Blame Gun Extremists – Not Parents

 

   

 The Crumbley verdict is in and in the usual manner – the media is either celebrating it or bothered by it.  The bothered response is more muted this time – probably because Americans have been conditioned to see national court cases as vindication or rejection of whatever moral position they seem to have on the issue. Without reading the court transcript – media reports suggest that the prosecution in the case portrayed Jennifer Crumbley as a distracted mother who did not pay adequate attention to her son – 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley’s mental status.  If she had - he would not have had access to the 9mm semiautomatic handgun that he used in the Oxford school shootings.  On November 30, 2021 – he shot and killed 4 students and wounded 7.  The jury agreed with the prosecution despite Ms. Crumbley’s statement: "You never would think you'd have to protect your child from harming somebody else. That’s what blew my mind. That was the hardest I had to stomach is that my child harmed and killed other people."  She was found guilty of 4 counts of involuntary manslaughter and the sentence is pending. 

Jennifer Crumbley is of course right.  Professionals charged with assessing the potential for harming others cannot accomplish this task with any degree of certainty.  Should untrained parents be held to that standard, especially when they are emotionally involved with the children they are supposed to assess?  A summary of her court testimony is available from several sites at this point. It focuses on testimony and texts that suggest her son was having difficulty at school and that other people noticed he was moody and depressed. The parents were called in by school officials because they had noticed violent content in his drawings, but after a meeting they did not insist that he be removed from school.  I do not know the school professionals involved – but if there was that level of concern – why not insist that the parents take their son home and give them a clear plan of care?

With any criminal proceeding there are always a lot of discrepancies.  Jennifer Crumbley denied that her son was symptomatic (hearing voices and depressed).  She denied knowing anything about his preoccupation with violent thoughts.  Ethan Crumbley apparently intentionally injured birds and enjoyed doing that.  I do not know if the parents were aware of this or not. There was some debate about the family’s health insurance situation.  Coverage for Ethan lapsed when his father lost his job and his mother was trying to enroll him during the next enrollment period in her plan.  There is also the question of what is generally available for emergency psychiatric care for a 15 yr old.  I don't know if that was bought up during the hearings or not.  I can't speak to what is available in that specific area, but I can say that it is generally non-existent throughout much of the country.    

There is some opinion in the media right now that this trial is precedent setting in that it may translate to parents being held responsible for the crimes of their children. Although I am not a lawyer – to me the precedent seems to already have been set – parents are not responsible for the crimes of their children.  There have been other parents convicted in cases where their children were involved in school shootings.  In one case the mother of a 6-year-old who shot his teacher was sentenced to 21 months, but that was for illegally obtaining a firearm by denying a that she had a drug problem.  In the other case, a father of a shooter who killed 7 people was eventually charged with 7 counts of reckless conduct for assisting his son in obtaining a firearm license even when he had expressed thoughts about killing himself and others.

The critical events in the Crumbley case seem to be the parent purchasing the handgun for their son as a way to lift his spirits, not securing the gun when he was not under their direct supervision, and the two meetings at school on the day before and the day of the shooting. On the first of those days there was concern that he was researching ammunition on his phone during class.  He explained that he went shooting with his mother and that was a hobby.  The counselor called his mother who communicated by text and joked that he had to learn to not get caught.  On the day of the shooting, his parents were called in after he was seen watching a violent video in class, drawing guns and a bleeding body on a math worksheet and writing several nihilistic statements. The counselor was concerned that he might be suicidal. During the meeting the Dean of Students brought in Ethan’s back pack but nobody searched it.  The handgun was in the backpack.  He returned to school from that meeting with his backpack and started the shooting (2).  

In a related matter – there is a civil suit but the trail of that paperwork is difficult to follow.  The original suit against the school and staff was dropped but a subsequent suit against the counselor and Dean of Students was allowed to proceed. There was also a lawsuit against the Michigan State police.

From what I know about this case so far, it appears that Jennifer Crumbley’s trial was primarily an attack on her character. Combined with hindsight that is a powerful approach to find someone guilty of a crime.  I looked up the definition of involuntary manslaughter in the state of Michigan according to this reference it requires proving one of 2 theories:

1:  That the deaths were caused by grossly negligent actions of the defendant

2:  That the defendant neglected her duty as a parent to “exercise reasonable care to control their minor child so as to prevent the minor child from intentionally harming others or prevent the minor child from conducting themselves in a way that creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others.”

There is a lot of room between "gross negligence" and "reasonable care." In this case the parents were responsive to school authorities and those responses at the time satisfied those authorities to the point that they allowed Ethan to return to school.  

Applicable laws in the State of Michigan state that handgun purchasers must be 18 years of age to purchase from a private seller and 21 years of age to purchase from a federal licensed firearms dealer (FFL).  The handgun purchase in this case occurred when Ethan Crumbley was 15 years of age.  Michigan will not have a safe storage law for firearms until February 13, 2024.  The law mandates that unattended firearms must be locked and unloaded and it defines crimes and penalties for problems that occur as a result of violations defined as behavior ranging from threats to deaths resulting from unauthorized access to that firearm.  Since the Oxford school shootings occurred in November 2021 – that law does not apply. 

The medical literature has a few studies that appear to address the issue of age-related firearm purchases and homicide and suicide.  The authors of one study (6) found no correlation between higher age requirements and homicide rates of 18-20 year olds; but discuss the reasons why that was the case.  Most of those reasons come back to the firearm density in the United States and how easy it is to access firearms through back channels.  Any casual inspection of those firearm density figures in the United States – shows an incredible number of firearms even relative to war zones across the globe. The United States ranks 9^th in gun homicides.  The 8 countries ranking higher all have significant amounts of gang and cartel related violence, some to the point that it is driving the current immigrant crisis at the southern border.  Five of those 8 countries have the highest crime index.  Four have the highest homicide rates.  The US has the gun homicide rate of lawless low and middle income (LMIC) countries.  

The cultural effects of gun extremism are never discussed as being a cause of gun violence in the United States.  Over the past 50 years, gun extremists have pushed for increasing accessibility to firearms by shall issue laws, stand your ground laws, fewer restrictions, and loopholes that allow back door access to firearms. In the process, common sense gun laws that were developed in the 19^th century, like city ordinances that forbade carrying guns in town have fallen by the wayside.  Some gun extremists are pushing to eliminate domestic violence charges as a disqualifier for gun possession. In that landscape there is a subcultural effect that (for some) guns are a legitimate way to express anger or dissatisfaction in school or the workplace. Nobody is standing up against that myth.  If anything, the gun extremists are rationalizing it as mental illness or not enough guns (arm the teachers) rather than far, far too many guns.

That is what I think about when I think about the Jennifer Crumbley verdict. In many ways she was set up to take a fall for 50 years of gun extremism. Certainly, her son should have never had a handgun.  But do other parents buy firearms for their children?  They certainly pose them with guns on Christmas cards. When I was a kid 50 years ago – no kid had one and it was the law. There was a good reason for it and that reason was not discovered until the 21^st century.  Teenagers may look like adults but they do not have the brain development or judgment of adults. Combining that with a general culture of gun extremism and a subculture of mass shootings is a recipe for disaster. Until we recognize the cultural effects and how guns became part of the culture wars – we will not be able to stop this violence and loss of life.  

