Another
day, another mass killing at a school. This time Nashville.
But unfortunately and predictably there will be another mass shooting. Predictably there will be the same polarized political debate that results in a policy stalemate. And predictably the debate around guns will center on the usual stereotypes and myths that continue to confront mass killings in America.
The
NRA will trot out that the problem is not too many guns or the type of
guns but that there are not enough in the right hands. It will join a US
Supreme Court in contending that the Constitution protects our right to possess
guns (especially handguns) in our homes and perhaps on the streets for
self-defense. Progressives will demand new gun control legislation, calling for
bans on assault weapons, purchase delays, and background checks. Across
these debates facts take a backseat to myths.
Social
science research can both inform and muddle the debate on guns in America
and reinforce and dispel the myths or pop culture views informing what our
policy responses and options should be. Let’s use good research
here. What do we know?
The
Problem of Mass Killings
Mass millings such as what happened in Louisville are tragic. But mass
shootings pale in comparison to other forms of gun violence.
Mother Jones maintains
a database on mass killings, defined as four or more individuals killed in a
public place. They began assembling the database in 1982 and updated to
Louisville. During that 41-year period there have been 1101 killed,
another 1885 wounded. Of the 141 incidents, 22 are school-related.
Sixty-six of the assailants had some history of mental illness.
Finally 99 of the incidents involved weapons labeled as semiautomatic and seven
as assault.
Gun
Deaths in America
Let’s do some comparisons.
According the Center for Disease Control, in 2020, there were 24,292 suicides that involved guns.
In one year there were 22 times more suicides with guns compared to mass
killings in America in 41 years.
Alternatively, the Gun Violence Archive focus
on four or more shootings, even if no one dies. Since 2013 they calculate
144 mass shootings with total dead and wounded as 7,740. One
year of gun-related suicides is still more than 3.1 times the number of
mass shooting injuries in ten-year period.
Handguns are the gun of choice for 69%
for males and 88% of time for females when committing suicide. In
crimes, among the approximately 19,400 homicides in America in 2020,
about 57% were probably with handguns.
Simply put, of the 45,222 gun deaths in America in 2020, less than one-percent
were mass shootings that took place with assault-type or semi-automatic
weapons.
Finally, there is little evidence that guns are used
for self-defense and instead are more likely to be
used against another member of a household or for suicide that to thwart
an intruder.
All gun violence is bad, but mass shootings with assault guns pale in
comparison to hand gun suicides and other forms of homicide. If we really
wanted to affect gun violence in America we would be better served targeting
resources on handguns and addressing the issues of suicide and the reasons why
people kill in general.
The
Myth of the Mentally Ill
The Mother Jones database alone should dispel the mentally-ill bias.
Sixty-six of the approximately 141 shooters had a history of mental
illness, 17 did not, the remainder is indeterminate. Given these
statistics, there is nonetheless a belief that mental illness is connected to
mass shootings. Yes, that is partially true, but this does not provide a
complete picture of the connection between mental illness and gun violence.
Based
on mass shooter research, there is a profile that such individuals are mentally
ill and therefore we need to screen for this when it comes to access to
guns. Additionally, in seeking to craft a profile of a mass
shooter, studies seek to look at other variables, such as perhaps childhood
trauma, unstable family structure, stress, or neighborhood
characteristics. There are problems in making these claims.
The
first is a problem of reverse engineering. By that, we do case studies of
mass shooters and create a profile of who they are. The goal here is to
develop a screen and identify possible future shooters.
Reverse
engineering here is dangerous. What counts as trauma or unstable family
structure, for example, is not well defined. With that, moving from
saying all mass shooters had X traits runs the same risks of stereotyping as do
other forms of profiling. Profiling originated in efforts to predict who would
hijack airplanes in the 1970s to eventually racially profiling and auto stops
in the 1990s and then Muslim profiling after 9/11.
Not
everyone who has a mental illness is violent or dangerous. The National Institute of Health estimates
that in 2021 57.8 million adults in the US have some form of a mental
illness. At most, only a small fraction are violent.
The American Psychological Association notes
that if a person has a mental illness there may be other risk factors that are
associated with violence, but mental illness alone is a poor predictor of
violence. Of those with a severe mental illness, 2.9% had committed a
previous act of violence within the past four years compared to 0.8% for the
general population. Note the emphasis on severe mental illness, not all
forms of mental illness. For all individuals with all forms of mental
health issues, barely one-percent are violent—about the same rate as the
general population.
Moreover,
a better risk factor tied into violence, according to the APA, is substance abuse. The Center for Disease Control lists
many factors that lead to violent behavior, including substance abuse,
emotional problems, family, and neighborhood factors. But here is the problem,
not everyone who had childhood trauma, grew up in bad neighborhoods, or faces
stress is violent and becomes a mass shooter. In fact, the
vast majority of these individuals do not exhibit this behavior.
Using
case studies with small samples to determine the profile of mass shooters and
then making that a predictive tool to inform public policy is highly problematic.
It is not the problem of the ecological fallacy—extrapolating general
population characteristics to make claims about individuals—but instead the
atomistic fallacy of making incorrect assumptions about a population based on
the traits of some individuals. This is an inductive problem of rendering
false generalizations. It is also the classic mistake of confusing
correlation with causation. Mental illness may appear to correlate with
mass shooters, but bad sampling and faulty assumptions render bad
social science and predictions. It is using anecdotal and low number case
studies to render broader conclusions.
Conclusion
There are several conclusions. Mass shootings are a problem but
relatively insignificant in terms of gun violence. Handguns are a far
bigger problem than assault weapons. Using mental illness as a predictor
of gun violence or mass shooter profiles is under and over-inclusive of
who commits such violence, and the same may be said of other forms of
profiling. At best we may have some factors that are associated with gun
violence, but using them as a predictive screen is at best porous.
Contrary to Second Amendment defenders, we probably need to
address the issue of handgun availability because simply relying on profiles
will not address overall gun violence in America. And contrary to those
who focus on assault weapons in mass killings, this fails to capture the
broader and more significant problem of
gun violence in America and who commits
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment