We are all overwhelmed by each new report of another mass shooting. Time after time, more innocent lives are senselessly lost. As a nation we grieve but no solutions seem to be forthcoming.
There are obviously many political issues related to this issue but I want to focus on how my profession of psychology is attempting to contribute to the conversation in a way to facilitate a path toward solutions and healing.
In response to the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton, the American Psychological Assocation (APA, of which I’m a member) quickly issued a statement by APA President Dr. Rosie Phillips Davis.
What I find notable and worth highlighting about APA’s response is its focus on finding solutions based on science. In psychology we often use the term “evidence-based” to indicate information that is drawn from research findings.
Several important points are made by Dr. Davis regarding how psychological science helps inform us about gun violence:
- “Social contagion — the spread of thoughts, emotions and behaviors from person to person and among larger groups — is real, and may well be a factor” in mass shootings.
- Since some shootings are hate crimes, “racism has been shown to have negative cognitive and behavioral effects on both children and adults and to increase anxiety, depression, self-defeating thoughts and avoidance behaviors.”
- “Routinely blaming mass shootings on mental illness is unfounded and stigmatizing. Research has shown that only a very small percentage of violent acts are committed by people who are diagnosed with, or in treatment for, mental illness.“
- “One critical factor is access to, and the lethality of, the weapons that are being used in these crimes. Adding racism, intolerance and bigotry to the mix is a recipe for disaster.“
In a related statement, APA CEO Dr. Arthur Evans also commented on the lack of a robust relationship between gun violence and mental illness. Evans stated, “As we psychological scientists have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent. And there is no single personality profile that can reliably predict who will resort to gun violence. Based on the research, we know only that a history of violence is the single best predictor of who will commit future violence. And access to more guns, and deadlier guns, means more lives lost.”
Evans goes on to say, “Based on the psychological science, we know some of the steps we need to take. We need to limit civilians’ access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. We need to institute universal background checks. And we should institute red flag laws that remove guns from people who are at high risk of committing violent acts.”
APA offers many helpful resources on its web site on this topic, including helping adults and children manage their distress in the aftermath of a mass shooting, how to talk with children about difficult news and tragedies, and how to promote resilience when exposed indirectly to horrific events.
I believe it is critical to bring science to this national discussion to help find workable solutions to prevent mass shootings in the future. Another hallmark of the scientific method that should be employed in this process is to test promising strategies to reduce gun violence to assess their effectiveness, and then continue to refine and enhance the strategies through additional scientific studies.
A critical flaw in our current national discourse on gun violence is that none of the promising strategies to prevent or reduce gun violence are being tested at all, due to the inaction and lack of support from our policy makers. Until that roadblock is overcome, we remain in a state of peril.
Here’s a question: What are your thoughts on this critically important issue? Please leave a comment. Also, please subscribe to my blog and feel free to follow me on X (formerly Twitter) or Instagram, “like” my Facebook page, or connect on LinkedIn. Finally, if you enjoyed this post, please share it with a friend.