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 Times They Are A-Changin’ – or Are they?

I was walking around last week at dusk on a couple of nights. For the first time I decided to listen to some music as I walked. I would never do this if I was cycling because you need to hear the tire noise of approaching vehicles and I was using noise cancellation headphones tied into my music library. I also decided to use shuffle mode and that is also unusual – I typically repeat tracks until I get tired of them and that often takes a long time. For some reason, my phone kept playing Dylan songs. It reminded me of how I really did not like Dylan when I was young and listening to Hendrix and the Who. My interest peaked when he got the Noble Prize for Literature. It peaked again when I heard him interviewed and he talked about how easy it was to write music when he was younger. The music just seemed to flow and all he had to do was write it down. It was how mathematicians were described in Nasar’s biography of John Nash. Young mathematicians typically produced most of the ideas that advanced the field.

A lot of the songs were melancholy tunes about relationships gone bad.  Some were lessons in how not to be codependent. I was acutely aware of being an old man dressed in black listening to this music and free associating to similar events in my life from long ago. Before it got too maudlin - The Times They Are A-Changin’ came on:

Come gather 'round people

Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin'
And you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'

I could have sworn that what I heard walking around in the dark was a direct reference to the United States in that song. But looking it up later - it was not there. The song snapped me out of interpersonal reflection and into the current threat to American democracy.  For the past several days I had been responding to social media posts about the disconnect between what appears to be going on in national presidential politics and the reality of the situation. Just that day I responded to a poster questioning why Christians appear to be in lock step with a candidate who does not appear to have similar values and how Biden has done very well in the White House but seems to be struggling in the polls against a candidate with a known poor record who orchestrated an insurrection against the US government? A candidate who has been charged with 91 felonies. Even more mysteriously, the entire Republican party with rare exceptions is supporting Trump and most want his endorsement in local and state elections. How can a candidate with that many flaws still be in contention at this point and dominating a party that was originally abolitionist and got Lincoln elected as their first President before the start of the Civil War?  It does not make any sense and I will look at the hypotheticals below.  I tried to put as many as possible into the graphic at the head of this post – but only the coarsest details are possible:

1:  A general lack of critical thinking:

It has been a long time since I took a high school English class, but from what I recall even back in those days there was very little emphasis on rhetoric. Critical thinking generally involved the decoding the author’s intent, detection of symbolism and defending an opinion on a theme: “Do you find Lord of the Flies to be optimistic or pessimistic and why?”  Rhetoric was largely confined to debate teams that a small percentage of students participated in.

It has never been more important for the average citizen to be informed and aware of what might be rhetorical distortions. There used to be some level of assistance from professionally edited news, but that is no longer reliably available. Today it is possible to get all your news from a site that you agree with on ideological grounds – no matter how far from reality that site gets. Apart from these echo chambers on the Internet, the main street news offers minimal assistance.  You might find stories about the polarized electorate with no discussion of what that means or if one side is more polarized than the other.  Threats and overt violence were introduced into the political scene with no comment that this is almost an entirely right-wing phenomenon that is often tied in with gun rights and bragging about who owns the most guns. The right wing owns both moral and gun extremism in the US and yet there no criticism of this in mainstream media. Most importantly, political violence against specific groups should be unacceptable in the US and it is increasingly apparent.

2:  President Biden is too old: 

This seems to be a popular trope in both campaign propaganda and as material for comedians.  Bill Maher for example, will often detail the accomplishments of the Biden administration as being some of the most significant in decades only to incorporate polling questions about his age and conclude he should step down and let someone else run. No suggestions about who that should be and judging from the declared candidates there is no one of suitable name recognition or accomplishment who could run and expect to get support equal to Trump’s locked in MAGA constituency. If you look at my graphic – any candidate the Democrats advance will not have the amount of leverage with the voters based on the factors listed.

But backing up – is 80 years old – too old?  I saw President Biden on the bike and I saw him fall. It was clearly a mistake that people make when they are not used to toe clip pedals. The part that most people seem to ignore is that he got up with no problems. That is not the mark of a feeble old man and neither is the current schedule he has been keeping. More to the point – he has an awareness of how things need to run in the Executive Branch, how information needs to be managed, how consultation with staff is a critical function, and how to manage alliances.  There is minimal evidence that his predecessor has that level of awareness.  

There is certainly no current evidence that Biden cannot do the job given his list of accomplishments and some high-profile incidents – most notably his performance at the last State of the Union address. Ageism is certainly a prominent cultural bias in the US.  If I were a foreign actor wanting to manipulate the American electorate – I would use it, especially if I knew the opposition party could easily be convinced to use it.  The current group of Republicans could be expected to jump on it even though some of their members of Congress are older than Biden.

