The Danger (and Hypocrisy) of Blaming “Mental Health” for Gun Violence

Bad behavior is not the same as mental illness.

Jan 23, 2024

By: Tom Mauser

It’s common to hear gun rights activists largely blame America’s shameful level of gun violence on “mental health.” And many Americans agree with them. A 2013 national public opinion survey found that 46% of Americans believed that persons with serious mental illness were “far more dangerous than the general population.”[i]

But, according to the National Institutes of Health, “Evidence is clear that the large majority of people with mental disorders do not engage in violence against others, and that most violent behavior is due to factors other than mental illness,” such as drug and alcohol abuse.[ii]

The reality is that people with mental illness account for a very small proportion of perpetrators of mass shootings in the U.S., says Ragy Girgis, MD, associate professor of clinical psychiatry in the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry.[iii]

How small? Studies show that mental illness contributes to only about 4% of all violence, and the contribution to gun violence is even lower.[iv] In fact, many experts agree that people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

Even mass shooters, who might seem most likely to be driven by mental illness, don’t necessarily suffer from major psychiatric disorders. According to a report by the FBI, only 25% of mass shooters had a diagnosed mental illness.[v]

People with certain mental illnesses, notably schizophrenia and related psychoses, have a higher risk of committing violent crime than people without such illnesses do, but less than 1% are likely to commit a firearm-related offense.[vi]

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, mental illness alone is not a predictor of violence. The risk of violence is better characterized by behaviors than by mental health diagnoses.

So why, then, do so many Americans still believe that “mental health is the problem.” Well, people are often afraid of what they don't understand, and mental illness is probably the most widely misunderstood illness.

In simple terms, it can often play out in conversations like this after a tragic shooting:

Woman: “Why did that man do this terrible thing?”

Man: “Because he’s mentally ill.”

Woman: “And how do you know he’s mentally ill?”

Man: “Because he did this terrible thing.”

According to Dr. Girgis, “A lot of people who aren’t experts in mental illness tend to equate bad behavior, and often immorality, with mental illness. These are a false equivalence.”[vii] He goes on to emphasize that people should understand that bad behavior is not the same as mental illness.

Let’s keep in mind that mental illness in general is quite common in the U.S. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, approximately 20% of U.S. adults — 53 million people — met criteria in 2020 for at least one psychiatric diagnosis in the previous year, and nearly 6% — 14 million individuals — had a serious, impairing mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression.[viii]

But if so many people have some type of mental health diagnosis, and most of them are never violent, how can one reasonably argue that mental illness is a useful indicator of violence risk? Rather, there are likely behavioral factors that play a role.

Many of us would agree that any person who would shoot their spouse or coworker or commit a mass shooting is “not in their right mind,” disturbed, or “crazy” for doing so. But these descriptions are not mental illness diagnoses. Would any of us go for mental health treatment based merely on being “disgruntled?” Not likely.

Anger, aggression, jealousy, and bigotry are behaviors, not mental health diagnoses. More important, citizens of other developed nations also experience these behaviors — yet they don’t experience anywhere near our level of gun violence.

Associating mental illness with violence reinforces stigma and unwarranted fear of people with mental illness. Some people with mental health issues might choose to avoid seeking help for fear of being branded as dangerous. This is especially true for people with suicidal thoughts; not only are most firearm deaths suicides, but most suicides are causally linked to mental illness.[ix]

Ironically, by insisting that mental health is a major factor in America’s gun violence, gun apologists reveal the hypocrisy behind their wrongful finger pointing. After all, if they truly believe that mental health is a major factor, then there would be a number of preventive measures they should logically support.

Universal background checks should be at the top of their list. In the many states that do not have UBCs, a person who has been adjudicated as mentally disturbed, and therefore a prohibited purchaser, can easily buy a firearm from a private seller at a gun show, flea market, or online — with no background check. Their support for UBCs should be a no-brainer. But, no, most gun activists oppose UBCs.
Extreme Risk Protection Orders — also known as “red flag” laws — should also be high on their list. An ERPO allows a family member or law enforcement to request the courts to temporarily remove firearms from a person deemed to be a danger to themselves or others — a person in crisis. So often gun activists insist that gun laws should be aimed at dangerous people, not “law abiding gun owners.” Well, that’s what ERPO laws do, but, alas, once again, most gun activists oppose ERPO laws as a solution.
If there is a mental health problem, we need more mental health counseling, right? But who’s going to pay for it? Government? Many gun rights activists are politically conservative and against governmental funding for social services. And even if they would favor funding, would they force troubled people to get counseling? That’s not likely. They oppose government mandates. So why would you expect a disturbed person to voluntarily seek counseling?
Conservatives normally argue that we should rely on the private sector to address our social problems, not government. In this case, that would mean that health insurance providers should provide more coverage for mental health counseling. But they’re not going to provide more than they currently do without raising premiums. Gun activists are likely to balk at that price tag, insisting that they shouldn’t have to pay for it. Furthermore, most insurers would likely only provide additional coverage if government mandated them to do so — but, again, mandates are anathema to conservatives.
And let’s not forget that we’re talking about the need for more psychological and psychiatric counseling here. The implication seems to be that our mental health system isn’t doing enough and should do more. But don’t many right wing activists dismiss psychiatry as “quackery?”
If mental illness is the main cause of our staggering gun death rate, it would seem that gun activists think that we have far more mentally ill people than our peer nations. If that’s the case, then why in the world do they favor such easy access to firearms?
Why not require a mental wellness test as a condition for gun purchase, like countries such as Germany do? But, no, they would never favor what they’d call an extreme infringement.

It seems that gun activists like to blame mental health but are actually unwilling to support any steps to address it.

So why is it that they shamefully put so much blame on “mental health” for gun violence? Because it’s a convenient scapegoat, a way of deflecting attention from the role of firearms and onto something or someone else for which they offer no real solutions, only bluster.

[i] Barry C.L., et al, “After Newtown–Public opinion on gun policy and mental illness.” N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1077–1081.

[ii] . “Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy.” Jeffrey W. Swanson, et al, May 2015.

[iii] Is There a Link Between Mental Health and Mass Shootings?” July 6, 2022, Columbia University Department of Psychiatry.

[iv] . “Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy.” Jeffrey W. Swanson, et al, May 2015.

[v] FBI “A Study of Pre-Attack Behaviors of Active Shooters in the United States Between 2000 and 2013.” June 2018

[vi] (Rand Corporation, “Is Mental Illness a Risk Factor for Gun Violence?” Rajeev Ramchand, Lynsay Ayer, April 15, 2021

[vii] Is There a Link Between Mental Health and Mass Shootings?” July 6, 2022, Columbia University Department of Psychiatry.

[viii] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness

[ix] “Preventing Suicide Through Better Firearm Safety Policy in the United States” Jeffrey W. Swanson, Ph.D. Sep 2020

Tom Mauser is the father of Columbine High School victim, Daniel Mauser. He has been a gun safety activist for over 24 years, and is a board member of Colorado Ceasefire. He says he does not intend to minimize the impact of mental illness on gun violence. In fact, he strongly believes that the two killers at Columbine were mentally ill. Mauser is the author of Walking in Daniel’s Shoes.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay.