Close

Mental Illness and Gun Violence

by Jeffrey Rubin, PhD

Welcome to From Insults to Respect.

As my fingers tap out this post, I find myself mourning yet another mass shooting. My troubled heart goes out to folks young and old who must live for the rest of their lives with the images of the carnage they so innocently faced.

Whenever such incidences occur, we hear people connecting the horrendous murderous acts to people who have been classified as having a mental illness. For example, at one point, Paul Ryan, the former speaker of the House, announced, “People with mental illness are getting guns and committing these mass shootings.” Such statements connect in the minds of the public the notion that people who have been labelled mentally ill are dangerous, thereby promoting the stigmatizing of a group of people, the vast majority of whom are no more violent than average citizens.

?

For those who are interested in a scientific analysis of possible connections between mental illness and violence, I recommend “Mental illness and Reduction of Gun Violence and Suicide: Bringing Epidemiologic Research to policy” (see HERE). Its major conclusion is that the large majority of people viewed by mental health professionals as having a mental disorder do not engage in violence against others, and that most violent behavior is due to factors other than mental illness.

Now, to be sure, some studies have reported a statistically significant but fairly modest positive association between violence and mental illness. However, this apparent connection, when we look carefully at the data, suggests that this association is likely to be misleading.

Clarifying the Relationship Between the Statistical Findings

The first thing to keep in mind is that the notion of mental illness is a lot more vague than many mental health professionals would like you to believe. People facing the complexity of their existence will often become concerned about how they are feeling or acting for an incredible variety of reasons. When they seek some support from a mental health professional, in order to access this support their concerns must be converted into mental illness terminology. Without being labelled, no services. It just so happens that because the descriptors needed to classify someone as mentally ill are so vague, pretty much anyone seeking mental health services won’t be turned away as long as they can either afford the cost for the services or that they have some insurance policy that covers mental health services.

Keeping in mind how vague the notion of mental illness is and the incredible variety of concerns that people seek mental health services, note that there is a whole additional group of people who get labelled as mentally ill. This group of people are adolescents who are acting out violently and therefore are referred to mental health services by teachers and parents. Once these adolescents are referred, they too, in order to access services, are labelled as having one mental illness or another.

In one series of studies we find that violence involvement during adolescence is also a potent risk factor for ongoing violence involvement well into young adulthood (; ; ). So, when violent acting adolescents get labelled as having a mental illness, it is not because they clearly meet any of the vaguely worded criteria for a mental illness classification, but rather because it is a requirement of the bureaucracy to access services. This violence prone group is then added in statistical analyses to the larger group of people who make up all those who are labelled mentally ill. When analyses combine those who are labelled as mentally ill for all reasons with the subgroup of those who are already displaying violent behavior, it leads to a statistically significant finding between mental illness and violence. There are a host of reasons why someone is violent, such as having parents who display violent behavior, living in communities where violence is all around, etc. Rather than attributing the vague notion of “mental illness” as the reason of such violent conduct, we would be better off identifying its specific causes.

Here’s another reason for the misleading statistical correlation between those who are labelled mentally ill and violence. People who have been labelled mentally ill come from a full range of social and economic conditions. At the same time, such labelled people are somewhat more likely to be exposed to social and economic risk factors such as poverty, crime victimization, involvement with illegal drugs and drug markets, early life trauma exposure, and ambient neighborhood crime. Perhaps it is this exposure, rather than the vague notion of mental illness, that leads to the statistical increased risk of violence among mentally ill labelled people. Examining this possibility, Swanson et al. (see HERE) published a study on the prevalence and correlates of interpersonal violent behavior in a five-state pooled sample of 802 adult psychiatric outpatients with serious mental illness who were receiving services in the states’ public behavioral health care systems. The study compared 3 groups of individuals.

Group 1: Individuals in this group had been labelled mentally ill and also came from a very low social capital situation—mostly unemployed, economically impoverished, typically residing in disadvantaged neighborhoods, often misusing alcohol and illicit drugs, and reporting alarmingly high rates of trauma and violent victimization over their life course.

Group 2: This group’s members were participants in the study who merely had a diagnosis of serious mental illness but did not have a history of violent victimization, were not exposed to neighborhood violence, and were not abusing drugs or alcohol.

