What Legislators Should Know About the Psychology of Mass Shootings
PUBLICATION NOTE: This post was originally intended for publication in the week following the Parkland Florida school shooting, though was not published for a multitude of reasons. One of the most obvious being that, while the issue of gun violence deeply impacts academia, the focus of this blog is primarily educational and the intent isn't to cast political opinions on social issues. Another concern was that the arguments would feel trite to the reader, given the large insurgence of activism flooding social-media at the time. However, as time passed it became increasingly apparent that many of the points made, and psychological facts stated were not being referenced by other writers, and that raising these points should be of more importance than breaking an arbitrary literary theme.
There are obviously many psychological factors that contribute to mass shootings. Researchers have studied the phenomenon from a variety of perspectives, such as the desensitization effects of violent video games (Bartholow, Bushman, & Sestir, 2006). A compilation and analysis of school shooters in 2003 indicated that many had felt rejected by their peers, and the feelings of rejection had fueled their violence (Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003). The potential links between feelings of rejection and acts of violence have been widely documented and publicized. In order to increase chances of survival, an individual may subconsciously perceive isolation as an intentional act of aggression by other members of society, even when these people are completely unaware of the individual's feelings.
Although violence was adaptive for our ancient ancestors, it seems maladaptive today. Natural selection designed parts of the human mind specifically to steer us through conflict, both between individuals and groups. In a hunter-gatherer village, when a tribe member exhibits physical dominance over his opponent, he ascends in social status, yielding greater access to resources such as food and potential mates. Given the fact that the most dominant members of a tribe succeeded in spreading their genes more than the less dominant members, a great deal of our ancestral DNA must be comprised primarily of those who avoided the consequences of social isolation by exerting physical dominance.
Aggression is characteristic of some psychiatric disorders, especially disorders involving poor impulse control (Seo, Patrick, & Kennealy, 2008). However, while natural selection may have yielded violent tendencies, it also granted humans a large prefrontal cortex which, when working properly, is the source of our ability to hinder primitive impulses and aggression. The link between these disorders and violence is particularly strong for disorders involving low levels of serotonin like depression. Dysfunctional interactions between serotonin and dopamine systems in the prefrontal cortex appear especially important in understanding links between impulsive aggression and other psychiatric conditions. Abnormally low serotonin function could represent a biochemical trait that predisposes affected individuals to aggression.
Considering the above arguments, it seems unlikely that deterrence is a viable method of preventing mass shootings. Though it is a natural assumption of many Americans that violence would decline if more civilians carried firearms, this logic can easily be disproven.
The fundamental fallacy in the National Rifle Association's good guys with guns mantra, is the mathematical fact that probabilities are cumulative, and with every armed person follows an inherent probability distribution of the weapon being fired. Whether that be via; accidental discharge, the carrier losing control of their temperament midst altercation with other individuals, or the weapon being obtained by someone aside from the otherwise-responsible owner. This rudimentary probability function is stated mathematically as:
P(A ∪ B) = P(A) + P(B) – P(A ∩ B)
where, A and B are the first and second firearms respectively, and P(A ∪ B) is the combined probability of either weapon being discharged. This result can be expanded to any number of weapons in a given environment, and may be treated empirically by plugging in actual statistics on gun violence.
It is clear that in a model of society where the number of firearms introduced into any particular environment is increased, the potential of a weapon being discharged follows. This implies that while proposals such as arming teachers inside of classrooms may seem like easy solutions, the reality is the inevitability of tragic events growing in proportion to firearm quantity.
From the perspective of a well mind, it may seem that an individual plotting a mass shooting would have less incentive if they anticipate an armed public. However, our knowledge of mental illness exhibits the unfortunate fact that those suffering from depression and other disorders may already be in a suicidal state, while those who are not necessarily suicidal may be blinded by grandiose beliefs in their abilities or become enticed by a fantasy of experiencing armed-conflict. Additionally, as many in law enforcement have pointed out, when civilians take it upon themselves to disable a shooter they risk creating confusion for police entering the area as it becomes difficult to identify the actual offender.
There is also another clear error in the narrative that teachers should be expected or rewarded for carrying firearms within schools. There are more than enough examples of workplace shootings by disgruntled or otherwise socially perturbed employees, though it seems that the Trump administration and others in government have forgotten the obvious fact that juveniles and students are not the only groups capable of committing mass murder. Normalizing the possession of firearms by teachers/employees inside schools, universities, or any other workplace is a dangerous disregard of reality.
As far as automatic/semi-automatic rifles are concerned, raising the minimum age from 18 to 21 is a step in the right direction, though still not enough. And while legislation may move forward to eliminate the sale of so-called bump stocks, it seems illogical to completely neglect the possibility of someone converting a semi-automatic rifle to a fully automatic. Speaking without direct experience of either rifles or modified rifle-stocks, it appears plausible that major components of a bump stock could be produced by sufficiently motivated individuals with access to 3-D printers, or perhaps even less sophisticated tools. Regulation may prevent large scale manufacturers from marketing and selling to the masses, but it would be nearly impossible to completely restrict trade of bump stocks or their constituent parts through the internet. Hence, allowing semi-automatic rifles to remain on the market is effectively equal to legalizing the sale of fully automatic weapons.
Historically the United States doesn’t extend the rights granted in the second amendment to materials which have the potential to cause mass harm, though assault-style weapons seem to be the exception for U.S. law makers. By comparison, obtaining a Private-Pilot Certificate requires a minimal 40 hours of training, while any individual over the age of 18 can purchase a semi-automatic handgun.
The recent uptrend in mass shootings is a clear indictment of the many years of legislative neglect, and it has become clear that now is the time for true reform. Lawmakers should not only be looking into a full assault weapons ban, but also creating a federally mandated licensing system for general firearm ownership. This system should require trainees to not only learn standard firearm safety practices, but also digest an introductory psychology course where students would study aggression and impulse control. While also educating applicants in areas of developmental psychology, and the importance of ensuring their firearms never fall into the hands of unsupervised minors.
Please write/tweet your state governor, local congressperson, house speaker Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan), majority leader Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader), and senate majority leader Mitch McConnel (@SenateMajLdr) for #GunControlNow.
Have suggestions about future content or need help solving a physics/math problem? Tweet @ThePhysicsBlog
Comments
Post a Comment