Parents may have become the next casualty.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Photo Credit to my colleague Eduardo A. Colon, MD

References:

1:  El-Bawab N.  Jennifer Crumbley says she wishes son had 'killed us instead' as she took stand in manslaughter trial.  February 1, 2024.  https://abcnews.go.com/US/jennifer-crumbley-takes-stand-manslaughter-trial-tied-sons/story

2:  Snell R.  Oxford school shooting victim's family sues Michigan State Police in latest legal challenge.  October 5, 2023  https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2023/10/05/oxford-school-shooting-victims-family-sues-michigan-state-police/71074873007/

3:  Stack MK.  What Is This Mother Really Guilty Of?  New York Times.  Febnruary 1, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/opinion/mother-homicide-court-crumbley.html

4:  Strom S. Michigan Involuntary Manslaughter Law.  FindLaw.  February 7, 2024. https://www.findlaw.com/state/michigan-law/michigan-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html

5:  Associated Press.  Timeline: Key moments surrounding the 2021 Michigan high school shooting as mother of shooter is found guilty.  https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/timeline-key-moments-surrounding-the-2021-michigan-high-school-shooting-as-mother-of-shooter-is-found-guilty/3348384/

6:  Moe CA, Haviland MJ, Bowen AG, Rowhani-Rahbar A, Rivara FP. Association of Minimum Age Laws for Handgun Purchase and Possession With Homicides Perpetrated by Young Adults Aged 18 to 20 Years. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Nov 1;174(11):1056-1062. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3182. Erratum in: JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Nov 1;174(11):1119. PMID: 32870238; PMCID: PMC7489426.

The Only Gun Legislation In the Past 30 years Is Nothing To Get Excited About

 

The only thing more annoying than seeing self-congratulatory legislators not solving another problem is when they discuss their rationale for their latest decision.  That was in full view on CBS This Morning Today as Tony Dokoupil interviewed four senators Chris Murphy (D), Thom Tilis (R), John Conryn (R), and Kyrsten Sinema (I).  In the interview Sen. Murphy suggests there is evidence that “the law is starting to have some impact” according to “criminologists”.

But what is the evidence?  A summary of the bill is available at this link and it is more readable that the final version on the same web site. One of the provisions was enhanced background checks for gun purchasers 18-21 years of age.  That has resulted in 230 denials. Sen. Tilis commented that 107,000 people between the ages of 18-21 applied to purchase a gun and therefore only 0.2% were denied. No comment on the negatives of putting another 100,000 guns out on the street. I tried to find data on the NICS database but it is not available for 2022.  We don't know if a 0.2% denial rate is an exception or if it is expected.  This report states the overall denial rate was 3.92%.  He goes on to say he is proud of the fact that they have passed the “biggest investment in mental health” in history and “we all agree that behavioral health had to be the foundation of everything we did.”  

Hold on Senator! Granted I am only a psychiatrist and not a behavioral health expert – but this seems like bullshit to me. The federal government and their cronies in behavioral health managed care have been rationing services while making massive profits for the past 30 years. It is as likely that your funding intervention will have as much impact as it did on the opioid epidemic.  It also happens to be a gun extremist narrative to divert attention from the primary problem of far too many guns.

Senator Sinema suggests that “every single person” who picks up a firearm and engages in mass violence is mentally disturbed.  If that were true (and it is not) – the suggested funding through the usual channels will not impact mass shooters. Mass shooters are a product of gun extremism. They see politicians every day talking about guns as the solution to many problems. Stand your ground laws that encourage both gun violence and exoneration of the gun user. They see people being shot and killed or shot at for trivial reasons.  They see indignant gun extremists claiming that “the government” wants to kick your door down and confiscate your guns – even though with the massive number of guns in this country it is physically impossible.  They see armed “militia” intimidating state legislators on their own capitol grounds. They see social media threats about the use of arms. Most importantly – they see daily mass shootings in the United States and nobody doing anything about it. Politicians seem to blame the victims, in some cases the police, or globally “wrong place-wrong time.” You do not have to be mentally ill to be confused or driven by those messages and emotion.

Most notably – there continues to be no background checks for all gun buyers and no assault weapons ban.  There was some joking about not being able to agree on a definition of an assault weapon.  That is a basic definition and it has been defined by Congress in the past but it appeared to be off the table for this crew.

Dokoupil makes a point that violence in America seems to drive legislation and maybe the tradeoff for a Second Amendment is that there will always be violence in America. He cites examples of gangsters in the 1930s and violence in the 1970s with riots and radical politics.  That is a good sound bite but it ignores the fact that there has been no gun legislation through the past 30 years of gun violence and this anemic bill was the result of a level of gun violence that should have been an embarrassment for any legislator.  He misses the obvious point that even in the Wild West (see Tombstone Ordinance of 1881), you had to check your gun when you came into town and post-World War II we had decades of common sense gun legislation that did not involve the massive carrying of firearms.  During those decades – nobody under the age of 21 could own a handgun, guns were used for hunting, and the Second Amendment was interpreted the way it was written.  During those decades the NRA was focused on gun safety and hunting rather than flooding the streets with guns. 

There was some rhetoric about how an extreme mass shooting incident led to the bipartisanship necessary to pass this mediocre bill. First off - that is an extremely high bar.  How many catastrophes does it take to move Congress?  The answer is obviously hundreds. Secondly, it is obvious that partisanship was alive and well right in the room.  None of the Senators could even touch the assault rifle issue? Assuring the rights of people refused firearm purchases was a higher priority?  Gun extremism is alive and well and as long as one party finds it necessary to fan the culture war flames - very little movement would seem possible and that is exactly what we have seen for decades.  

The gun extremism of one political party and their judges is the current problem. An atmosphere of unabated gun extremism is unlikely to have any desired effect on mass shootings, gun homicides, gun suicides, or accidental deaths. I have attached a few paragraphs on what gun extremism is below. This is my definition. I have written about potential solutions in the past – but clearly people would rather listen to the clear thinking of their elected officials instead.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Previous Posts:

Likely and Unlikely Causes of Mass Shootings

Another Note on Gun Extremism - An Appeal to Grandparents

Gun Extremism Not Mental Illness

Elements of Gun Extremism

1:  Misinterpreting the Second Amendment:

The culture war political party and their judges ignore the text of the Amendment which is simply:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun extremists ignore the preamble that gives the rationale for the right to bear arms and instead isolate the clause about the right to keep and bear arms and generalize it to the entire population and any firearms.  The well-regulated Militia in this case is every states National Guard.  Arms in those days were muzzle loaders that could fire 2 rounds per minute if you were an expert contrasted with 45 rounds per minute from an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. A fully automatic AR-15 can fire 700-900 rounds per minute. Courts have taken additional steps to say that gun permits can be superfluous and that anyone requesting one should be issued one – with rare exceptions.  Local legislatures have gone ahead with permitless carry and concealed carry laws.

