Authored by John R. Lott Jr. and Rep. Thomas Massie via RealClearPolitics,
A significant crisis in mental health is at the core of violence in the United States. Decarlos Brown Jr., the individual who viciously stabbed the Ukrainian woman in Charlotte, North Carolina, had been in a mental hospital earlier in the year and was diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, doctors would not have discharged him if they had considered him a threat to himself or others.
Similarly, the perpetrators at Minneapolis’ Annunciation Catholic School and Nashville’s Covenant School both grappled with mental illness. Almost all mass shooters also dealt with suicidal ideation.
“We will never arrest our way out of issues such as homelessness and mental health,” remarked Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles following the fatal stabbing incident. “Mental health disease is just that – a disease. It needs to be treated with the same compassion.” In response to the Minneapolis attack, House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasized the issue: “The problem is the human heart. It’s mental health. There are things that we can do.”
Despite the fact that more than half of mass public shooters over the past 25 years were already receiving care from mental health professionals, not a single one was flagged as a danger to themselves or others. An extensive body of academic research now delves into why mental health experts frequently fail to predict these attacks.
When professionals are unable to identify threats before tragedy occurs, society must inquire: What is the contingency plan?
The perpetrator at the Minneapolis school acknowledged: “I am severely depressed and have been suicidal for years.” After the Nashville school shooting, authorities determined that the assailant was “highly depressed and highly suicidal throughout her life.” Despite consistent psychiatric care, experts found no indications of homicidal or suicidal intentions.
The perpetrator of the 2022 Buffalo supermarket incident followed a similar pattern. In June 2021, when questioned about his future plans, he jokingly mentioned wanting to attend summer school, commit murder, and then end his own life. Concerned, his teacher referred him for evaluation by two mental health professionals. He dismissed it as a joke, and they released him. Later, he confessed: “I got out of it because I stuck with the story that I was getting out of class and I just stupidly wrote that down. It was not a joke, I wrote that down because that’s what I was planning to do.”
Many notorious mass murderers consulted psychiatrists prior to their attacks. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the perpetrator of the Fort Hood massacre in 2009, was himself an Army psychiatrist. Elliot Rodger (Santa Barbara) had undergone years of intensive counseling, but like the Buffalo assailant, Rodger knew better than to reveal his true intentions. The Army psychiatrist who last saw Ivan Lopez (the second Fort Hood shooter) concluded that there were no “indications of likely violence, either against himself or others.”
James Holmes, the Aurora movie theater shooter, had his psychiatrist alert University of Colorado officials about his violent fantasies shortly before the attack, but she dismissed the threat as insufficient for confinement. Both a court-appointed psychologist and a hospital psychiatrist found that Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho did not pose a threat to himself or others.
Psychiatrists have every incentive to accurately diagnose these individuals. In addition to professional pride and the desire to assist, they have legal obligations to report threats. Families of victims have even taken legal action against psychiatrists for failing to recommend confinement. Despite this, psychiatrists consistently underestimate the risk.
The issue is profound enough to spawn an entire academic discourse. Some experts suggest that psychiatrists attempt to demonstrate their fearlessness or become desensitized to risk. Further training in unusual cases may be beneficial, but predicting such rare outcomes will always pose a significant challenge.
In hindsight, the warning signs appear glaringly obvious. Before the attack, even to experts, they are seldom as clear. While addressing mental illness, it is crucial not to stigmatize it. Individuals with mental disorders are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Only a minuscule percentage ever commit murder.
Consider schizophrenia: More than 3.5 million Americans live with the disorder, yet only one individual with schizophrenia has committed a mass attack since 2019. This makes the likelihood of such a crime less than one in 3.5 million – exceedingly rare.
Nobody wants dangerous individuals to have access to weapons. Should we disarm all mentally ill individuals, even though they themselves face an elevated risk of violent crime? One woman witnessed her husband being murdered by her stalker. She was severely depressed but hesitated to seek mental help out of fear that she would lose her right to own a firearm (which she needed for self-defense).
Another factor that complicates the prevention of these attacks is that they are typically planned well in advance, with six months being the shortest timeframe. The planning for the Sandy Hook tragedy spanned over two and a half years, giving the perpetrator ample time to acquire weapons.
These perpetrators, like the recent assailant in Minneapolis, often explicitly state in their manifestos and journals that they target “gun-free zones.” They may be mentally unstable, but they are not unintelligent. They anticipate their own demise, but they crave attention when they do. They understand that the higher the body count, the more media coverage they will receive. This is why they choose locations where no one can resist.
The incident in Charlotte occurred in a gun-free zone. The victim had no opportunity to defend herself when the attacker struck from behind, and no one on the train intervened. Bystanders may have hesitated due to fear – after all, the assailant was a large man armed with a knife, even though knives are also prohibited on public transport. If someone had been carrying a firearm, they could have halted the assault, just as a Marine veteran did in a Michigan Walmart in July, where he compelled a knife-wielding attacker to drop his weapon at gunpoint. Those who attempted to intervene without a firearm were stabbed.
Our mental health system cannot be the final line of defense – too many errors slip through. If mental health professionals cannot consistently prevent these attackers before they act, we must ask: What is the alternative plan? Leaving targets vulnerable is not the optimal solution.
Loading recommendations…