In an op-ed at the Wall Street Journal physician E. Fuller Torrey underscores the views I’ve expressed in the last two posts:
Based on the increase in the U.S. population, there are now some one million people with serious mental illness living among the general population who, 60 years ago, would have been treated in state mental hospitals. Multiple studies have reported that, at any given time, between 40% and 50% of them are receiving no treatment for their mental illness. With the best of intentions and the worst of planning, America has emptied out its public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring that the released patients would receive the necessary treatment to control their symptoms. What did we think would happen?
Now we have two more mass shootings, committed over a 13-hour period. In El Paso, Texas, 20 people were killed in what authorities have called a hate crime, while in Dayton, Ohio, the death toll is nine. One database claims these were the 21st and 22nd mass killings in the U.S. in 2019. Such databases vary depending on the number of dead required to meet the definition.
They also vary according to other factors. If, for example, they only count gun deaths, then they don’t include Adacia Chambers, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, who in 2015 killed four and injured 48 by driving her car into a parade crowd in Stillwater, Okla. What is clear from all the databases is that these mass killings are increasing in frequency and have been since the 1980s. Not coincidentally, that was when the emptying out of state mental hospitals was at its peak.
So what role does mental illness play in these mass killings? Multiple studies done between 2000 and 2015 suggest that about a third of mass killers have an untreated severe mental illness. If mental illness is defined more broadly, the percentage is higher. In 2018 the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report titled “A Study of the Pre-Attack Behavior of Active Shooters in the United States Between 2008 and 2013.†It reported that 40% of the shooters had received a psychiatric diagnosis, and 70% had “mental health stressors†or “mental health concerning behaviors†before the attack.
Most recently, in July 2019, the U.S. Secret Service released its report “Mass Attacks in Public Spaces—2018.†The report covered 27 attacks that resulted in 91 deaths and 107 injuries. The investigators found that 67% of the suspects displayed symptoms of mental illness or emotional disturbance. In 93% of the incidents, the authorities found that the suspects had a history of threats or other troubling communications. The results were similar to those of another study published by the Secret Service on 28 such attacks in 2017.
Reacting to these shooting in a serious way requires treating mental illness in a more serious way than we have in the last 40 years. A big country like ours will inevitably have a lot of people who are seriously mentally disturbed. Expecting to end mass shooting by banning large capacity magazines or pledging to eliminate all firearms is not a serious reaction.
“Expecting to end mass shooting by banning large capacity magazines or pledging to eliminate all firearms is not a serious reaction.”
Nor is blaming political discourse. And yet this is where we are, once again. It is simply ghoulish to attempt to advance ideological agendas on the backs of dead people. As I pointed out at OTB (before being roundly criticized) dealing with personal and social pathologies is hard. Its probably a major reason we opt for simplistic prescriptions, or cheap shots like Mataconis and his video game rant.
I don’t know how effective attempting to address these social pathologies would be. But I know it would be more effective than the current, dare I say, simple minded prescriptions, name calling and political blaming.
The irony is that violent video games are likely a minor factor behind some of these shootings. They inure people to violence, particularly those who are troubled to begin with.
“Its probably a major reason we opt for simplistic prescriptions, or cheap shots like Mataconis and his video game rant.”
Except that what research that exists suggests that video games are not a factor. You can go ahead and say that based upon your feelings you believe they contribute to these shootings, but there isn’t really any evidence that is true. (AFAICT the stereotype of Asian boys playing video games has a lot fo basis in fact, and you dont see these kinds of mass shootings in Japan, South Korea or China.)
“Nor is blaming political discourse. And yet this is where we are, once again. It is simply ghoulish to attempt to advance ideological agendas on the backs of dead people.”
It is the election season, and if you will recall, you guys were blaming Obama for police deaths.
“A big country like ours will inevitably have a lot of people who are seriously mentally disturbed. Expecting to end mass shooting by banning large capacity magazines or pledging to eliminate all firearms is not a serious reaction.”
Yup, but we are so big and have so many mentally ill and marginalized people that I dont think is going to bed that helpful. So maybe 150 out of 250 mass shooters will have a psych profile suggesting they might shoot someone, but if you look at the total population you will probably find 5-10 million of loners who are social misfits and have mental illness. We arent good at predicting who will get violent. On the other hand, in places that have reduced access to guns or have little access to guns mass shootings occur less often. It actually should be possible, if we cared, to reduce access to large capacity magazines. But, we dont care. Occasional mass shootings and frequent shootings of one or two people is the price we pay for our commitment to access to guns and high capacity magazines.
Steve
I come to this with a couple of facts.
Most physical violence (including violence with guns and mass shootings) are perpetuated by males between the age of 15 and 30.
The brain (in particular the executive functions like impulse control) is developing into the mid 20’s.
Any measures needs to target these areas. I suggest that young adult males ought to have a very long waiting period (like a year) between applying and getting a gun – that it require the testimony of multiple adults over the age of 30 who know the person on an intimate basis that the person has no signs of mental illness; never made threats.
The theme is for young males; prove they can be trusted with access to a gun before they have access.
By the way, between guns and ammunition; ammunition is the easier to control access. Because ammunition is use once and requires chemical expertise to manufacture.
We also ought to look at proactive mental health treatment of anyone on those message boards in 8chan. Instead of banning where they find another place to gather; find the ones who are being influenced by these boards and get them “deradicalizedâ€.