3:  The Republican base has been manipulated and brain washed by culture war tropes: 

This is undoubtedly a factor at some level.  I have written on this blog about how the GOP has become a party of gun and moral extremists – not out of some strict Constitutional interpretation or religious belief, but out of political expediency. It is easy to manufacture some ideological position to elicit emotional responses from some voters and get them to believe they are in a morally or Constitutionally superior position. Fortunately, that is not how democracy works but it is how the current crop of Republicans want it to work. In the meantime, public safety, education, and women’s health have all been compromised. On the day I am typing this a Constitutional Amendment for reproductive rights was passed in Ohio blocking attempts to pass restrictive abortion laws. Whether this can be a rallying point against moral extremism is an open question at this point.

4:  Fragmentation among Democrats: 

There is some concern that progressives within the party have gone too far in areas of social consciousness particularly social justice issues involving race and the LGBT community. The concern is amplified by the Republican’s rhetorical use of the term woke as a pejorative. That has allowed them to indiscriminately use the term to criticize health care, educational, social, and economic policies as being too woke (translation politically correct) and simultaneously suggest that most Americans would not find it to be acceptable. That can range from books in a high school library that were read by several older generations to college admission policies to protests about excessive use of force by the police.

The current war between Israel and Hamas is a similar flashpoint. One analysis suggests that progressives see the world though a simple lens of colonizers and victims. That has been spun into Israel starting a genocidal war in Gaza or even the US starting or backing such a war. In the most extreme case, social media was abuzz with young people supporting a letter allegedly written by a famous terrorist, blaming the United States for terrorist attacks. That has also led to protests and threats to Jewish college students in the United States. All of that misses the point that violence is being incited against US citizens who happen to be Jewish and that Hamas clearly started the war and clearly stated their ongoing goal is to destroy Israel and kill their citizens.

5:  Activation of far right white supremacist and antisemitic groups:  

There is no doubt that fringe groups that were essentially silenced for many years were activated during the Trump administration and actively support him. In my own neighborhood there was widespread dissemination of white supremacist literature for tens of miles in all directions.  That has never happened in the Midwest during my lifetime. Further investigation linked the same group spreading that literature to antisemitism.  Investigation by local officials and law enforcement did not identify the specific perpetrators and no charges were ever filed.

6:  Activation of antisemitism in younger generations: 

The facts are not disputed and various theories have been proposed. The history is forgotten explanation seems to have a lot of traction.  At least it seems to have garnered the most speculation. In other words, with less exposure to Holocaust survivors and the history of World War II, younger generations are unlikely to believe the actual historical events – a clearly documented genocide against the Jewish people. That seems to minimize any role of activated antisemitic hate groups and social media. Many of these groups are now at the point that they show up in public demonstrations and are attempting to recruit new members from suburban neighborhoods. The wave of antisemitism in the younger generation has had far reaching effects on college campuses, in some cases to the point that departments and administrations failed to condemn the recent terrorist attack against Israel or an obvious problem of antisemitism on their campuses. This generation uses TikTok as a preferred social media site. In a recent press release they described removing tens of thousands of antisemitic posts.  Just how long that posting has occurred is unknown.

I think it is also useful to recall that political violence directed at minority groups is a well-known tactic of fascist and totalitarian states.  In the early days of the Internet online discussions often became heated to the point that accusations of Naziism were often made.  This led to Godwin’s Rule or as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1.  That is basically nerd speak to say that analogies to Nazis based on Internet discussions is probably absurd. What I have seen lately suggests to me that we are beyond the absurd stage when people are injured and living in fear.  If it walks and talks  like a Nazi….

 7:  The social media propaganda machine:  

Social media seems to always be in the news. The common topic is how it is a malignant force in the lives of teenagers and children. There is concern that you can get “addicted” to rapidly scrolling and clicking on too many sites. People talk about the dopaminergic effects of this activity – like the neuroscience is known. Even though we had a foreign government actively interfering in the last Presidential election through social media and email hacks – nobody seems focused on that happening again. US Intelligence agencies predicted that it would happen again and it would probably be more vigorous than the last time. It is also more difficult to detect because the foreign actors are all using servers within the United States. Several agencies are responsible for detecting and monitoring this activity – but 1 year out none of them are reporting on what they see or what kind of misinformation is being posted. You don’t have to be a secret agent to think about who these foreign actors are. Russia was clearly involved in the last Presidential election and given the situation in Ukraine – they would clearly prefer Trump over Biden.  Putin has actively encouraged Russian hackers at all levels including those who steal money from average Americans.  Trump has made it clear that he would not support Ukraine and he clearly had a negative impact on NATO.  Biden has been able to reverse most of that damage and unify NATO.  Iran, China, and North Korea also have an interest in a Trump presidency.  These countries either have a direct interest in supporting Trump based on his probable policies or just weakening the US by more divisiveness in the electorate.

