mental illness

Mass Shooting and Mental Illness Name Course Mass Shooting and Mental Illness: Literature Review Introduction Mass shootings are a serious problem facing the United States today. Although it was once a rare problem, mass murders are now occurring at an appalling rate. Swanson et al. (2016) project that at least four people are murdered in this manner every 47 days. Every time an incident of mass murders occurs, different facets of the society, including politicians, the media, medical professionals, among others, are engaged in the discourses pertaining to possible solutions. However, they rarely agree on the best approach as some favor the gun control approach, and others see gun rights as fundamental and hence argue that poor mental health is to blame. Ideally, debates about gun violence in the United States normally focus on mental illness, police brutality, gang violence, and gun rights (Ranney, 2019). The need for solutions to the problem of mass murders in the US cannot be overstated. Markedly, the US has the highest rate of gun ownership and gun-related deaths compared to other high-income countries. Keywords: Mass shootings, mental health, mental illness, gun violence, gun ownership, and stigma. Key Statistics Mental health occurs in different forms, such as depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, to mention just but a few. While some mental health issues are easy to identify, some cannot be recognized immediately. According to Stone (2015), approximately half of adults experience mental health issues at least once in their lifetime, while 5 percent of adults experience it every year. In addition, some people have a single mental health disorder, while some have co-occurring disorders (two or more). Most disorders emerge at the age of 14 and climax at 24 years. While some people receive professional mental health care, the majority of cases are untreated, and some are reluctant to maintain continued care. The current models of mental health care are insufficient in tackling the complex issues of mental illnesses, which have caused the society to suffer its negative consequences even more. The US has the highest civilian gun ownership rate, and this number corresponds to mass murders. According to a survey by Pew Centre study as cited by Thoman (n.d), about four in every ten people live in a home with a firearm. The total number of civilian-owned guns in the US is estimated to be 393million (46% of total global civilian ownership), which is a significant number compared to 857 million guns owned globally. According to Siegel and Boine (2019), gun homicide rates are 25.2 higher in the US than in other developed countries. In the face of the staggering mental health statistics, the overarching question is why the US attribute mass shooting to mental illnesses while other countries with significant levels of mental illnesses do not experience similar levels of violence. Structuring the Debate A flurry of scientific evidence shows that people with mental health issues have a higher likelihood of committing violent acts. However, having a mental illness is not a predictor of committing mass shootings since not all perpetrators have mental illnesses. According to Kahan and Braman (2013), factors that drive people to commit mass murders are complex, although they encapsulate mental illnesses. Mental illness is often linked to mass shooting vaguely since the research relied upon relates to mental illness and violence but not mass murders. In that vein, therefore, linking gun violence to mental illness marginalizes mentally sick people, which affects them and their families. A 2011 Harvard mental health report observes that public opinion surveys show that the majority of citizens believe that mental illness causes violence. However, public opinion does not always mirror reality (Rozel & Mulvey, 2017). Evidence distancing mental illnesses from gun violence has been criticized for being flawed in that it relies on self-reporting or requesting participants to give an account of what happened and if they acted violently. In that vein, critiques believe that such studies undervalue the impact of rates of violence because participants are embarrassed to report what they did, may not remember, or may be unwilling to admit their actions. As such, the topic of mass shootings and mental illness has pitted two groups against each other, which has dominated public discourses in recent years. Mass Shootings Are Not Linked To Mental Illness Most literature challenging the linkage between mental illness and mass shootings argues that the term mental illness is loosely defined and so its use in this subject is not holistic and hence not reliable. Rozel and Mulvey (2017) observe that most people refer to severe mental health conditions such as bipolar disorder, and major depression as the main causes of mass shootings while ignoring other factors such as disgruntlement, hate, bullying among causes. As a result, public discourses attributing mental illness to mass shootings inhibits important narratives that can address the problem better. While linking mental illness to gun violence is biased, enthusiasts of gun rights, including the US president Mr. Donald J. Trump, has, on numerous occasions, called for the need to re-establish the institutionalization of mentally ill persons because they cause a threat to the society (Canady, 2019). A point of reference is the aftermath of Dayton and El Paso shootings, branded ‘mentally ill monsters’ as the cause of violence rocking the nation. People with mental illness are rarely violent. In fact, it is more probable for them to be victims as opposed to being perpetrators of crime. Psychiatrists disagree with President Trump's statement that hatred and mental illness pull the trigger and not the gun. According