Shooters aren’t mentally ill who snap; they decide to kill
In the aftermath of major mass shootings, politicians and pundits depict the killers as crazed monsters and blame mental illness as the fundamental cause. The same story has played out since the horrific massacre May 14 at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, where an 18-year-old allegedly motivated by racist ideology is accused of murdering 10 people. But this misleading narrative is not supported by scientific evidence and is counterproductive to solving our epidemic of mass shootings.
The claim mental illness produces such attacks implies mass shooters are insane, as if they are disconnected from reality and act based on no rational thinking. This goes hand in hand with the common theme these offenders “snap,” which suggests they commit impulsive acts of violence, bursting forth from nowhere. Both explanations are wrong.
Over the last decade, I’ve studied scores of mass shootings and looked deep into the field of behavioral threat assessment, an emerging method where experts in mental health, law enforcement and other disciplines work together to prevent planned acts of violence.
Extensive case history shows mass shooters don’t just suddenly break — they decide. They develop violent ideas that stem from entrenched grievances, rage and despair. In many cases they feel justified in their actions and regard killing as the sole solution to a problem. They arm themselves and prepare to attack, choosing where and when to strike. Often this is a highly organized and methodical process.
The suspected Buffalo shooter, Payton Gendron of Conklin, New York, spent months becoming radicalized online and readying himself to kill, according to law enforcement authorities and written documents they say Gendron posted online. He acquired weapons and tactical gear, practiced shooting, detailed his ideological hatred of Black people and others, and surveilled intended targets.
Gendron had a history of troubling behavior, according to authorities, including a threat he made last June as a graduating high schooler to commit a murder-suicide. Under New York law, he was taken into custody by state police and given a psychiatric evaluation, the results not publicly known. He was released within two days; authorities said he claimed to have been joking, a deception that has figured into other shootings.
In 2018, a deep investigation of 63 rampage shooters conducted by experts with the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit showed only a quarter of the offenders were known to have been professionally diagnosed with a mental illness of any kind. While it’s possible some suicidal attackers may have gone undiagnosed, only three of the 63, around 5%, had a known psychotic disorder.
Blaming mental illness for mass shootings inflicts a damaging stigma on the millions of people who suffer from clinical afflictions, the vast majority of whom are not violent . ...
Yet no person who commits a mass shooting is mentally healthy. So if we want to do more to reduce these attacks, we need to better understand behaviors and circumstances that lead up to them.
Threat assessment experts have found in a majority of cases warning signs are noticeable to people who are in the orbit of would-be shooters . ... They also reveal opportunity to intervene.
The warning signs include threatening comments, personal deterioration, patterns of stalking and other aggression, fixating on guns, graphic violence and previous mass shooters. Many perpetrators express a desire for infamy.
... Making mental illness the bogeyman detracts from making progress on stopping these attacks. That’s going to take all we’ve got: strengthening our gun laws, quashing a surge in violent political extremism, raising cultural awareness of shooter warning signs and, yes, investing in a lacking mental health care system to give troubled people the help they need before it’s too late.