 8:  Uncritical voters:  

I heard Iowa voters asked about why they are voting for Trump and why he is so popular in their state.  I heard the following responses:

 “He is a businessman.”

 “He says what is on his mind.”

 “I don’t care what he has said or done – I am voting for him.”

These responses and his previous performance – all indicate that many Trump voters are not focused on any policy.  It would probably be difficult because most of the policies that Trump seems focused on at this point have to do with revenge against his perceived enemies.  That is typically a low bar – they are people who either disagree with him or want accountability.  That leads me to a previously stated conclusion I made that a lot of Trump’s base are nihilists who just want to burn the system down. It is difficult to find more nihilistic behavior than orchestrating an insurrection against the US government and refusing the peaceful transfer of power.

Given the above analysis – I think the negative sentiment about President Biden is primarily the product of foreign actors manipulating the American electorate. That also explains the disconnect between many of the demographic features of Trump voters and their candidate.

I do not want to put all of this on young voters.  There are clearly older voters who demonstrate similar levels of cluelessness, probably borne out of long-standing biases.  It is up to voters of all ages to not believe what you see in social media echo chambers, clear propaganda from hate groups, and similar attitudes that may have existed in your culture for generations. We cannot turn the United States over to a man and a party of extremists who have proven time again that they have no vision for the country or where it is headed. In Congress the Republican majority has clearly demonstrated that they cannot govern. We cannot be influenced by groups seeking to divide Americans and destroy the values that this country was founded on.

We all must start swimmin’ to save American democracy.

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

1:  Hotez, Peter. "On Antiscience and Antisemitism." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 66 no. 3, 2023, p. 420-436. Project MUSE, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2023.a902035.

2:  Scherer, Nancy & Miller, Banks. (2009). The Federalist Society's Influence on the Federal Judiciary. Political Research Quarterly - Polit Res Quart 62. 366-378. https://doi.org//10.1177/1065912908317030. 

Graphic Credit: I made this graphic 

Supplementary 1:  Why I wrote this post - this post is not an analysis of the psychiatric status of either candidate.  I am on record on this blog that the role of assessing the President's fitness to work in that office is supposed to be assumed by lay people working with him or her.  Many people working with Trump have provided scathing critiques of what they observed. I have not seen any from the Biden administration. 

This post was written basically as an exploration of how a candidate who seems so intellectually, emotionally, and temperamentally unfit for the office (as determined by multiple independent assessments by non-mental health professionals) has such a draw with the electorate. It seems mystifying until you look at the diagram and realize that more of the factors that leverage the electorate are stacked against Biden rather than Trump. In fact - replacing Biden in the graphic results in minimal gains. If I had to speculate on the biggest effect I would see it as all of the factors impinging on the social media on Trump's side.  

For the record, I am not a life long Democrat and in fact ran as an Independent in 2000 for the US Senate from Minnesota. As a life long skeptic of both major parties, that was an eye opening experience. I am currently highly motivated to write about political extremism that I see from Republicans and the fact that it is only getting worse.  Giving Trump the job again when we already know what happened the last time is a clear mistake.  Allowing the Republican Party to maintain a nongoverning, culture wars, nihilistic response is also a massive mistake for the Republic.   

 

Supplementary 2:

Will add some examples to highlight the graphic as the I see them on a day to day basis:

Taylor Lorenz - excellent example that I saw today on TMZ is this interview.  Before this the TMZ crew showed Biden's attempt at humor with a birthday cake and they continue this into the interview like he is trying to win young voters with jokes.  Ms. Lorenz of course jumps on the opportunity to point out that Biden has not been focused on what Millennials or Gen Z want.  She cites an example of student loan forgiveness was not a focus apparently forgetting that his $430B student loan forgiveness plan was shot down by the right wing Supreme Court.  All three justices appointed by Trump (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett) voted against the plan in a 6-3 vote (Biden v. Nebraska).  Instead she praises Trump for being "authentic."  With brilliant analyses like that Biden does not stand a chance. 

Adam Kinzinger - seems like a rare positive force in American politics today.  I saw him on Real Time with Bill Maher last week where he clearly stated that there was only one pro-democracy political party in the US and it was the Democrats. The former Republican Congressman clearly described why fanaticism is a negative coercive force in politics and that is why it needs to be eliminated. He also founded the Country First PAC as a way to distance himself from right wing extremists and conspiracy theories. 

Gen. Mark Milley - questioned about President Biden's performance by 60 minutes.

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.