Group 3: This group’s members were individuals who were representative of the general population.

The results indicate that those in Group 1 (mentally ill plus low social capital situations) had a higher rate of violence than those in Group 3 (those individuals typical of the general population). Meanwhile, Group 2 members (mentally ill but no history of low social capital situations had annual rates of violent behavior that were no different from those in Group 3 (the general population group).

Thus, these findings suggest that it is not the vague “thing” we call mental illness that is the cause of the increased rates of violent behavior, but rather being exposed to low social capital situations. Said another way, more people who have been exposed to low social capital situations tend to get a mental illness label than people in general. When this low social capital situation group is combined in statistical analyses with everyone who has a mental illness label, it gives the appearance that it is the mental illness condition causing the increase in rates of violence. In actuality, it really is the exposure to low social capital situations that is the cause for the increased rates of violence.

Here’s a third argument that it is not “mental illness” that is the cause for the statistical increase in violence. Perhaps the statistical finding is due to the psychiatric drugs that people labelled mentally ill often take. To be sure, most people who take psychiatric drugs do not become violent. However, a number of writers have pointed to the evidence that one of the recognized side effects of taking these drugs is an increased risk of violent behavior (as examples see HERE and HERE). Moreover, it has been reported that many of those who shot up schools were on psychiatric drugs, including this most recent case (see HERE).

Conclusion

The mental illness explanation for the school atrocities is far too simplistic, unfairly stigmatizes an enormous number of nonviolent individuals, and diverts our attention from coming to understand the real factors that are involved.

———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Nobody Hurts You Harder Than Yourself
Do Antidepressants Worsen Depression?

About the Author

Jeffrey Rubin grew up in Brooklyn and received his PhD from the University of Minnesota. In his earlier life, he worked in clinical settings, schools, and a juvenile correctional facility. More recently, he authored three novels, A Hero Grows in Brooklyn, Fights in the Streets, Tears in the Sand, and Love, Sex, and Respect (information about these novels can be found at http://www.frominsultstorespect.com/novels/). Currently, he writes a blog titled “From Insults to Respect” that features suggestions for working through conflict, dealing with anger, and supporting respectful relationships.

17 Comments

  1. David Harold Chester says:

    Why should anybody other than a soldier or public safety officer need a weapon that shoots bullets automatically at a high rate and kills? There should be no public sale of such lethal weapons and even semi-automatic guns are a disgrace to the concept of self-defense people who have no confidence in the second amendment which was written and intended for use for single-shot guns.

    • Dr. Jeffrey Rubin says:

      Hi David,
      I think there is much merit to your position. You mentioned in your comment that the 2nd amendment was written for use for single-shot guns. It just so happens that I visited a national fort museum a couple of days ago and I saw first hand the arduous process of loading and firing the guns that were available when the amendment was approved. There is no proper equating those types of weapons to automatic or semi automatic weapons .

      • Agreed, Jeffrey, however if the power differential between government and the population gets to large, it is inevitable that either the people will suffer extreme oppression or a civil war would occur. Have you seen the destructive tools of war that the US government has?

        It is also very important to recognize people’s right to defend from tyranny especially psychiatric torture.

        I advocate against hurting innocent people, children or adults. I do not and will not advocate against peoples right to defend their life with extreme measures, because psychiatric torture is most certainly extreme and therefore it is self defence.

        Vulberable people (school kids) suffer when we choose psychiatry. When we choose to cover up our problems and our hurting of others, the energy and hurt will find a way to get out, then vulnerable people are destroyed.

        Other than trauma not related to torture and involuntary chemical/electrical alterations, trauma that is created by cruel and unusual psychiatric procedures is the biggest cause of dead school children.

  2. Jeffrey, you as a psychologist just as I am, know that professionals in our field use the descriptive categories of the DSM to differentiate different types of psychological experiences. Professionals in our field do not use the word “illness”, we use the term disorder and understand it is a descriptive term, not a medical diagnosis.
    Using the word illness is in accurate and distracts from the issue of mental health, or psychological well-being.

