Potential shooters may exhibit shared mental health issues, but it's the root causes—not the mental health itself—that fuel violent attacks, according to industry experts.
In the aftermath of a series of devastating mass shootings, the discussion surrounding the role of mental health and effective interventions has gained significant attention.
Recent research and expert commentary suggest that while mental health issues may be present in some mass shooters, they are not the primary cause of such violence. About half of U.S. mass shooters since 1982 showed prior signs of mental health problems, but many do not, indicating that mental illness alone is not a reliable predictor of mass shootings [3]. Severe mental illness accounts for a very small share of violent acts, with most violent acts not committed by mentally ill individuals [5]. Overattribution to mental illness oversimplifies the complex causes and may obscure other significant factors like social environment, access to guns, and systemic issues [5].
One potential solution that has gained traction is the implementation of red flag laws. These legal tools allow for temporary removal of firearms from individuals deemed to pose a risk to themselves or others, based on evidence and due process. Data from Colorado shows increased use and acceptance of red flag laws over recent years, with many petitions granted, suggesting they are an important intervention in reducing threats like gun violence and suicide [2]. Supporters argue that red flag laws help prevent potentially dangerous individuals from committing violence, including mass shootings and suicides facilitated by firearms. Opponents often cite concerns about the erosion of due process and civil liberties in firearm possession [2].
The debate around red flag laws and mental health is not without controversy. In Texas, where a mass shooting occurred, the legislature recently passed a law that makes gun law restrictions illegal. The Austin Police Chief, Lisa Davis, stated that the suspect had past criminal offenses and "serious issues" [6]. However, the enforcement and effectiveness of red flag laws remain crucial in mitigating gun violence risks, especially where threats and gun deaths remain high [2][4].
Dr. Jeffrey W. Swanson, a professor at Duke University, suggests focusing on the lethal means issue, such as extreme protection orders (red flag laws) [7]. Swanson states that the strongest risk factors for violent behavior in general are being young and being male [7]. Mental health experts echo this sentiment, stating that having mental health problems does not mean their issues are to blame for killings [7].
The Atlanta shooting, which left a police officer dead, also highlights the intersection of mental health and domestic violence. The gunman had spoken about suicide and had reached out for mental health assistance ahead of the attack [8]. According to Lisa Geller, senior adviser at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, most perpetrators of mass shootings had domestic violence histories or targeted family or intimate partners [9].
In conclusion, while mental health issues play a role in some mass shootings, they are not the sole cause. The real problem, according to many experts, is access to guns. Red flag laws, when enforced, can reduce firearm suicide rates and deter potential mass shootings and other types of gun violence. However, the debate around these laws and the balance between public safety and civil liberties continues.
Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