In debating gun extremists, a common argument is that it is protection from tyranny and that is why the Amendment is there.  When I suggested that using weapons against the US government was treason, a famous gun advocate suggested “it would depend on who won.”  Clearly there is nothing about tyranny associated with the amendment.  Gun extremists favor lawlessness and insurrection.  Their judges do as well.

2:  Putting everyone at risk:

One of the famous gun extremist arguments is that more guns results in less crime.  That is clearly not the case and the number of defensive uses of firearms does not have a significant impact on crime.  In the meantime, there are more gun suicides, homicides, accidental deaths, mass shootings, and deaths from the impulsive use of an available firearm in the US than any other high income country.

3:  Increased risk with handguns and assault rifles:

Before the gun extremism culture took over – guns in the US were used for hunting and target shooting. Some people thought they were necessary for self-defense but they were clearly in the minority.  The NRA ran Hunter Safety Courses to teach safe use of hunting firearms.  Gun extremism is a result of the culture wars approach to American politics. When one party realized they did not have much to run on they decided to make a few things up.  Gun extremism was one of those results.   Gun extremism has resulted in the proliferation of handguns and assault rifles.  Both of those weapons are designed for shooting people not wildlife. Gun extremists try to minimize the role of assault rifles by claiming that they are not fully automatic like the military version but they can still release a flurry of high velocity rounds capable of penetrating many walls – as fast as you can pull the trigger.  That is not a hunting firearm.  No need for a lot of physics - just recall that the kinetic energy of a mass is a function of the square of its velocity.  Weapons with high muzzle velocity like assault rifles will have much more energy to damage the target.

4:  Increased risk with permitless carry:

 As the gun extremists became more radical there was a progression of loosening of gun regulations.  Initially to carry guns in public you had to have a permits. In many states that required an application and background check from a county Sheriff.  For a concealed carry permit, training was required. Continued radicalization has resulted in the abolition of many of those laws so that you can purchase a handgun and carry a concealed handgun without a permit or training.  You just must meet minor age criteria. It is obvious that this is the goal of gun extremists across the USA.  Permitless carry will make every community more dangerous. Just ask your local men and women of law enforcement. 

5: The idea that gun carriers are supermen or superwomen:

In other words if you meet criteria to carry a gun your were by definition responsible and did not make any mistakes leading to the loss of life or injury. Epidemiology teaches that just having a gun on the premises greatly increases the likelihood of death by accidental injury or suicide. Every year hundreds of police officers are injured by accidental discharge of their firearms and they have more extensive and ongoing firearms training than typical gun owners, especially in this era of vanishing qualifications. The obvious political goal of gun extremists is to eliminate any qualifications except for age and possibly (if a NICS check is run) a history of felony crime or domestic violence.   

6:  The new era of shoot first ask questions later:

There have been many incidents in the news of people being shot at and in some cases killed for ringing a doorbell or accidentally driving down the wrong road. In well televised road rage incident, a man fires several rounds from a semiautomatic handgun through his own windshield at a car he mistakenly thought had fired a gun at him.  Not a thought about how far those bullets travel and who else he might hit on a busy freeway. Is this the kind of country we want to live in?  This is the country we currently have courtesy of gun extremists. 

7:  All we have to do is enforce existing laws:

This is a favorite of gun extremists as they continue to roll back existing gun laws. The also use the slogan "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have them."  That slogan is obviously flawed at two levels.  First, nobody has ever suggested outlawing guns and as I pointed out earlier - it is physically impossible at this point.  Secondly, nobody seems to consider where outlaws get guns. A large source is theft from legal gun owners. About 380,000 guns are stolen in 250,000 incidents in the USA each year.  In other words, one of the largest sources of illegal guns in the hands of outlaws is legal guns from legal gun owners.   Keeping the streets flooded with guns keeps that process going. 

Image Credit:  Thanks to Rick Ziegler.

 

Killer Mike's Gun Recommendations for Families

I watched TMZ Live yesterday. They interviewed the rapper Killer Mike. Harvey Levin was his usual overcomplimentary self. He asked the rapper about his recommendation that every family should have "multiple guns, all sorts of guns" and this is what he said:

"5 - 5. I have always just said 5. You should have a revolver, a semi-automatic pistol, you should have a shotgun, you should have one bolt action rifle, and you should have a semi-automatic rifle."

When questioned about the semi-automatic rifle:

"I said semi-automatic, military is fully automatic. It's not military - it just looks cool. It can look like a race car but it doesn't go 200 miles an hour. My thing is simply this - the founders of the Constitution saw a need to fight tyranny at some point and they believed that that could happen again so they wrote that provision so to get to the ultimate answer you got to dig up those old white guys and ask them. I'm simply applying - I'm going by the rules that were given to me in the Constitution - nothing more-nothing less."

When asked about the risk of an increasingly armed and divided population, Killer Mike points out that the fastest growing group of gun owners is black women and he does not want to get in the way of black people enjoying their freedom.

In terms of stopping gun violence he was in agreement with curfew and an exception for working adolescents. He believes that no new gun laws are needed and echoes the line that there are enough laws to take care of the problem already on the books and that criminals are not going to follow the laws anyway. That ignores the fact that almost all mass shooters have no criminal record and in many cases have recently purchased firearms that they use in the mass shooting crime.  Instead he recommends "Stop the Bleed" classes and joining gun associations or gun clubs. His rational is that if you have a tool that can cause harm you should be educated about what to do for that harm.  Unfortunately if you get hit anywhere in the body - the education you will need is how to be a trauma surgeon and even then you had better be at a Level 1 trauma center. 

Consistent with the previous writing on this blog Killer Mike is clearly behind gun extremism and normalizing it as a constitutionally derived right. Obvious gun extremist rhetoric includes the claim that just because an assault rifle is not fully automatic it is somehow less worrisome. Anyone who has fired an AR-15 knows that you can fire as many high velocity rounds just as fast as you can pull the trigger and if that gun is discharged in a residential community that bullet is going a long way and in some cases through multiple buildings.  In fact, all of the weapons he recommends for the family will penetrate multiple walls and are a potential risk for the entire neighborhood.  The normalization of assault rifles by the NRA and Republican party was a move away from the use of guns for hunting to the use of guns for killing people and there is no way around it.  From the testing link this was a quote about the assault rifle result.  It speaks to the mechanism of assault rifles as a combination of high velocity and bullet deformation and tumbling:

"Though the 5.56 bullets showed the most deformation, they were also terribly penetrative (19 panels, or nine walls) and, beyond the first two or three panels, created relatively large holes as they tumbled along their paths."

Just as a reminder this is the full text of the Second Amendment:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Nothing about tyranny. Gun extremists ignore the preamble. The "well regulated militia" these days is each state's National Guard.  This country went through a period of gun regulation that was widely accepted and reasonable until one political party realized they did not have many ideas to run on and decided to make guns a part of that culture war. I don't know Killer Mike's political affiliations.  There may be a subcultural effect since this same show regularly reports gun violence and deaths within the rapper community.  

