranging collaborative projects explore medicine and science in an array of cultural contexts, while at the same time fostering productive dialogue across disciplinary boundaries.
The paper will be published in the February issue of the American Journal of Public Health.