to McGinty et al. (2016), mental illness is responsible for only 4% of violence, but it is the most attributable cause of mass shootings. This is so because, when an incomprehensible event occurs, people will always want to come up with an explanation, and mental illness is the most obvious because the public sees it as a problem with the brain. As such, it is easy to believe that something was wrong with the shooter's mind, even though this may not be true. As such, gun rights advocates often laud the mental illness explanation to gun violence because it favors their agenda of upholding gun rights in the US. The media, mainly video games and social media, are known causes of violent behavior than mental illness. Being one of the most studied subjects, most meta-analyses show that violent media is directly linked to aggressive behavior, especially among children. This, coupled with antisocial behaviors caused by say childhood experiences interact to shape the aggressiveness of future perpetrators of violent crime (Yamane, 2017). The consistent finding is that violent media contributes to radicalization and aggression, which is sometimes expressed through lethal violence. In comparison, people with a mental health condition are more likely to pose a threat to themselves than other people. Again, viewing mass shootings in the prism of mental illnesses blocks other important debates that are essential to ending the gun problem in the US. The US is culturally diverse, and deep-rooted historical lines of hatred continue to influence how people relate. In fact, some people's current outlook of society is highly influenced by social evils such as racism. For instance, the El Paso suspect was found to harbor white supremacist beliefs, which were more motivators than his mental health history. Radical ideologies propagate dehumanization, and so they cause people with no history of mental illnesses to commit unimaginable atrocities on others (DeGrazia & Hunt, 2016). As such, viewing gun violence in the lens of mental illnesses overlooks the very problems that are deeply entrenched in the history of the US and has never been solved. The conclusion is straightforward; that hatred, radicalization, and destructive beliefs threaten the social fabrics of the society, which, by extension, jeopardize the wellbeing of all citizens. Lastly, the hypothesis that mental illness is a justification of poor judgment is implausible. This is because other factors such as substance abuse can impair people's judgment despite having no history of mental illness. Debunking the Myths Despite the availability of evidence showing dispelling the linkage between mental illness and mass shootings, there exist deep-rooted myths and misconceptions surrounding this issue. One, it is commonly believed that severe mental illnesses are a fundamental cause of mass murders in the US. Second, it is believed that being diagnosed with mental illness predicts future perpetration of gun violence. Third, the complex psychiatric of perpetrators of mass violence means that gun control rights cannot be effective. Ideally, each statement holds a certain degree of truth but cannot be used to address mass shootings in the US because research proves that these are self-evident false assumptions. While the above myths are presented singly, (Kahan & Braman) observe that they are covertly motivated by sentiments about politics, race, and distribution of violence in the US. For example, high-profile incidences of mass shootings are often said to be products of the perpetrator's disposition and mental health state, while those occurring in low-end neighborhoods are seen as being motivated by 'black politics' (Yamane, 2017). This suggests that the debate about guns and mental illness in the US is shaped by assumptions of aggression of blacks and white individualism. As such, for the nation to engage in tenable discussions about mass shootings, guns, and mental illnesses, all stakeholders, including mental health professionals, must overcome the influence of these myths. This will encourage social, psychological, and structural mitigation to mass murders and gun violence in the US. Consequences of Linking Mental Health to Mass Shootings Associating mental illness to mass murders is stigmatizing, and it affects people living with mental health conditions and their families. Consequently, people with mental illness may be afraid to 'come out' and actually seek treatment due to shame and other adverse consequences. In addition, this approach targets a group that is already vulnerable and need care and protection as opposed to being bedeviled. A 2015 and 2017 study by Rozel and Murvey (2017) opine that about 12 percent of inmates of violent crimes held in state prisons had a prior history of mental illnesses. Besides, less than 4 percent of persons discharged from inpatient facilities engage in gun-related violence. These statistics show that subjecting people with a history of mental illness and those undergoing treatment at present to stigma is unfair and indeed is a misconception of the cause and effects of the problem at hand. Moreover, while most people with mental health conditions are unlikely to commit gun-related crimes, their chances of securing a decent job and housing are defeated by this rhetoric. People with a mental health condition and people with a history of mental illnesses face a plethora of social and economic problems in addition to problems with their mental wellbeing. Stigma is inseparable from the lack of understanding, which therefore leads to isolation and shame. Canady (2019) explains that stigma also causes victimhood to violence, bullying, and harassment. This culminates in deteriorated mental health wellbeing, and these conditions become difficult to treat. In light of this, it is in the best interests