The problem with all forms of extremism is that it is an appeal to emotion and it typically ignores the facts. Killer Mike sees the problem as encroaching on the rights of black people but that doesn't address the problem that firearm homicides have increased in the black community by 39% from 2019-2020 (1). We know that the political rhetoric that more guns for defensive purposes does not put a dent in those numbers and that these are almost always impulsive homicides based on gun availability.

The answer to how to reduce gun violence is not increasing guns and I don't care what your rationale is - but that is the residue of this interview that started with that question.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

1:  Kegler SR, Simon TR, Zwald ML, et al. Vital Signs: Changes in Firearm Homicide and Suicide Rates — United States, 2019–2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:656–663. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7119e1

Likely and Unlikely Causes of Mass Shootings

     

The pace of mass shootings and school shootings in the United States continues unabated at this time. I am writing this like I have written many posts in the past – a few days after a mass shooting in a school.  I just heard a news reports saying that this was the 167^th school shooting since Columbine on April 20, 1999.  NPR posted a story saying that there is a shooting or a potential for shooting in schools every day (1) – based either on a gun discharge of someone brandishing a firearm in school. They reference the K-12 School Shooting Database stating that this is the 39^th incident this year that involved gunfire on school grounds.

The media descriptions of the current incident follow much of the coverage in the past about unclear motive, shocking circumstances, unpredictability, questions of an “emotional disorder” and counseling, and the devastating impact on families and the community. I saw a forensic psychiatrist interviewed speculating on the aggressive dynamics based on the detail that the shooter recently disclosed a transsexual orientation.  A clergyman was interviewed and suggested the shooter was really looking for the school minister who was providing counseling.  One of the shooter’s fiends was interviewed.  She was contacted immediately prior to the incident and promptly notified authorities – but by then it was too late. The video of the SWAT team running through the hallways and eventually running toward gunfire and killing the shooter keeps playing.  In some cases that video is compared directly to the Uvalde, Texas video  and comments are made about this is a much better example of how law enforcement should respond. I saw some of these reports where they put up the response time on the screen.  

There are the usual expressions of “enough is enough” and “we don’t send our kids to school for this to happen.”  Republican Representative Tim Burchett came right out and said what most people were thinking: “ We’re not gonna fix it….” But then to make it more palatable he added: “criminals are gonna be criminals.”  He thought we needed a “revival” to “change peoples’ hearts in this country.” Later he disclosed he was home schooling his daughter (3).

I am already on record on this blog writing about the real cause of mass shootings and gun violence in general and it is the politics of gun extremism.  The Republican party has figured out that gun extremism works for them along with several other easily demagogued social issues like abortion, voter suppression, education, anti-science, anti-climate change, and more recently “wokeism”. That has led to a series of initiatives to drastically reduce gun regulations.  There has been an undeniable increase in deaths due to gun violence.  Mass shootings, suicide, homicide, and accidental deaths are all routinely ignored as calls for regulations that were effective for decades until Republican advocates rolled them back – even though gun regulations in the past were never a problem.

The typical rhetoric used is a gun extremist interpretation of the Second Amendment.  In the case of voters, it was the usual emotional appeal that “they” were coming to take their guns.  Anyone familiar with the distribution of guns in the United states realizes this is an impossibility, but it is a rallying point for emotional rather than rational appeals.  In recent years we have seen the rhetoric extended to mental illness as a cause of mass shootings.  There is some confluence with antipsychiatry factions who falsely equate psychiatry with the pharmaceutical industry and suggest that antidepressant drugs cause the mass shooting phenomena.  This post will provide clear evidence to the contrary.

On the issue of common psychiatric disorders in comparing the countries that utilize the most antidepressant prescriptions – the prevalence of those disorders is consistent among the United States and the other countries at the top of the list.  These disorders include depression, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders – conditions that antidepressants are all commonly prescribed for. English speaking and European countries had similar prevalence (4) with possibly lower prevalence in Asia. There are similar variations in the estimated prevalence of schizophrenia and mood disorders in different areas of the world (5, 6).  

A good summary document on the research about mental illness and mass shooting incidents is available from the Treatment Advocacy Center (10).  They summarize the results of several studies as indicating that at least one third of the perpetrators had "serious untreated mental illness."  Their review is remarkable for a wide range of methodologies and selection biases that probably overestimates the number of cases of severe mental illness in mass shootings.  Smaller sample sizes generally showed a greater number of cases of severe mental illness.  In the case of a study by Stone (11) he found that 32% of 228 mass killers had severe mental illness but during the sampling period there were 1,000 incidents.  The variation is often considered due to methodological differences in the surveys but as previously illustrated– even significant differences in incidence and prevalence of these disorders is unlikely to account for the huge differences in gun deaths between the USA and other countries.  The main difference is that people with the same mental illnesses have much easier gun access in the US.

Several studies of people involved as shooters have shown that some of them have psychiatric diagnoses and in some cases they are being treated by psychiatrists.  Some are prescribed medications but the toxicology at the time of the incident is typically not available. In a related study of murder-suicide by the New York City Medical Examiner’s office that of 127 cases over a 9-year period only 3 (2.4%) were taking antidepressants (7).  Two were taking amitriptyline and 1 was taking sertraline. The authors made the point that antidepressant use in this case series was much lower than the expected population rate.  In a series of 27 elderly men who killed their spouse and then died by suicide – more disease conditions and depression were seen as possible predisposing factors – but none tested positive for antidepressants (8).  When considering the prescribing of antidepressants in general,  epidemiological studies suggest that most of these medications are prescribed by non-psychiatrists. With the proliferation of non-physician prescribers, managed care strategies designed to accelerate antidepressant prescribing based on limited assessments, and widely advertised televisit prescribing it is likely that gap between psychiatrist and other prescribers has increased substantially and will continue to grow.

The argument has been made that people become agitated, suicidal, and homicidal on antidepressants. This is a recurrent theme that is often related to medicolegal considerations, criticism of the pharmaceutical industry, and psychiatric criticism.  There is often a suggested scenario of the antidepressants (especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs) causing agitation or activation making suicidal or aggressive behavior more likely.  After reviewing the existing evidence the FDA has placed a black box warning for suicidality in "children, adolescents, and young adults".  There are also warning and counseling bullet points on clinical worsening as evidence by: "emergence of anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, akathisia (psychomotor restlessness), hypomania, mania, other unusual changes in behavior, worsening of depression, and suicidal ideation, especially early during antidepressant treatment and when the dose is adjusted up or down".  Standard medical and psychiatric practice advises the patient of these potential risks and what the plan should be if they occur.  In 35 years of clinical practice my observations were that these symptoms were rare and most likely to occur if an antidepressant was discontinued and the patient experienced significant sleep disturbance. The patients I treated with severe aggressive behavior were generally untreated for psychiatric disorders and often had substance use disorders.  A recommendation I have not seen is that all of these incidents should be studied from a prospective comprehensive psychiatric standpoint as they occur with no selection bias.  That study should include toxicology, detailed collateral information, analysis of available medical records, and post mortem analysis if relevant.