The effects of violent video games on developing minds in extremely cohestive societies like Japan tells us exactly nothing about their effect on atomistic ones like ours.
With all those narcissists, paedophiles, bipolars and psychopaths running loose in the country, it’s a damn good thing that we can’t elect more than one at a time to the Presidency. Congress and SCOTUS are unfortunately another matter entirely.
Perhaps you should read before commenting, Steve. I didn’t say video games cause anything. Dave may be correct that they have a small desensitizing effect. Mataconis did something you are very familiar with- selective outrage. He takes a cheap shot while forgetting to mention Dems have cited video games, and other unproven, ahem, theories.
Who is “you guys?†If you can find me blaming cop killings on Obama show us. It’s cheap and juvenile rhetoric he used, but it doesn’t create killers out of thin air. You were lecturing the other day about proper behavior?
That’s why the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 and there are those who want to lower it even farther.
After the news reports I checked out 8chan.
Crazy claims about the Walmart massacre being a hoax, a false flag studio operation. Plus the usual claims about a secret cabal of Jews running the world, using the poor Negro as a bludgeon against us.
I can see where a steady diet of this stuff with no other input could warp behavior, but I fail to see how anyone could tell the future killer from the blowhard.
The comments sections on fox news are almost as bad, (one today asserted that he needed a 100 round ammo clip because Antifa)
Again, I don’t see how monitoring these sites can help.
Maybe the Chinese are onto something with that “social score” they’re working on. Be interesting to run these guy’s lives through the score system, see how they stack up.
“Who is “you guys?â€
Conservatives. I did not say that you specifically did so.
“The effects of violent video games on developing minds in extremely cohesive societies like Japan tells us exactly nothing about their effect on atomistic ones like ours.”
Which still leaves you no evidence that shootings in the US are linked to video games.
” I suggest that young adult males ought to have a very long waiting period (like a year) between applying and getting a gun – that it require the testimony of multiple adults over the age of 30 who know the person on an intimate basis that the person has no signs of mental illness; never made threats.”
Seems a bit excessive. I would probably lower it to a couple of months so that you are past the impulsive acts. I would also consider limiting the kind of weapons they can buy. I wouldn’t have any problems with them buying a double barrel 12 gauge. An AR type weapon with 100 round magazines? Not a good idea. (Not that an AR is an assault weapon, just that it is an easy to use and fire weapon and I dont know how you keep it from using high capacity magazines.)
Steve
Emotional Desensitization to Violence Contributes to Adolescents’ Violent Behavior
see also the extensive bibliography within the above.
A year guards against the possibility of initial onset of mental illness – where someone is losing impulse control and yet has enough ability to carry violent acts. It also protects against infatuations of the moment.
As to violence in media — as someone wise said, your body is what you eat. It stands to reason, your mind is what you see and listen.
It is agreed that exposure to extremist / racist media makes a person susceptible to extremism and racism. It stands to reason that exposure to violent media will make a person susceptible to violence.
If we want to make a difference, we have to take an all of the above route. We have to clamp down on extremism and racism in media. We have to clamp down on violence in media. We have to be proactive in mental health. We have to tighten access to guns. There is no magic potion.
I agree with that.
Immanentizing the eschaton is even harder than pronouncing it.
Yeah, try to say that one three times fast.
Dave- Your cited study looks at actual violence, not movies or videos. Here are their measures. (If you send me a study, I will probably read it. Habit.)
“Exposure to violence was assessed at each wave with the Birmingham Youth Violence Study Violence Exposure measure (Mrug et al., 2008). Using the last 12 months as a reference period, adolescents reported whether they witnessed 1) a threat of physical violence, 2) actual physical violence, and 3) a threat or actual violence involving a weapon; and whether they were a victim of 4) a threat of physical violence, 5) actual physical violence, and 6) threat or actual violence involving a weapon. At Waves 1 and 2, endorsement of any of these 6 items was followed by three contextual probes, asking whether this occurred at school, in the neighborhood, or at home; response options were Yes (1) or No (0). These questions yielded 18 dichotomous variables for each combination of type of violence (witness or victim of threat, actual violence and weapon violence) and the three contexts (school, neighborhood, home), scored 1 for exposure to that combination or 0 for no such exposure (e.g., witnessed a threat at school, victim of weapon violence at home, etc.). These 18 indicators were summed for a total exposure to violence at each time point, with a possible range of 0-18.”
They dont look at games or movies. So, these studies are actually pretty hard to do correctly. Are kids that are going to be more violent anyway drawn to violent video games, or do video games turn nice normal kids into killers, or do they just give that little nudge that pushes someone over the edge? I dont think we really know, but maybe there is a really good study out there and I have not seen it.
What I do know is that we have had really violent movies and cartoons around for ages. Youth, and overall, violence climbed into the 1990s and has since dropped off pretty dramatically. During that time movies have remained, I believe, just as violent or have been increasing. Same with video games. We know that school shooters are less likely to have played violent video games, and we know that kids around the world play these games, not just in the US or Japan. We dont see video games having an effect in those countries.
So maybe they make some contribution, but if they do it must be pretty small since it has been pretty hard (or too expensive) to prove.
Steve
That’s actually all I’m saying. IMO “no influence” is a lot less likely than “minor influence”.