By Samuel Freeze
In the aftermath of violent tragedies like the recent mass shooting in Tumbler Ridge, B.C., a common panic-fueled and grief-stricken reaction is to rush to simple, tidy explanations. Mental illness, for example, is often used to make sense of what appears to be senseless.
The explanation is appealing because mass shootings feel shocking and sudden, and mental illness offers a way to wrestle with them and try to understand. But the reality is that although mental illness sometimes plays a role in violence, it’s rarely the most important factor.
Regardless, politicians proceed to call for improvements to the mental health-care system, sidestepping more difficult conversations about violence prevention. As a researcher within the crime and violence risk lab at Simon Fraser University, I argue that framing mass shootings as a mental illness problem misrepresents the evidence, and redirects our attention away from the other psychological, social and structural conditions that increase the risk of violence.
Why mental illness is a poor predictor of violence
Most people living with a mental illness are never violent, and most people who are violent are not living with a mental illness. One estimate suggests that even if all mental illnesses were somehow eliminated, about 95 per cent of violent acts would still need to be explained.
In fact, people living with mental illness are themselves more likely to be victims of violence. And mental illness is much more strongly associated with suicide than violence, especially when guns are involved.
It shouldn’t be treated as a single explanation — it’s a broad label covering hundreds of conditions. Some symptoms of mental illness, like psychosis, are associated with a slightly higher risk of violence. But the vast majority of people experiencing these symptoms will never be violent.
The appeal of mental illness as an explanation is driven in part by stigma. It resonates with people because there’s a commonly held belief that those with mental illness are dangerous, despite evidence to the contrary.
In most cases, other risk factors play a much larger role in explaining violent acts.
Violence risk is about probability, not prediction
Research on violence shows that it rarely emerges from a single cause, but from the interaction and accumulation of multiple risk factors over time in particular contexts and situations.
Professionals who assess the potential for violence focus on specific risk factors — personal, situational and contextual characteristics identified through research — that help to understand someone’s likelihood for future violence.
Even those risk factors simply point to the probability of violence, not certainty.
Substance misuse and intoxication, antisocial traits and attitudes that support violence, experiencing victimization or past trauma, negative peer influence and access to lethal means like firearms are examples of risk factors other than mental health problems that are statistically associated with violence.
These factors often interact with each other and build up over time, potentially shaping motivation, lowering inhibitions and destabilizing decision-making.
Psychiatrists and psychologists involved in the investigation of the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado described perpetrators Eric Harris as a psychopath and Dylan Klebold as an “angry depressive.” They noted that Klebold likely would not have carried out the attack on his own. What proved important for attempting to explain his involvement was not depression, but the interaction between anger, grievance, negative peer influence and access to firearms.
This case illustrates how diagnosis alone explains little without paying attention to other factors like social dynamics and access to weapons.
The common pathways behind mass shootings
Mass shootings only make up about one per cent of gun deaths in the U.S., yet they tend to shape the overall discussion about gun violence. The risk factors and motivations involved in mass shootings vary by context (workplace, school) and differ somewhat from those involved in more typical violence.
The definitive role of mental illness in mass shootings isn’t clear, given how complex, unique and statistically rare these tragedies are.
Part of the challenge is that mental illness is defined differently across studies. Overall, severe mental illness appears overrepresented among mass shooters, and having a history of mental health problems, more broadly, is also common. However, rejection, despair, grudges and rage appear to be far more important in explaining why these attacks occur.
Mass shooters tend to be young white men who are socially isolated, struggling at work or in school, and experiencing a sense of alienation. Many report histories of childhood trauma, bullying and social rejection, or at least perceive themselves to have been repeatedly wronged.
Perpetrators may fixate on and ruminate about negative experiences, which can harden into grievances directed at groups or institutions that they feel wronged by. Violence, in this context, then seems justified and can offer a sense of power, revenge or recognition.
Some mass shootings are also tied to extremist ideologies and are intended to garner attention, communicate a message or assert identity within a movement. This may increase a perpetrator’s sense of belonging or purpose. Online environments can act as echo chambers that promote and accelerate radicalization, particularly when someone feels they have been rejected elsewhere.
Many mass shooters also develop an intense interest in weapons and “leak” their plans or grievances to others before an attack.
Recognizing these warning signs can help create opportunities for intervention. At the same time, many people who fit these descriptions will never be violent, highlighting the uncertainty involved in risk assessment.
The future of violence risk assessment
The uncomfortable truth is that we just don’t know for sure what leads to a mass shooting. But focusing on a single risk factor distracts from the many others that research shows are important to pay attention to before they lead to violence.
Preventing future tragedies requires a clearer understanding of how risk develops along a pathway to violence and early intervention to handle warning behaviours.
Viewing violence as a complex process is essential. Reducing it to cursory labels like “mentally ill” makes it harder to address.
