The painful and repeated occurrence of mass shootings across the US has become a frightening concern in society, triggering debates and discussions on how this can be prevented. Among the proposed strategies, addressing mental health issues has garnered significant attention. Proponents claim that focusing on mental health interventions underscores the primary influence to tackle the problem of mass shootings. This paper analyzes mental health intervention as the solution to mass shootings in a critical manner with an understanding that it is an intrinsic complication and should be solved comprehensively.
Ways on how to prevent mass shootings have, in recent years, established debate mainly with the focus on mental health, where proponents have suggested that the recovery and treatment of individuals with mental illness would avert violent acts. This strategy is based on the assumption that the number of mental illnesses and mass violence incidents are directly related to each other. Nevertheless, the fact that mental health is one of the key elements influencing the general welfare cannot be denied, but using this as an argument for mass shootings to be mere symptoms of mental health issues is too much of a simplification given the fact that many other factors are beyond doubt involved in the occurrence of such occurrences (Peterson et al., 2024). Besides, when one assigns mass shootings to mental illness in its entirety, it oversimplifies the problem, which, in the event, maintains the inauguration of attitudes of a negative nature concerning those who do mental health work. This spotlight lacks the perspective to address the planetary, tribal, and systemic factors that are responsible for mass violence, including physical arming, social gaps, and alienation. Along with the vital task of augmenting mental health services, the policy to tackle mental health problems has to be more all-encompassing with regard to its multifaceted character.
Studies focusing on the effectiveness of mental health intervention in averting mass shootings are ambiguous and of limited information (Cowden et al., 2022). Certainly, it is not just mental health services that are needed to foster individual and community well-being, and this assertion alone, without any empirical ground, is not a strong argument for the eradication of mass shootings. Furthermore, to blame mass violence on people with mental illnesses as the cardinal reason will not only establish wrong stereotypes but also deter those in need from seeking expert help, whose result is tantamount to worsening the problem instead of bettering it.
Providing mental health treatments as a single solution to mass shooting events creates obstacles while at the same time running the risk of breaching ethical standards. Determining individuals who can commit mass violence as an act is a complex job, as their menacing signs may not be apparent or easy to identify (Skeem & Mulvey, 2019). However, only taking precisely mental health as the factor will tend to ignore the social, cultural, and systemic factors of mass shootings, for instance, firearm access, socio-economic differences, and social disconnection. The implementation of any efficient measure to the stopping of mass shootings must, however, be comprehensive enough to resolve the complexities that are involved in this issue.
In summary, it would be fair to say that while mental health interventions constitute an essential part of the effort to promote societal well-being, relying exclusively on them when it comes to combating mass shootings is not adequate. The depth of this issue is not to be underestimated as the sources are multifarious – they range from society, culture, and systemic failure. Expanding mental health facilities and decreasing the stigma around the topic of mental health is necessary, with those measures being a part of more profound efforts to eliminate gun violence, social inequity, and the causes that have taken the rise of disastrous events like mass shootings. A systemic approach can help secure the second safest place, wherever and whomever.
References
Cowden, R. G., Captari, L. E., Chen, Z. J., De Kock, J. H., & Houghtaling, A. (2022). Effectiveness of an intensive experiential group therapy program in promoting mental health and well-being among mass shooting survivors: A practice-based pilot study. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 53(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000443
Peterson, J. K., Densley, J. A., Hauf, M., & Moldenhauer, J. (2024). Epidemiology of Mass Shootings in the United States. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081122-010256
Skeem, J., & Mulvey, E. (2019). What role does serious mental illness play in mass shootings, and how should we address it? Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12473
write