{"id":687,"date":"2018-07-11T17:38:59","date_gmt":"2018-07-11T21:38:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/?p=687"},"modified":"2018-07-11T17:38:59","modified_gmt":"2018-07-11T21:38:59","slug":"mental-illness-and-gun-violence-whats-really-responsible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/2018\/07\/11\/mental-illness-and-gun-violence-whats-really-responsible\/","title":{"rendered":"Mental Illness and Gun Violence:\u00a0 What\u2019s Really Responsible?"},"content":{"rendered":"

You\u2019ve heard it all before.\u00a0 In fact, you\u2019ve heard the same arguments repeated back and forth so many times you have memorized them yourself. The cycle goes like this:\u00a0 There\u2019s a mass shooting, then in the tragic aftermath, the liberal and conservative pundits begin repeating their arguments left and right.\u00a0 Usually, on the conservative right there are calls for mental health reform<\/a> and on the left, liberals agree that we need to address mental health, but point to gun access<\/a> as the key issue to prevent these tragedies from happening.\u00a0 The rest of us, the general population, are left somewhere in between. <\/a>\u00a0We point fingers like everyone\u2019s to blame, but we take action like nobody is responsible.\u00a0 That is to say, we take very little action at all.<\/p>\n

Although this cycle has repeated itself to the point of feeling like a broken record, it\u2019s important that we not get stuck like one.\u00a0 After all, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over again while expecting a different result.\u00a0 Where some blame the mentally ill and some blame guns, it is important to step back and reframe our arguments to see the issue of gun violence in a different light.\u00a0 Maybe the solution, as is often the case, lies somewhere in between.<\/p>\n

The tragedy in Parkland<\/a> has energized this debate<\/a> to unprecedented levels, but has also brought with it many familiar arguments.\u00a0 In particular, recent calls from President Trump to strengthen limitations on the ability of the mentally ill to access firearms<\/a> gives us cause to reevaluate his premise that mental illness is associated with gun violence.\u00a0 President Trump\u2019s critique is founded on a commonly shared belief among the majority of Americans<\/a>.\u00a0 According to a Pew Research poll<\/a> in 2017, 89% of people across the political spectrum favor placing increased restrictions on the ability of the mentally ill to purchase firearms.\u00a0 This commonly held belief across the political spectrum forces us to ask ourselves: What is the real relationship between mental illness and gun violence?\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

What do the Numbers Say?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The evidence suggests that we may be biased when it comes to our perceptions of the mentally ill and the potential for persons dealing with mental illnesses or disorders to exhibit violent tendencies.\u00a0 In fact, a 2013 national public opinion survey (p.367)<\/a> found that 46% of Americans believe that persons with mental illness are \u201cfar more dangerous than the general population.\u201d\u00a0 However, the public perspective is vastly distinct from reality.\u00a0 Another study (p.241)<\/a> demonstrates that between 2001 and 2010, \u201cfewer than 5% of the gun-related killings in the United States\u2026 were perpetuated by people diagnosed with mental illness.\u201d\u00a0 People are far more likely to be killed by a person with a gun that does not have a mental illness, than someone that does have a mental illness.<\/p>\n

While mental illness is not strongly correlated with gun violence, there are other conduct measures that appear to be strong predictors of such violence.\u00a0 Three conduct measures in particular that are powerful are past acts of violence\/criminal history, a history of domestic violence, and substance abuse.<\/p>\n

First, with regard to a history of violence, the American Psychology Association issued a report (see p.8)<\/a> that concluded based on longitudinal studies, \u201cThe most consistent and powerful predictor of future violence is a history of violent behavior.\u201d\u00a0 One article from Wisconsin Public Radio<\/a> affirms this trend in reporting that for gun homicides in Milwaukee about, \u201c93 percent of our suspects have an arrest history.\u201d\u00a0 Although the Milwaukee sample is small and not entirely representative of the entire United States, such a high correlation is worthy of our attention in considering factors for reevaluating our gun policies.<\/p>\n

