Mental health & gunsAllowing mentally ill people to access firearms is not fueling mass shootings
As has been the case with the overwhelming majority of other mass shootings in recent memory, media and political coverage focus on his mental health status of the shooter. This narrow focus on mental illness reignited calls for broader restrictions on firearm access for people with mental illnesses, despite evidence that mental illness contributes to less than 5 percent of all violent crimes and that most individuals with severe mental illness do not behave violently. Still, these calls beg the question: Are mentally disordered people with access to firearms really driving America’s gun violence problem? Our study finds that the reality of firearm-related risk among individuals with mental illness lies not in the potential for harm to others, but in the risk of harming oneself. There is certainly an argument to be made for the temporary removal of firearm access for individuals actively experiencing mental health crises. However, the threat of permanent loss of one’s Second Amendment right could cause harm, as people might avoid treatment for fear of losing their guns. One of the most disturbing aspects of our study is that it emerges from what amounts to an empirical vacuum. The 1996 passage of the Dickey Amendment effectively prohibits federal funding of gun violence research. Since its enactment, scholars have been unable to conduct comprehensive research projects to better understand gun violence. The Dickey Amendment is also the reason that no comprehensive, nationally representative studies have been conducted in recent years to examine the causes of gun violence. As a result, gun lobbyists have been free to compose the narrative of their choice, namely that mass shootings are a mental health problem. We just don’t have enough data to know the causes.
On a quiet Sunday last November, a young man wielding an assault-style weapon took aim at a church in rural Texas, killing 26 people.
In so doing, Devin Patrick Kelley added his name to an ever-growing list of American mass killers and forced the nation to grapple, once again, with gun violence. Kelley’s well-documented history of violence was on full display across the nation’s televisions and print media, and for good reason – prior violence is a significant predictor of gun violence. However, something far more troubling was also making its way into the narrative.
As has been the case with the overwhelming majority of other mass shootings in recent memory, media and political coverage of Kelley began to focus on his mental health status. And, as has been the case before, this narrow focus on mental illness reignited calls for broader restrictions on firearm access for people with mental illnesses, despite evidence that mental illness contributes to less than 5 percent of all violent crimes and that most individuals with severe mental illness do not behave violently.
Still, these calls beg the question: Are mentally disordered people with access to firearms really driving America’s gun violence problem?
Our recent analysis suggests the answer is no. In fact, we found that people with serious mental illness who have access to firearms are no more likely to be violent than people living in the same neighborhoods who do not have mental illnesses.
The myth of the armed and dangerous mentally ill
Our study draws on data from the groundbreaking MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study, a study of individuals who experienced short-term stays in inpatient psychiatric hospitals. These individuals were followed for one year after being released in the mid 1990s. The project represents one of the most comprehensive studies of violence by and against people who suffer from mental illness to date.
