More proof that there is no connection between mass shootings and mental illness. But there is between coping with life events (e.g. toxic masculinity). Who could have predicted that other than all the people who already said it was true?
First report on mass shootings from Columbia University database
A research team at the Center of Prevention and Evaluation (COPE) at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, led by Drs. Gary Brucato and Ragy R. Girgis, found that, contrary to popular belief, serious mental illness was present in only 11% of all mass murderers and in only 8% of mass shooters.
The study–the first published report on mass shootings from the Columbia Mass Murder Database–appeared online Feb. 17th in Psychological Medicine.
The investigators sought to gain much-needed insight into the relationship between serious mental illness and mass shootings. Creating the database involved extensive review of 14,785 murders publicly described in English in print or online, occurring worldwide between 1900 and 2019.
[. . .]
Dr. Brucato remarked, “The findings from this potentially definitive study suggest that emphasis on serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia or psychotic mood disorders, as a risk factor for mass shootings is given undue emphasis, leading to public fear and stigmatization.”
Coauthor Dr. Paul S. Appelbaum, known for his work on violence in psychiatric samples, noted, “These data suggest that other difficulties, such as legal problems, substance and alcohol use, and difficulty coping with life events seem more useful foci for prevention and policy than an emphasis on serious mental illness.”
From Cambridge University:
Background
Mass shootings account for a small fraction of annual worldwide murders, yet disproportionately affect society and influence policy. Evidence suggesting a link between mass shootings and severe mental illness (i.e. involving psychosis) is often misrepresented, generating stigma. Thus, the actual prevalence constitutes a key public health concern.
Methods
We examined global personal-cause mass murders from 1900 to 2019, amassed by review of 14 785 murders publicly described in English in print or online, and collected information regarding perpetrator, demographics, legal history, drug use and alcohol misuse, and history of symptoms of psychiatric or neurologic illness using standardized methods. We distinguished whether firearms were or were not used, and, if so, the type (non-automatic v. semi- or fully-automatic).
Results
We identified 1315 mass murders, 65% of which involved firearms. Lifetime psychotic symptoms were noted among 11% of perpetrators, consistent with previous reports, including 18% of mass murderers who did not use firearms and 8% of those who did (χ2 = 28.0, p < 0.01). US-based mass shooters were more likely to have legal histories, use recreational drugs or misuse alcohol, or have histories of non-psychotic psychiatric or neurologic symptoms. US-based mass shooters with symptoms of any psychiatric or neurologic illness more frequently used semi-or fully-automatic firearms.
Conclusions
These results suggest that policies aimed at preventing mass shootings by focusing on serious mental illness, characterized by psychotic symptoms, may have limited impact. Policies such as those targeting firearm access, recreational drug use and alcohol misuse, legal history, and non-psychotic psychopathology might yield more substantial results.
Do you mean Cambridge above the second quote?
Yes it’s bleeding obvious, but useful work nevertheless.
Maybe it’s covered under legal history, but I think pretty much every mass shooter has had a history of violence against women (or extremely violent rhetoric against women if not actual violence). Maybe someone should look into that…
@ Jazzlet: Both links refer to the same study. The first quote is from a news report on the study, the second quote is from the actual abstract. They used the Columbia database, and the authors are at Columbia. Cambridge University Press is only the publisher of the journal the study appears in.