of the society to view the problem of mass shootings and mental health as two critical but distant problems requiring to be solved instead of linking them (Van Ameijde & Helsinki, 2014). This would encourage an objective approach to the problem, which would be beneficial. Counter Argument While arguments against linking mental illness to mass shootings are plausible, it is difficult to ignore the case made by proponents of this ideology. The rate of suicide among people with mental illness offers the most compelling evidence that, indeed, people with mental illnesses are inclined to harm (Ranney & Gold, 2018). However, in this case, other factors such as substance use among people with mental illnesses is a serious problem because it aggravates the problem and sways them to harming others in addition to self-harm. As such, the linkage between mental illness and mass shootings cannot be totally be overlooked. A study by Parrott and Parrott (2015) reports that people with bipolar disorders and schizophrenia have a high dependence on alcohol and other illicit drugs, which is a key predictor of violence in the sampled communities. Similarly, substance abuse heightens the risk of victimization. Rebuttal Assuming that there is a direct linkage between gun related violence and mental illness is misleading because the scope is too broad and must be narrowed down. It is counterproductive to generalize an issue to a population that accounts for less than three percent of all violence against others in the United States. However, narrowing down the linkage to people with serious mental health issues can help to lower the consequences of mental illness (Ranney & Gold, 2019). As such, assuming that people with mental illness are a ‘high risk’ segment of the population is not supported well by evidence and hence should be struck down. Using mental illness as the aggregate level of measuring the perpetration of mass shootings elevates a small risk. Besides, studies have shown how the media plays a critical role in reinforcing beliefs that are sometimes misleading. This issue, for instance, is a product of the media's depiction of mentally ill persons as violent, prone to rage, and overly aggressive. However, this depiction is not consistent with the psychiatric descriptions of these people. Thoman (n.d) observes that the dominant narrative among most media outlets after a mass shooting is that the shooter was 'mentally unstable.' As mentioned earlier, this description is the most relevant for issues one cannot understand, although it does not depict the actual cause. Most speakers featured on TV debates call for the formation of a database to help keep track of people with mental illness. These discussions and the media coverage strengthen misleading public views while glorifying mass shooters. The glorification of heinous acts is believed to motivate future mass shooters seeking the thrill of widespread media coverage. Policy Interventions Given the prevalence of mass shootings in the US in recent years, different people have suggested different solutions to the problem. The two main views relate to adopting a gun control approach by enacting stricter gun laws and adopting a mental health approach to the problem. Proponents of the first approach believe that US gun culture makes it possible for people to own and sell guns, which therefore increases the chances of guns falling into the wrong hands (Siegel & Boine, 2019). Besides, this group is worried about the ease of purchase and ownership of military-style firearms and high capacity magazines. Consequently, they argue that private citizens should not be allowed to own such guns as they increase the likelihood of having a significant number of fatalities when an event of gun rampage ensues. In addition, the scope of people denied access and ownership to firearms should be expanded to include all persons with a history of violent behavior. A history of violent behavior is a viable predictor of future violence towards other people (Rozel & Mulvey, 2017). This restriction should especially include persons convicted of violent misdemeanor crimes, including domestic violence. Lastly, individuals with dependence on drugs and other illicit substances should also be included under the restricted category since these substances are known to increase the risk of violent behavior. Gaps in Current Policy Interventions In essence, the ownership of guns is rightly protected in the Second Amendment, which allows private citizens to own guns as a fundamental right as a means of empowering them to rise against a tyrannical government. However, there exist policies formulated to prevent the impact of mental illness on the safety of the citizenry. For that reason, purchasers of guns are required to be screened to prove that they are mentally stable hence fit to own a firearm. While this policy exists, Rozel and Mulvey (2017) note that the implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is not quite impactful as the criteria for exclusion are rigid. For a denial for purchase to reached, a person must have received a judicially order for guardianship or pleaded guilty due to insanity. However, the program has been useful in preventing ownership of guns among people known to have severe mental illnesses. The current screening program is in need of reforms to ensure that people undergo continuous background checks to ensure people with unstable mental wellbeing do not own guns. While some states have preventive measures of ensuring that guns do not fall in the hands of people with severe mental illnesses, internet sales of guns and private transfer are not subjected to background checks. Instead of focusing attention on mental illness, the federal and state governments should limit measures to reduce the accessibility of guns among groups