Second, when it comes to the correlation between domestic violence and mass shootings or gun violence, the evidence is even stronger.\u00a0 According to a study quoted in the New Yorker<\/a>, \u201cOf mass shootings between 2009 and 2013, 57 percent involved offenders who shot an intimate partner and\/or family member.\u201d\u00a0 Further, a report<\/a> from Everytown for Gun Safety shows that persons with a history of domestic violence account for \u201c54 percent of mass shootings between 2009 and 2016.\u201d<\/p>\n

Third, with regard to substance abuse, a study (p.242)<\/a> by Dr. Jonathan Metzl, an often quoted figure<\/a> in studying the causes of gun violence in the United States, found that, \u201c[A]lcohol and drug use increase the risk of violent crime by as much as 7-fold, even among persons with no history of mental illness.\u201d\u00a0 According to the same study, \u201cserious mental illness without substance abuse is \u2018statistically unrelated\u2019 to community violence.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, substance abuse increases an individual risk of violence in general, including an increased risk of gun violence.<\/p>\n

States Offer Pragmatic and Nuanced Solutions<\/strong><\/p>\n

However, correlation does not equal causation.\u00a0 Many of the current studies on the causes of gun violence and mass shootings face limits (p.240)<\/a> in this particular regard.\u00a0 However, the low statistical correlation indicated in multiple studies between mental illness or disorders and gun violence are informative.\u00a0 The fact that there are other risk factors that are strong predictors of violence generally and gun violence specifically point to where our attention is likely better directed in trying to rework gun laws in a manner that will work for everyone.<\/p>\n

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence<\/a> points to one such unique legal mechanism adopted in Oregon, Washington and California, which have adopted laws for Extreme Risk Protection Orders (\u201cERPOs\u201d)<\/a>.\u00a0 These laws allow family members or law enforcement officers to petition a court to keep guns away from someone going through a crisis.\u00a0 The laws are geared toward the principle that family members are best able to gauge changes in an individual\u2019s behavior that could pose a serious risk of harm.\u00a0 Petitioners under these laws still have the burden of providing sufficient proof that the individual poses a risk of danger to themselves or others.\u00a0 ERPOs are also only temporary, but may vary in length.\u00a0 For longer protective orders, more compelling evidence must be offered that the person poses a risk of harm to themselves or others.<\/p>\n

Oregon offers another pragmatic solution in its closing of the \u201cdomestic abuser loophole\u201d<\/a> through passage of a recent state law.\u00a0 Under the 1996 Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban<\/a>, domestic abusers are banned from owning or possessing a gun.\u00a0 However, the federal ban only applies<\/a> to someone if they are married, living with, or have a child with the victim of the abuse.\u00a0 The wording of the law creates the \u201cdomestic abuser loophole,\u201d which means that someone who is not living with their significant other and does not meet any of the other mentioned criteria, but who abuses their significant other, can still buy a gun.\u00a0 Oregon\u2019s new law prohibits anyone convicted of a crime of domestic violence<\/a> from owning or possessing a gun, regardless of whether or not that person lives with their significant other.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Oregon State Capitol
Salem, 1938<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

These new state laws are just examples of a number of other pragmatic and nuanced policy solutions<\/a> that are geared toward preventing future gun violence while avoiding burdensome restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of the vast majority of Americans.\u00a0 Such solutions demonstrate our capacity to tackle the problem of gun violence in new and creative ways, while still preserving individual freedoms.\u00a0 Finally, these laws represent effective solutions that are based on empirical evidence about true risk factors for gun violence and not on ill-founded stigmas.\u00a0 A path forward on fixing our gun laws exists, but to move forward we must set aside our preconceived notions and work together to promote innovative solutions that protect both our rights and our safety.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Nicholas Stone<\/strong> graduated from Boston University School of Law in May 2018 and plans to practice in Portland Oregon.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

You\u2019ve heard it all before.\u00a0 In fact, you\u2019ve heard the same arguments repeated back and forth so many times you have memorized them yourself. The cycle goes like this:\u00a0 There\u2019s a mass shooting, then in the tragic aftermath, the liberal and conservative pundits begin repeating their arguments left and right.\u00a0 Usually, on the conservative right […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15015,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[10,4,12,5],"tags":[23,109,185,45,184,40,96,93,18,95,53],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/687"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15015"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=687"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/687\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":769,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/687\/revisions\/769"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/dome\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}