In choosing a reference (9) for international comparison of mass shooting phenomenon it is important to consider how the database is constructed. In choosing reference 9, the author described a clear rationale and methodology.  The basic criteria include an incident where there are at least 4 shooting deaths and the shooter is acting alone and not due to criminal or terroristic motivations. Since mass shootings in the US have been motivated by neither – there would be no equivalent comparison with incidents in the US. The author also compares the US to the 35 United Nations definition economically developed countries (see Supplement 1). The time frame of 1998-2019 was chosen.  On that basis half of the countries did not have a single mass shooting incident, ten had more than one, five had more than 20 fatalities, and the US had 12 times as many incidents as the country with the second most mass shootings. Much greater detail is included in the original reference.

I prepared two reference tables based on this data (click on either table for a better view).  The graphic at the top of this page does not include suicide and homicide rates for each country.  The table below includes both of these rates.  Data sources are referenced in the tables.  

 

The countries are arranged by defined daily doses (DDD) of antidepressant medications.  DDD is a World Health Organization (WHO) defined metric for medication utilization. It looks at the total amount of a defined class of medication using the Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification based on the usual prescribed dose of medication. In that system antidepressants are listed as a class.  US data are highlighted in the table because they represent the focus of this post.

What are some likely and unlikely observations from the Table.  First, it is unlikely that antidepressant prescriptions are a proximate cause of mass shootings.  The countries bracketing the US in antidepressant utilization (Iceland and Portugal) each had no mass shooting during the period of interest (1999-2018).  Second, gun availability stands out as an obvious factor in mass shootings, gun related suicides, and gun related homicides.  Third, gun availability in the US (120.5 firearms per 100 person) nearly equals gun availability in every other country in the table (128.4 firearms per 100 persons).  Fourth, no country had homicide rates similar to the US, but 3 of the countries had similar suicide rates but much lower rates of gun suicides. The reference study looks at locations, relationships, and firearms as relevant points but no comments on mental illness or toxicology at the time of the incident. The author also points out that in many countries mass shootings trigger government intervention focused on decreasing the likelihood of future shootings.  Except for a time limited assault rifle ban that does not happen in the United States.  The gun regulatory landscape is headed in the opposite direction with a movement to permitless access to handguns.

In summary, the gun violence landscape in the United States is bleak. Despite rationalizations that this is really a mental illness or mental illness treatment problem there is no real supporting evidence, since the distribution of mental illnesses in the US is the same as comparable countries with no to few mass shootings. There is low quality evidence that mental illness may be a factor in 15-30% of incidents - but the only way to explain why that is a factor is those people have much easier access to firearms.  The overwhelming evidence is that this is a problem of gun extremism, gun access, and sociocultural factors like subcultural acceptable violence, media notoriety, and politically reinforced messaging about gun use. The only way to address the problem based on international examples is to decrease gun access.  That is unlikely as long as one major party and their appointed judges need to activate their base with false messaging and flood the country with easy to access firearms.  They bear the ultimate responsibility.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

Supplementary 1:  UN Classified Developed Countries (total of 36) for reference 3 in Table and reference 9 below:  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States.

 

 References:

1:   Florido A, Summers J. By one measure, the U.S. has had a shooting on school grounds almost every day.  https://www.npr.org/2023/03/28/1166630346/by-one-measure-the-u-s-has-had-a-shooting-on-school-grounds-almost-every-day

2:  K-12 School Shooting Database:  https://k12ssdb.org/all-shootings

3:  Winter J.  After the Nashville shooting a faithless remedy for gun violence. New Yorker.  Amrch 29, 2023:  https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/after-the-nashville-school-shooting-a-faithless-remedy-for-gun-violence

4:  Steel Z, Marnane C, Iranpour C, Chey T, Jackson JW, Patel V, Silove D. The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980-2013. Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;43(2):476-93. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu038. Epub 2014 Mar 19. PMID: 24648481; PMCID: PMC3997379.

5:  Goldner EM, Hsu L, Waraich P, Somers JM. Prevalence and incidence studies of schizophrenic disorders: a systematic review of the literature. Can J Psychiatry. 2002 Nov;47(9):833-43. doi: 10.1177/070674370204700904. PMID: 12500753.

6:  Waraich P, Goldner EM, Somers JM, Hsu L. Prevalence and incidence studies of mood disorders: a systematic review of the literature. Can J Psychiatry. 2004 Feb;49(2):124-38. doi: 10.1177/070674370404900208. PMID: 15065747.

7:  Tardiff K, Marzuk PM, Leon AC. Role of antidepressants in murder and suicide. Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Jul;159(7):1248-9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.7.1248. PMID: 12091219.

8:  Malphurs JE, Eisdorfer C, Cohen D. A comparison of antecedents of homicide-suicide and suicide in older married men. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2001 Winter;9(1):49-57. PMID: 11156752.

9:  Silva JR. Global mass shootings: Comparing the United States against developed and developing countries. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. 2022 Mar 21:1-24.

10: Treatment Advocacy Center.  Serious Mental Illness and Mass Homicide. June 2018,  https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/key-issues/violence/3626-serious-mental-illness-and-mass-homicide

11:  Stone, M. F. (2015). Mass murder, mental illness, and men. Violence and Gender. 2015; 2, 51-86.

 

 

 

Another Note on Gun Extremism - An Appeal to Grandparents

 

I cannot let this latest incident slide by. A colleague posted this article yesterday about a 6-year-old boy who shot a teacher during an altercation inside of a Virginia school. At the time I am typing this the teacher was listed in critical condition. The way this incident is reported is bizarre for a guy whose K-12 years were 1956 to 1969. It has nothing to do with banning guns – but it has everything to do with gun extremism to the point that people get casual about guns. They either forget that children and young adults do not have the necessary judgment to responsibly handle guns or the adults themselves do not exercise adequate judgment and either allow their children to have access to guns or do not secure them at home. Using firearms to settle trivial or inappropriate disputes is a clear example of a lapse in judgement.

Let me paint the picture about what it was like in the 1950s and 1960s before we were deluged with gun demagogues. Many families in the remote area where I was raised hunted for food or sport. The hunting included deer, rabbits, ducks, geese, pheasants, and partridge.  I don’t have any statistics but if I had to speculate – the hunting families were in the minority.  Most families that did not hunt and had no firearms on the premises. The only exception might be World War II veterans with souvenir weapons – mostly not maintained and unloaded.  If you had friends from hunting families and there was a chance that you might go hunting or target shooting with them – you had to take an NRA (National Rifle Association) Hunter’s Safety course. Most people took that course when they were in middle school.  It was taught by a middle-aged guy I knew from church.  He presented the course in a very calm matter-of-fact manner and clearly outlined all of the dangers of firearms.  I recall anecdotes about people being accidentally shot at home and injuries from the wrong ammunition being used in the wrong gun.  Rule number 1 was "never point a gun at anybody - even if you think it is not loaded."  We all fired air rifles and .22 caliber rifles at indoor ranges in his basement and at a larger range in the basement of a retail store downtown.  All guns had to be pointed downrange at all times away from the shooters.  Nobody fired a handgun, because you had to be 21 years of age to do that and we were all 12 or 13.