not authorized to own guns, including people with severe mental illnesses (Knoll et al., 2016). While advocates of gun rights fail to see such transfers as tragic, they are fast to blame mental illness as the primary cause while overlooking the conduit that enables these groups to acquire firearms. Another shortcoming of current gun policy in the US relates to the removal of a firearm from a person who was previously allowed to own a gun. Less than ten states have authorized law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms possessed by people after a disqualifying event. Besides, the US lacks an agency that is responsible for proactively conducting these removals (Kahan & Braman, 2013). Besides, there lacks a standard procedure of effecting this policy as different states have different measures in place to address this issue. With the existence of such grey areas, guns are bound to fall into the hands of mentally unstable persons. On the one hand, this accounts for the marginal impact of mental illness on mass shootings and on the other hand, contributes to significant gun-related suicide rates among the segment of the population under review. Some states prohibit mental health practitioners from discussing safe gun practices with their patients. A good example is Florida's 'Docs and Glocks' Law, which expressly discourage the involvement of licensed health practitioners from enquiring about or document ownership of guns by their patients (Swanson et al., 2016). In essence, this law is grounded on the belief that counselling patients on firearm safety can reduce their ability to defend themselves when attacked. While the ownership of weapons is widely seen as essential for self-defence, this purview is largely discredited. Although encouraging firearm safety counselling cannot directly reduce mass shootings, it can be an effective way of identifying unusual dispositions related to guns as well as reducing the use of guns in suicides. Conclusion Indeed blaming mental illness for mass shootings is misleading because mental illness accounts for a fraction of the total number of gun-related mass murders. This view inhibits productive narratives for solving this problem. While it is true that mental illness can predispose some people to violence, scores of academic literature clarify that people with a mental health condition are more likely to pose a danger to themselves than other people. Besides, mental illness does not predict gun violence and so popularizing this narrative propagates unwarranted attention to people with mental illness, which causes stigma as discussed earlier. Policymakers and advocates of gun rights popularize the mental illness-mass shootings nexus as it helps them avoid other complicated discourses relating to registration, gun ownership, and tracking which they see as a threat to their belief system. Indeed, increasing access to mental health care only promotes the overall wellbeing of citizen’s mental health care but cannot solve the gun violence crisis. The US must adopt a multi-faceted approach entailing gun control, improved mental health care, and a change in attitude towards the gun culture. References Canady, V. A. (2019). Field weighs in on Trump's call to bring back mental health institutions. Mental Health Weekly, 29(33), 1-3. DeGrazia, D., & Hunt, L. H. (2016). Debating Gun Control: How Much Regulation Do We Need?. Oxford University Press. Janssen, E. M., McGinty, E. E., Azrin, S. T., Juliano-Bult, D., & Daumit, G. L. (2015). Review of the evidence: prevalence of medical conditions in the United States population with serious mental illness. General hospital psychiatry, 37(3), 199-222. Kahan, D. M., & Braman, D. (2013). More statistics, less persuasion: A cultural theory of gun-risk perceptions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(4), 1291-1327. Knoll, I. V., James, L., & Annas, G. D. (2016). Mass shootings and mental illness. psycnet.apa.org. from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-55277-004 McGinty, E. E., Kennedy-Hendricks, A., Choksy, S., & Barry, C. L. (2016). Trends in news media coverage of mental illness in the United States: 1995-2014. Health Affairs, 35(6), 1121-1129. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0011 Parrott, S., & Parrott, C. T. (2015). Law & disorder: The portrayal of mental illness in US crime dramas. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(4), 640-657. Ranney, M., & Gold, J. (2019). The Dangers of Linking Gun Violence and Mental Illness. Retrieved 13 September 2019, from https://time.com/5645747/gun-violence-mental-illness/ Rozel, J. S., & Mulvey, E. P. (2017). The link between mental illness and firearm violence: implications for social policy and clinical practice. Annual review of clinical psychology, 13. Siegel, M., & Boine, C. (2019). What Are The Most Effective Policies In Reducing Gun Homicides? Retrieved from http://www.evidenceforaction.org/sites/default/files/policy.brief.pdf Stone, M. H. (2015). Mass murder, mental illness, and men. Violence and Gender, 2(1), 51-86. Swanson, J. W., Easter, M. M., Robertson, A. G., Swartz, M. S., Alanis-Hirsch, K., Moseley, D., Petrila, J. (2016). Gun violence, mental illness, and laws that prohibit gun possession: Evidence from two Florida counties. Health Affairs, 35(6), 1067-1075. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0017 Thoman, E. (n.d) Making Connections: Media's Role in our Culture of Violence | Center for Media Literacy | Empowerment through Education | CML MediaLit Kit ™ |. Retrieved 17 September 2019, from https://www.medialit.org/reading-room/making-connections-medias-role-our-culture-violence Van Ameijde, E. A., & Helinski, F. A. L. (2014). Guns in the United States (Bachelor's thesis). Yamane, D. (2017). The sociology of US gun culture. Sociology Compass, 11(7), e12497.