Gun Violence: Separating Myths From Reality

By Danny Mulligan, M.A., Erica Marshall-Lee, Ph.D., ABPP, and Desireé G. Frain, Psy.D., on behalf of the Atlanta Behavioral Health Advocates

Every mass shooting in America is a horrifying spectacle made worse by our collective witnessing of such violent tragedy. Yet, sensational media coverage not only rewards shooters with notoriety—it manufactures misleading and divisive narratives about gun violence. If we really want to prevent gun violence, we need to dispel some pervasive myths:

Source: Pexels / Used with permission

Myth 1: Mass shootings are a major driver of American gun violence

The sad truth is that preventing all mass shootings would still leave us with about 99.5% of firearm fatalities (Metzl et al., 2021b). This is true because firearm suicides consistently account for the majority of gun deaths. In other words, the paradigm case is not predatory violence, but violence aimed inwards.

If we focus exclusively on homicides and accidents, mass shootings still only account for about 3% of fatalities. In reality, gun homicide is primarily driven by social inequality (Daly, 2023).

Myth 2: Suicide is caused solely by the neurochemical imbalances that cause mental illness

Many mental and physical health conditions are major risk factors for suicide. But access to lethal means matters. Suicide attempts using guns are 90% fatal whereas poisonings/overdoses are only 8% fatal (Choi et al., 2022). Thus, limiting gun access for at-risk people saves lives.

Preventive interventions can save even more lives, if properly conceived. Focusing on the neurochemical causes of depression and other mental health conditions not only belies recent systematic reviews (Moncrieff et al., 2023), but it begs the question: what life events cause the neurochemical changes? The answer inevitably points to policy and history.

A study of economic strains (i.e., debt, unemployment, homelessness, and low income) found that men with all four were 20 times more likely to attempt suicide than men with zero (Elbogen et al., 2020). Unequal distribution of economic resources is a product of policy, not natural law. Turning to history for examples, we simply cannot understand the Native American suicide crisis without examining America’s history of genocidal settler colonialism and how it led to current economic deprivation, intergenerational trauma, and low access to culturally responsive care for Native Americans (Asher BlackDeer & Patterson Silver Wolf, 2020).

Myth 3: Gun violence is mainly caused by individuals with mental illness

Unfortunately, the desire to determine a “why” for gun violence has resulted in further stigmatization of an already isolated group in the U.S.—those with mental illnesses. However, the research is clear that mental illness is not a sufficient explanation for the vast majority of gun violence in the U.S. (Metzl et al., 2021a; Swanson et al., 2015). In fact, people with severe mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators (Latalova et al., 2014).

Other contributing factors must be examined, as mental illness is not a scientifically-sound explanation for gun violence. Statistical markers of income inequality are a strong predictor of gun violence (Daly, 2023). Structural inequality can also explain why gun violence disproportionally affects Black, Indigenous, and Latino communities, especially their boys and men. Historical and ongoing structural oppression have disproportionately trapped the descendants of enslaved Africans and Latin American immigrants in highly segregated, impoverished, unequal, polluted, low-opportunity, and politically disenfranchised urban neighborhoods. When economic inequality meets intergenerational trauma, police brutality, racism in the criminal justice system, and access to weapons, it results in deadly firearm conflicts as the leading cause of death for Black boys and young men (Bottiani et al., 2021).

Myth 4: Gun violence can be explained by monocausal narratives

The truth about the origins of gun violence is not a reductionist one and is more appropriately explained by a combination of factors, including income inequality, alcohol and drug use, and structural oppression. Politicized media narratives perpetuate the false notion that gun violence has one simple cause, resulting in division and false dichotomies (e.g., mental illness versus poor gun control). The mounting evidence for structural inequality and social determinants of health as contributors tends to be downplayed by the media (Lucyk, 2016).

Psychologists must be careful not to develop tunnel vision and ignore the multi-faceted network of risk factors. For instance, men are more likely to be victims of gun violence, but women are more frequently victims of intimate partner homicide via firearm (Boeck et al., 2020). The goal should be to prevent all gun violence for all people by being sensitive to economic, socio-cultural, legal, and political structures rather than relying on a “one size fits all” approach.

Mass Shootings Essential Reads

Analyzing the Latest Legal Outcome for a Shooter’s Parents

What Are Mass Murderers’ Motives?

So what can psychologists do?

While addressing this task may appear daunting, there are actions that psychologists can take. Firstly, psychologists can engage intentionally in advocacy for research and enterprise designed to prevent gun violence by addressing the social and political determinants of health. These efforts can alter cultural narratives that co-opt the language of psychological science to individualize structural issues.

Additionally, psychologists can educate themselves and adopt an interdisciplinary structural competence framework as outlined by Metzl et al. (2021a). This framework offers a structured approach that combines clinical education and research with medical sociology, political science, public health, health economics, and other perspectives (Neff et al., 2017). Implementing trauma informed approaches to firearm violence and structural violence perspectives on disparities in firearm injury in clinical care can improve outcomes (Boeck et al., 2020; Gaylord-Harden et al., 2022). Psychologists can join public health, sociology, anthropology, and economics researchers to develop macro, meso, and micro level strategies to reduce gun violence.

Legislative gun control advocacy can also help curtail gun violence (Lee et al., 2017; Swanson et al., 2015; Webster, 2015). We believe redistributive public policy advocacy centered on eliminating structural racism and reducing socioeconomic inequality is also essential. This can be supported by psychological research on social class that describes the origins of socioeconomic inequality. Lastly, psychologists can advocate for legislative appropriation of community-driven social programming, participatory action research, and other support to address gun violence in impacted communities.