There were no political or marketing movements focused on firearms at the time.  We had to be NRA members to take the course. As long as you were an NRA member you got a monthly copy of their publication the American Rifleman.  The centerfold for that magazine was a long list of “sporterized” military rifles that could be purchased at a low price. I recall many days pouring over that list and thinking about what kind of rifle I would buy when I was old enough.  I never did buy that rifle.

The other incentives to stay engaged with the gun community was getting ratings based on your marksmanship. If you could demonstrate certain scores on targets you would qualify for small military style medals saying that you were an Expert or Distinguished Marksman. Like most skills, it took a little practice (but not that much) to become proficient in shooting. Contrary to some stories that you read today about hunters and school – nobody ever brought a gun to school. There were no Second Amendment discussions and no suggestion that the training had to do with militias. The result was that there was a small group of middle school kids who had taken a safety course focused on handling firearms while hunting.

That did not mean there were no firearm related deaths in my small community. During those early school years there were 2 suicides and a hunting accident, all involving kids who I knew.  Firearms are never completely safe even with limited access and training.

Back to the article – let me examine two direct quotes starting with:

“Experts said a school shooting involving a 6-year-old is extremely rare, although not unheard of, while Virginia law limits the ways in which a child that age can be punished for such a crime.”

Extremely rare but not unheard of is quite an introduction.  Within the space of 2 generations, we have gone from unheard of to rare but not unheard of. Without being an expert on Virginia law my speculation is that any legal decision about culpability and punishment is based on the capacity of a child to formulate a plan and rationally decide to shoot someone.  The irony here is that you can watch true crime television and see the same problem in all of the 20+ year old men who impulsively commit gun homicide. There are no reasons for these homicides.  They all seem to occur during trivial arguments where somebody gets angry and starts shooting.  The problem, is depending on the judgement of children and immature adults and the solution is not providing them access to firearms.

“Today our students got a lesson in gun violence,” said George Parker III, Newport News schools superintendent, “and what guns can do to disrupt, not only an educational environment, but also a family, a community.”

Unfortunately – the students did not need this “lesson”. From the description they were all traumatized and school shootings are so common in the US, that they are continuously exposed to it. I would not be shocked to learn that many of the students and parents involved had been worrying about an event like this for a long time. The people who ignore this “lesson in gun violence” are all adults.  Many of them are in positions where they could make a difference but consistently fail to do so – or even make decisions that increase the likelihood of future incidents. In the case of politicians, you share responsibility by voting for gun extremists.

As a country are we so oblivious to gun extremism and gun violence that we continue to allow a political party and a politicized gun organization to compromise the safety of school children and teachers? My appeal today is to the grandparents out there – people of my generation. If you remember what the gun atmosphere was like when you were a kid – compare it to what is going on right now.  Were there kids in your first grade class getting into altercations with teachers?  Was there gunfire in primary school?  Do you recall routinely hearing about primary and high school students being shot and killed?  Were there military style high capacity firearms widely available?  Were there armed militias wearing body armor standing outside of your state capitol?  Did the musicians you listen to endorse a lifestyle that involved gun violence to settle minor disputes? Were there people suggesting that you needed to carry a gun around with you at all times for protection? Could you pick up a gun and carry it around with no training and/or no permit?  If you are a person of my generation - the answer to these questions is no.

That is the country we have become. And it is all due to one political party, their politicized allies in the community, and their judges in the Supreme Court drastically changing gun access and attitudes about firearms in the community.  Nobody is safe with these people in power. 

Be a single issue voter and vote the gun extremists out.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Supplementary 1:  Update on the incident that initiated this post.  Reports in the press today (1/9/2023) say the teacher was intentionally shot with a 9 mm handgun that the 6 year old took from his mother. There are conflicting reports that the teacher was trying to disarm the student when the shooting occurred.  She was shot though the hand and into the chest. She assured the safety of the rest of the students before seeking help for herself. The status of the handgun while all of that happened is unclear. She was reported as being in stable condition in a hospital.  The school is closed to give "students and families time to heal."

Supplementary 2:

Based on an initial response to this post let me be clear about the way to reign in gun fanaticism in the US.  To my knowledge no responsible person has ever suggested "grabbing guns" or "coming for your guns".  There are too many firearms in the United States for that or for gun "buy backs" to ever be practical. The gun grab argument was basically invented to create gun extremism.  Nobody was worried about it in the 1970s.

We are stuck with widespread gun availability and we need to keep them out of the hands of people who are likely to do the most damage.  Unfortunately that means a majority of people who would not fail either background checks or red flag laws. They are also probably more susceptible to the impulsive use of firearms not just for gun homicides but also gun suicides.  A good starting point would be:

1.  Universal background check - no state to state loopholes or private sale loopholes.

2.  Red flag laws - already incorporated broadly in the FBI NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database.  That would include people adjudicated by a court as being at high risk of harming themselves or others if they had firearms.  Red flag laws should depend only on a direct or indirect threat to harm with a firearm. Since there is a very serious bomb hoax statute - an actual threat to an individual or a facility should be taken at least as seriously.  The standard should ne a threat to use a firearm and not having to provide the likelihood or using the firearm or potential dangerousness of the person making the threat.

3.  People with substance abuse disorders or mental illnesses at high risk for violence to self or others.  That should include a permanent ban on firearm acquisition where determined by a court.

4.  People with a history of actual violence to self or others. 

5.  Additional factors per the NICS system.

6.  Serious discussion is needed about the permit less system that is now in place in many states. A practical law would be to prohibit assault weapon sales, high capacity magazine sales, and increase the age for handgun purchases to 25+.  But now that there has been a lifting of the moratorium on gun violence research the research on gun violence in this age group and what kind of firearm is being used will make these conclusions obvious.  

7.  Stop encouraging legal gun violence. Stand your ground laws, permit less carry, and widespread access make guns available for dispute resolutions that do not require lethal violence. 

8:  Waiting periods for gun purchases. I have had too many people tell me that a waiting period saved them when they had transient thoughts of self harm.

Supplementary 3:  The easy access to firearms by everybody who want them is based on many false premises.  Here are a few:

1.  Do you really want everybody on the street to carry a firearm? Or do you only want a few special people to be carrying these firearms?   The assumptions here are obvious.  Only the good guys or maybe the masculine guys should be carrying guns. How do we determine who those people are?  Is it sex or gender based?  Or maybe it should depend on race?  Is there a box you can tick to just get a gun. Maybe this is why the gun extremists eliminated all of the boxes.  Thinking through that problem is just too hard.

2.  Maybe the gun extremists really mean that everyone should carry a gun. In that scenario it is fairly predictable that more and more minor disputes and arguments will be settled by gun violence. We have seen that happen in many national cases already and it obviously happens on true crime TV.  Even the Sheriffs in western towns in the 19th century saw this as a problem and had people coming into towns check their guns. (see Tombstone statute from 1851)

3.  There is an assumption that gun owners, especially concealed carry owners are supermen (or superwomen) who never make a fatal mistake with a gun, never get in an argument where they might threaten somebody with a gun, know where their gun is at all times, and never accidentally shoot themselves. We know from the data that none of that is true and we can see recordings of real time incidents on television that illustrate this fact including the news report that lead to this post.