Samuel Freeze is a doctoral student in Clinical Forensic Psychology at Simon Fraser University.
JimboXYZ says
It is a chicken vs egg thing, isn’t it ? Why did the chicken cross the road ? Maybe the chicken got agitated & poked one time that finally crossed over the line to finally require addressing the malfunction(s) of the one’s poking the chicken ? Agitators, Baiters, instigators are too often painted as innocent victims ? No doubt some are innocent bystanders of the lashing out. Locations are anything from schools, workplaces, movie theaters, concerts, any other political rallies & events. One thing’s for certain someone was fed up, those tired of making concessions of compromises & giving up more ground to their tormentors that is never ending ? Life’s accumulations ?
Keenan Hreib says
Mental illness; although real and in need of address, it unfortunately is used by the “GUN LOBBY” as a excuse to sidestep gun control. Not an affront on the 2nd amendment as many gun lovers in “GUN HAPPY” America would desperately have you believe.
AR-15, AR-556, TEC-9, RUGAR A10 RIFLE. Who in the fuck really needs these high capacity killing machines other than military. The answer is no one. Other than a combination of much more stringent training for young law enforcement(better pay too), and a dismissle of this NRA “Pay to play” attitude toward the public. Let’s give everone the opportunity to own these mega killing machines! This stuff is literally like VIAGRA for some people. Give someone the opportunity to get their rocks of at gun range. Then go home. WE NEED MORE THOUGHTFUL AND STRICT GUN CONTROL WHEN IT COES TO CERTAIN WEAPONS.
What Else Is New says
Thank you Keenan. Your assessment is exactly correct.
Sherry says
A quick Google comparing the total number of guns per capita with the gun death rate in different first world countries reveals the primary reason for the extremely high gun death rate in the US :
Key Comparison by Country (Estimated 2024–2026 Data)
The United States remains a global outlier, featuring both the highest civilian gun ownership and the highest firearm death rate among developed nations.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Country Est. Guns per 100 People Est. Gun Deaths per 100k Primary Context
United States 120.5 10.6 Outlier; more guns than people.
Canada 30.8 2.1 Significant ownership, lower death rate.
Finland 32.4 0.3 High ownership tied to hunting/tradition.
France 31.2 2.7 High ownership, but strict regulations.
Australia 13.0 1.0 Strict laws since 1996; rates remain low.
Germany 19.6 0.9 One of the lowest death rates in Europe.
Japan 0.3 0.04 Extremely low ownership and death rates.
Dusty says
The truth if the matter is that if you eliminate suicide and black on black killing the gun death rate drop exponentially. Additionally, if you eliminate the statistics from just a handful large Democrat controlled cities the US drops very far down the global gun death leaderboard. Strange thing about statistics….
Keenan Hreib says
Let’s not forget about MASS SHOOTINGS Dusty. It’s a uniquely American phenomenon, as well as a “WHITE BOYS” game. Think about that before you defend a country that is so far ahead on the “so called leader board”of gun violence, that it would take generational and necessary changes to knock us off the top spot. Sad but true. Oh, and playing the “race baiting”game to scare conservative, uninformed, mostly white American’s into clutching their pearls and grabbing their guns???? That’s not helpful.
Ray W. says
On February 11, 1945, at the conclusion of the Yalta summit, a Joint Declaration was published.
Here is an excerpt:
“It is our inflexible purpose to destroy German militarism and Nazism and to ensure that Germany will never be able to disturb the peace of the world. We are determined to disarm and disband all German armed forces; break up for all time the German General Staff that has repeatedly contrived the resurgence of German militarism, remove or destroy all German military equipment, eliminate or control all German industry that could be used for military production; bring all war criminals to justice and swift punishment and exact reparation in kind for the destruction wrought by the Germans; wipe out the Nazi party, Nazi laws, organizations and institutions, remove all Nazi and militarist influences from public life and the cultural and economic life of the German people; and take in harmony such other measures in Germany as may be necessary to the future peace and safety of the world. It is not our purpose to destroy the people of Germany, but only when Nazism and militarism have been extirpated will there be hope for a decent life for Germans, and a place.for them in the country of Nations.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Churchill did not think of Nazism or Prussian militarism as a mental illness; to him, they each were institutions of thought so pervasive that to Churchill, and to Roosevelt, too, the forms of institution had to be “extirpated.”
Can a member of the community of nations today act in such a way so as to merit extirpation of its institutions? I do not claim to know the answer, but I know FDR deemed it necessary not so long ago. Is this but one possible meaning of the phrase “unconditional surrender”?
In a healthy democracy based on the rule of law, individual rights and separation of powers? In a land of abuse of power exemplified by a Republican elected official who takes to the radio to ask just when would it be time to begin beheading Democrats?