    • Dr. Jeffrey Rubin says:

      Hi Dr Paul Murray,
      Although there is some truth in what you say, I have often heard professionals in our field use the term “illness” and even make the case that mental disorders are real illnesses.

    • And your not addressing we the victims of psychiatric torture who suffered the unimaginable at the hands of “mental health” is very telling…

  3. Dear Dr. Murry:
    Are you really going to discount Dr. Rubin’s entire article over using terminology that you don’t agree with? Sir, I have a mental illness and not a disorder and calling my manic depression manic depression is far more descriptive and understandable than the truly idiotic terminology of Bipolar I and Bipolar II disorders. Nobody knows the difference between the two unless the person has one or the other. Just ask anyone who isn’t afflicted with your Bipolar I or II “disorders.” The article was about mentally ill people being labelled as gun-toting, loose cannons who could go off at any time. You are just one more psychologist with nothing much to say so please do not correct Dr. Rubin’s accurate nomenclature for what I have and many thanks to you, Dr. Rubin, for writing this article that backs up with statistics who is at risk for being potentially dangerous and what the causes are that go into making someone turn into a gun-toting, loose cannon who could go off at any time. People with my mental illness do not kill other people as a rule. We just kill ourselves. Ask Robin Williams, Carrie Fisher, Richard Pryor, etc., etc., ad naseum. Maybe you can tell your colleague, Dr. Murray, that inaccurate is one word. It might help me from becoming distracted when reading what he says because, the issue is one of my mental health and my psychological well-being and every psychologist knows or SHOULD know that we manic depressives get busy in our heads frequently. Thanks again, Dr. Rubin!

    • Roald Michel says:

      During WW I, soldiers diagnosed by the experts of that time with shell shock would now get to hear they were suffering from PTSD.

      Not calling things by their names, soften stuff up, and making it less comprehensible, became quite trendy in Therapyland.

      Um…….to be fair, not only in that area, though. I once worked on a farm as a farm hand. Nowadays I would be called an agriculture assistant, while our maid would go around as a cleaning technician.

      • Thank you, Roald Michel, for your insightful observations about labeling some things just for accuracy’s sake. How true that not calling things by their right names softens things up or muddies things up so severely that people claim to have “Bipolar Disorder,” but “I don’t have that other thing that you have.” The principal meant she has the trendy bipolar disorder that Catherine Zeta-Jones has but not my “sad and totally unfun” manic depression. If you do not have direct experience with manic depression then chances are you do not know the difference between Bipolar I and Bipolar II so, not only did these two meaningless terms “soften” the blow, it took the very severity of the illness out of the illness. Manic depressive people are more at risk for killing themselves than ever taking a gun and shooting anybody else. To be fair to Don Karp, we DO ISOLATE OURSELVES from the general population because we need to keep ourselves in check and safe and, “Nobody likes a party pooper.” Believe me, I spent fourteen years being “requested” at people’s parties just to keep them all laughing because manic people can be the most entertaining people and we do this to keep people away from us. I am a teacher. I am not a police officer. I do not ever want to have to carry a weapon because they scare me and they kill people.

    • How do you feel about the fact that using the false construct “mental illness” in public leads to more support for MH and psychiatry and LESS chance that victims of psychiatric torture will get free from mental healths cruel and unusual treatment?

      I’m being diplomatic and fair. If you feel shame, I won’t add to it. Thank you.

  4. Don Karp says:

    FYI:
    Here’s a Facebook group called “Drop the Disorder,” composed of 7, 500 people, a mix of professionals and those with lived experience: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1182483948461309/
    Personally, I prefer to hear people’s experiences instead of knowing their label.

  5. Don Karp says:

    I liked the article and hope it gets out to the many ignorant people brainwashed by the media and Big Pharma.

    As a person with lived experience, I feel that most people with mental problems are very shy and inward about them, and totally absorbed by them. These people are not apt to, in my mind, go out to do violence. They hide in a corner.

  6. Don Karp says:

    “I don’t use language like “stigma.” I talk about prejudice, discrimination, and oppression, because that’s really what it is in the end.”
    —Sera Davididow,
    founder of the W.Mass. Recovery Learning Community

Write Your Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>