Mental Health Crisis and Violence in the U.S.

The ongoing mental health crisis appears to lie at the core of violence in America. DeCarlos Brown Jr., who has been accused of seriously injuring Ukrainian woman Iryna Zarutska in Charlotte, North Carolina, had earlier been hospitalized for mental health issues, with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. It’s noteworthy that if medical professionals had deemed him a threat to himself or others, they would have kept him in treatment.

In other cases, individuals responsible for violent acts, such as the shootings at the Announcement Catholic School in Minneapolis and the Covenant School in Nashville, also had histories of mental health struggles. It’s almost a pattern that major shooters tend to grapple with suicidal thoughts.

People suggest that our mental health system should not alone serve as the final safeguard against such tragedies.

“There’s really no easy solution to issues like homelessness or mental health,” Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles remarked following the stabbing incident. “Mental illness is, in essence, a disease that requires compassionate care.” After the Minneapolis shooting, House Speaker Mike Johnson pointed to the root issue: “It’s about the human mind—mental health plays a crucial role here. We need approaches that tackle that reality.

However, statistics reveal a troubling trend: more than half of mass public shooters in the past quarter-century were already under the care of mental health professionals, yet none had been flagged as risks to themselves or others. This discrepancy raises questions about why mental health professionals struggle to foresee such violent acts.

What’s the Alternative?

If it’s challenging for experts to identify potential threats before they manifest into violence, society should really consider, what’s the backup plan? For instance, the Minneapolis shooter openly expressed feelings of deep depression and suicidal thoughts. And reports following the Nashville shooting confirm the assailant had lived a life marked by profound sadness, suggesting that they too had, despite consistent psychiatric visits, shown no clear signs of lethal intent.

The trend seems to repeat—take the 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooter, who, when questioned about his future plans, made a joke about causing harm and suicide. Although his teacher sought mental health evaluation for him, he dismissed it as a joke, leading to his release.

Many infamous shooters had consulted psychiatrists prior to their attacks. For instance, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, responsible for the Fort Hood shooting in 2009, was a military psychiatrist himself. Elliot Rodger, the UC Santa Barbara shooter, underwent extensive counseling but managed to hide his true intentions. Even in cases like that of Ivan Lopez, another Fort Hood shooter, the psychiatrist found no signs that could indicate violent behavior.

James Holmes, the Aurora cinema shooter, had a psychiatrist who signaled potential risks just before his attack, yet the warning was ultimately downplayed. Similarly, assessments of Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho indicated he posed no threat.

It’s not that psychiatrists lack motives to get these assessments right. They are not only driven by professional pride and a desire to help but also face legal repercussions for failing to report threats. Yet, they continuously seem to underestimate potential risks.

The realm of academic research delves deeply into these failures. Some theorists propose that mental health professionals might sometimes dismiss danger signals in an effort to appear unafraid. More training could indeed be beneficial, though predicting these rare occurrences remains exceptionally difficult.

Hindsight often illuminates warning signs that appear obvious after attacks are perpetrated. Yet, even experts struggle to recognize these signs beforehand. It’s vital to remember that individuals grappling with mental disabilities are statistically far more likely to be victims of violence rather than the aggressors.

Consider schizophrenia: while millions of Americans face this challenge, the occurrence of violent crime attributed to individuals with schizophrenia is minuscule, effectively less than one in 3.5 million within the population.

Vulnerable Victims

Public safety is paramount, but if we extend gun control based on mental health diagnoses, could we inadvertently disarm those who are themselves at a high risk for violence? One woman witnessed her husband being murdered by a stalker. In her vulnerability, she hesitated to seek mental health assistance out of fear it would jeopardize her ability to own a weapon for protection.

Additionally, the planning phase of such violent acts often spans many months, providing ample opportunity for perpetrators to obtain weapons beforehand. The Sandy Hook tragedy, for instance, was reportedly in the works for over two years.

From the recent attackers in Minneapolis, it is apparent that violent individuals meticulously outline their plans through manifestos or journals, often targeting “gun-free zones.” They may have some mental instability, but they are strategic. They expect to die, but crave attention, believing that a higher body count could lead to greater media coverage. Choosing vulnerable environments enables them to execute their strategies knowing that few, if any, will be able to fight back.

Does Gun Control Work?

The recent incident in Charlotte unfolded in a zone where firearms were prohibited. When attacked, the victim had no means to defend herself, and witnesses may have refrained from intervening—perhaps out of fear, as the perpetrator wielded a knife, also banned in public transport. In earlier incidents, armed individuals have intervened effectively, deterring would-be attackers.

Ultimately, the question remains: if our mental health system fails to stop these assailants before they act, then what alternative measures do we have? Leaving potential targets undefended does not seem like a feasible solution.