Restrictions reduce gun violence

Overall contribution of people with serious mental illness to violent crimes about 3 per cent

I have been following the gun control debate in the USA closely, even more so since the recent tragic mass killing in Parkland, Florida. Nevertheless, something feels different this time about the degree of resolve of the survivors, their families and supporters. I now have hope that this time the outcome will be different.

I believe that these folks will persevere, despite the usual verbal diarrhea from gun control opponents, such as Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The extremely powerful and malevolent U.S. gun lobby has once again hitched its star to their time-tested strategy of blaming mass killings on the gunner, not the gun.

Mr. Trump addressed the annual gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference this week, and argued that all shooters in mass killings are seriously “crazy nut cases,” and that the only way to deal with this uniquely American problem is to arm the rest of the nation.

The Donald wants to arm select school teachers in every school in America and make them responsible for shooting, and killing, wannabe shooters who make the mistake of invading schools with malice aforethought.

There is a significant body of research which shows such an approach to be fraught with danger for all involved. There was a trained police officer on scene in Parkland last week who elected not to intervene. A person with a 9 mm Glock is no match for a shooter with an assault rifle.

Let me summarize an article entitled “Mass Shootings and Mental Illness” by James L. Knoll IV M.D. and George D. Annas, M.D., M.P.H. from an American Psychiatric Association on-line publication (2016).

There are several common misperceptions (lies) about mass shootings.

Mass shootings are usually committed by people with serious mental illness.

People with serious mental illness should be considered dangerous.

Gun laws identifying people with mental illness can effectively prevent mass shootings.

Gun laws focusing on people with mental illness are reasonable and effective.

Here are the facts, based on evidence, not fake news.

Mass shootings represent less than 2 per cent of all yearly gunrelated homicides. In contrast, deaths by suicide using firearms account for the majority of gunrelated deaths.

The overall contribution of people with serious mental illness to violent crimes is only about 3 per cent.

Laws intended to reduce gun violence by focusing on a population which commits less than 3 per cent of all gun violence will be extremely low yield, ineffective, and wasteful of scarce resources.

Perpetrators of mass shootings are unlikely to have a history of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. Michael Stone, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, who maintains a database of mass shooters, wrote, in a 2015 analysis, that only 52 out of the 235 killers in the database, or about 22 per cent, had mental illness.

Gun restriction laws focusing on people with mental illness perpetuate the myth that mental illness causes violence, as well as the misperception that gun violence and mental illness are strongly linked. They are not.

Stigmatization of people with mental illness represents a major barrier to access and treatment of mental illness.

A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence.

Not for the first time, and probably not for the last, Donald Trump is barking up the wrong tree.