References:

1:  Finley B, Barakat M. Police: 6-year-old shoots teacher in Virginia classroom.  Associated Press.  Fri, January 6, 2023 at 2:20 PM CST  Link

2:  American Progress.  Fact Sheet: Weakening Requirements to Carry a Concealed Firearm Increases Violent Crime.  October 4, 2022. Link

Graphics Credit:

Photo of the Polychrome Mountains that I shot in Alaska.

Gun Extremism Not Mental Illness

With the most recent school shooting in Uvalde, Texas the familiar repetition persists. There is public outcry to do something.  Many commentators make the comparison to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting a decade ago that produced public outcry but no effective response.  In fact, since Sandy Hook there have been 266 additional incidents of school shootings. Member of the pro-gun party have already spoken out and it is clear that their position of supporting gun ownership at all costs is essentially unchanged. That includes access to military grade weapons and high capacity weapons, with minimum and in many cases no regulations.  We keep hearing about all of the polls of “responsible gun owners” who support more reasonable regulation of firearms and more reasonable firearms – but they are generally drowned out by the aggressive tactics of the gun extremism faction.

Before going any further, I will provide my assessment of gun extremism. It is based on my personal observation about how guns have essentially been radicalized over the past 50 years.  When I was in middle school in the early 1960s living in a small town in northern Wisconsin, gun ownership by adults was common.  That gun ownership was focused on hunting seasons – primarily water fowl and deer hunting.  Middle schoolers took the NRA Hunter safety course in order to be able to handle firearms and hunt. Gun safety was taught primarily with the use of lectures and pamphlets. I can still recall some of the passages in the pamphlet with captions like “alcohol and gunpowder don’t mix” and a page with suggestions about what a safe target was. There was no explanation about why a crow is a safe target. The practical side of the training was with BB guns and then a .22 caliber rifle. Even though the common deer hunting rifles at the time were larger calibers like 30.06 there was no training with those guns. There was a competition series based on accuracy and most people in the class were eventually awarded Distinguished Marksman if they practiced and submitted enough targets. Memberships in the NRA was required and for $18.00/year – you got the National Rifleman magazine sent to your home every month.  The centerfold of that magazine was an array of inexpensive rifles, often “sporterized” surplus rifles from WWII.  They typically held 5 cartridges and could be used for hunting.

But like most kids taking the course. I never went hunting or acquired any additional firearms. My family was not a family of hunters and we did not have a typical cabin in the woods where everybody gathered during hunting season. The course was taught by an instructor who had been doing it for years. His overriding message was that guns had to be taken very seriously. In fact, one of the prerequisites for taking the course was that students had to vow never to “play” at guns again. That involved never pointing a gun at a person, even accidentally on the gun range. He described a number of incidents where people were accidentally shot by relatives to emphasize that point.  We all took it very seriously and there were no close calls in the class. There was no emphasis on “gun rights”, the need for self-protection, or the Second Amendment.  Handguns were not discussed because they were not used for hunting and you had to be 21 years of age to own one.  Gun rights was not an issue in any political campaign.

I don’t want to create the impression that the firearm situation was idyllic during my childhood.  Two classmates died by firearm suicide and one was killed in a hunting accident. I knew all three of them.

That is the backdrop against which gun extremism has evolved and it contains several elements.  First of all, politics. There are obvious contradictions when politicians say it is not a time for politics in the wake of the next mass shooting after they have passed laws that allow people to avoid background checks, carry military grade weapons with high capacity magazines, allow large purchased of ammunition, carry guns without permits, carry guns openly, and not have to “stand down” in confrontations – even when their opponent is not armed. That is all politics and if you are trying to deal with the aftermath pf a shooting – you are dealing with the aftermath of that politics especially if your politics facilitated that.

At a broader political level what has to be considered is how most polls show that Americans favor “common sense” gun laws – but the gun extremists continue to have their way.  In the decade following the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, nothing has been done at the federal level.  Even the most basic fix of eliminating loopholes in the background checks laws has been avoided. Even when a law has been passed in the House (HR8) that makes a few changes – to the background check law there is practically no chance that it will pass in the Senate, even though the Republicans in the Senate represent 44 million fewer people. This situation has been referred to as the tyranny of the minority or a highly motivated smaller group of people dictating in this case the laws of the nation. That tyranny is even more complicated by Republican appointed Supreme Court making decisions on both gun laws and probably abortion consistent with what the minority party wants. Demographically that comes down to white, rural, less college educated voters making the laws that in the case of guns carry out an extremist agenda.

What do I mean about gun extremism?  Basically, all of the interventions over the past two generations that have allowed lax background checks and registration, lowered minimum age to purchase handguns and high-capacity military grade weapons, the increased carrying of weapons (both concealed and open) in many cases without permits, and stand your ground laws that say there is no obligation to retreat in a confrontation – even in the case where one of the parties is unarmed. There is an associated lack of gun safety and that has clearly been a factor in accidental death of adolescents and teenagers, suicides, carrying firearms into schools, and even arming mass shooters. That lack of basic gun safety is a likely contributing factor to firearm deaths being the leading cause of death in children and adolescents (1). And finally, there is a constant stream of pro-gun rhetoric that routinely distorts those facts about gun availability and usefulness.   There is good evidence that this gun extremism began in the 1970 and 1980s and has been unabated since then. 

Since the school shooting in Uvalde, gun extremists jumped to the defense of permissive to non-existent gun laws.  They offered alternate explanations for the school shooting. Governor Abbot of Texas suggested the shooter had a “mental health challenge” since anyone who shoots someone does.  That is clearly not true.  Recent evidence from high profile media cases where a homicide occurred during a fight over a firearm are cases in point. The vast majority of homicides by firearms does not involve mental illness of any kind.  In carefully selected samples – probably biased because they are selected based on forensic criteria – only 10-25% of the sample is described as having a mental illness diagnosis (2,3).

If mental illness is not an explanation for a mass shooter or mass school shooter behavior what is more likely? Given the fact that this behavior has been going on for at least 2-3 generations at this point it likely represents a subcultural phenomenon.  Subcultures are cultural groups within a larger culture that hold beliefs at variance with the larger culture.  American culture in general is steeped in violence and crime largely through entertainment and news media outlets. There are well known violent subcultures in the United States including organized crime, gangs, domestic terrorists, and various hate groups that perpetrate violence against specific people.  These other crimes are frequently seen in the news. It is easy to ascribe some of the behaviors of these groups to individual psychopathology. You can see these efforts in many true crime television shows. Crime dramas are likely to emphasize profiling as a way that the crimes are solved. Practically all of these cases lack features that are typically seen with individual psychopathology. Instead, we hear about a profile of social factors and circumstances that are cited as motivations for the violence and aggression. Those factors are also not uniform explanations for all of the violence and aggression seen across all categories and typically are collected long after the commission of the crime and by people who seemingly have unlimited time to do that task.  A good example was a forensic psychiatrist giving a profile of the Uvalde, Texas shooter describing him as a marginalized loner who had been bullied in the past and pointing out that many shooters have this profile but only a small number of people with the profile ever engage in firearm violence.

I think it is highly likely that the mass shooter and mass school shooter have become a meme that is passed in this subculture of primarily men or boys who feel that they have been victimized and they begin to see this as acceptable payback for their perceived victimization.  It is subculturally acceptable even though it produces outrage and is completely unacceptable in the larger culture and that is why the questions about “motivation” always go unanswered. Firearms and secrecy are obviously a big part of this meme and the way it is typically enacted. Gun extremism makes it much easier to enact.  In analyzing these situations, the usual starting point is where the individual perpetrator has gone wrong.  From the perspective of an alienated subculture these people and those who identify with them consider what they are doing to be correct for various reasons and more importantly widely accepted in that subculture (7). There are many reports that these subcultures are reinforced and more accessible through social media sites where manifestos, threats, time lines, and in some cases photos and recordings of the violence are posted.

In addition to the subcultural effects, important developmental effects are seldom considered.  In the past 20 years development and brain maturation has been the object of increasing neuroscience scrutiny and in addition to structural brain changes – correlations with culture, socioeconomic class, and social network/peer environment have also been investigated. In an excellent review of this topic Foulkes and Blakemore (3) point out that averaging of large samples has been used so far to get to statistical significance – but they discuss the benefits of looking beyond the averages at the total variation of normal brain development. They illustrate significant variation in the brain volume of subcortical grey matter structures over the course of ages 7 to 23.3.  I think it is generally accepted that brain maturation by these indices is not complete until mid-20s for most people, but the graphs also suggest that there may be quite a lot of variation even at that point. Beyond that they discuss several aspects of cognition and social cognition that develop in the transition from adolescence to adulthood including reasoning, risk perception, risk taking, the varied effects of social exclusion, and the use of others’ perceptions in decision making. They demonstrate what appear to be specific cultural, socioeconomic and peer effects and discuss the neuroscience correlates where they are known.  An analysis of mass shooters at this level of detail may provide better answers in terms of prevention.

What can be done to interrupt this cycle of school and mass shooter violence? Plenty can be done.  A basic time-tested public health intervention is to remove the means for perpetrating the violence and injury. This has worked in the case of suicide prevention by specific methods as well as preventing gun violence.  In a previous post, I pointed out that Tombstone had an ordinance in 1881 forbidding the carrying of deadly weapons within the city. This was a time commonly referred to as the Wild West (1865-1895).  This period is typically idealized by movies like Gunfight at the OK Corral. That was a 30 second gunfight between three Earp brothers and Doc Holiday and 5 cowboys that occurred in 1881.  One of the precipitants of that gunfight was violation of the city ordinance about carrying deadly weapons. Contrary to most accounts – both Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday were arrested and charged with murder.  They were released after a three-day probable cause hearing. Even during America’s Wild West days, people knew that removing deadly weapons would lead to less violence.

In many ways American streets are less protected from gun violence than they were in Tombstone in 1881.  All 50 states allow people to carry handguns.  Twenty-four states require no permit to carry a firearm.  Federal law requires a handgun holder to be 18 years of age and 21 years of age to purchase a handgun. There are currently 21 million concealed carry permit holders in the US.   There is no minimum age for possessing a rifle or a shotgun.  There was a ten-year ban on assault rifles at the federal level from 1994-2004.  The ban grandfathered in all assault weapons before 1994 and there were also many other qualifications that decreased the overall impact of the bill.  Despite these limitations the ban may have decreased the frequency of mass shootings when it was in effect. (6).  Considering that there are 258.3 million Americans over the age of 18, the manufacture and importation of firearms is brisk to say the least as well as the concentration of handguns. (Click to expand the graphic)

Concluding this post, the most clearcut path to reducing gun violence of all kinds is to improve gun regulation.  The evidence is clearly there in terms of reductions in suicides, homicides and accidental deaths. The idea that gun regulation has no effect on gun deaths or that the Second Amendment is a sacred clause that mandates gun extremism is pure misinformation.  Even as I typed this post today, the Prime Minister of Canada announced stricter handgun regulations in the interest of safety.  There is absolutely no reason that high-capacity military grade weapons are necessary in society and there are many groups of responsible gun owners who openly acknowledge that fact.

Gun extremists’ additional rhetoric about how mental illness is the real problem rather than gun access is also incorrect.  Mental illness is not defined by homicide, but by constellations of findings and associated disability. There are general developmental, socioeconomic, cultural and subcultural trends associated with violence and aggression – but none are precise enough to allow for predictions of who will likely perpetrate mass homicide.  It will take continued large longitudinal studies to examine all of these factors close enough to produce an effective population wide intervention. One of my suggestions since I started writing this blog is explicit homicide prevention.  You won’t be able to find that is a book or research paper – it is based on my experience in acute care psychiatry. In that context, I encountered many people with acute homicidal thinking who ended up on my inpatient unit.  Irrespective of any psychiatric diagnosis, we were able to help them resolve that crisis.  Before the rationed mental health system takes on another significant task, it has to be adequately funded.  And beyond the mental health system – social services are required to address many of the factors associated with violence and aggression.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

 

References:

 

1:  Goldstick JE, Cunningham RM, Carter PM. Current Causes of Death in Children and Adolescents in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2022 May 19;386(20):1955-1956. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2201761. Epub 2022 Apr 20. PMID: 35443104.

2:  Stone MH. Mass murder, mental illness, and men. Violence and Gender. 2015 Mar 1;2(1): 51-86.

3:  Hall RCW, Friedman SH, Sorrentino R, Lapchenko M, Marcus A, Ellis R. The myth of school shooters and psychotropic medications. Behav Sci Law. 2019 Sep;37(5):540-558. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2429. Epub 2019 Sep 12. PMID: 31513302.

4:  Firearms Commerce Report in the United States: Accessed 05.29.2022:  https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/2021-firearms-commerce-report/download

5:  Foulkes L, Blakemore SJ. Studying individual differences in human adolescent brain development. Nature Neuroscience. 2018 Mar;21(3):315-23.

6:   DiMaggio C, Avraham J, Berry C, Bukur M, Feldman J, Klein M, Shah N, Tandon M, Frangos S. Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019 Jan;86(1):11-19. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002060. PMID: 30188421.

7: Simon Cottee (2021) Incel (E)motives: Resentment, Shame and Revenge, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 44:2, 93-114, DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2020.1822589

8: Rostron A. The Dickey Amendment on Federal Funding for Research on Gun Violence: A Legal Dissection. Am J Public Health. 2018 Jul;108(7):865-867. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304450. PMID: 29874513; PMCID: PMC5993413

9:  Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, Cottey TJ. Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia. N Engl J Med. 1991 Dec 5;325(23):1615-20. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199112053252305. PMID: 1669841.

Graphics Credit:

Photo by Ed Colon, MD

.