I AM NOT ADVOCATING VIOLENCE NOR JUSTIFYING IT.
In the wake of the Onion’s routine release of their “No Way To Prevent This” article, people like to blame the perpetrator’s action on mental illness. That is, some sort of mental instability was the primary cause of a mass shooting. Logically, if that is true, then without that mental instability, the mass shooting wouldn’t have happened, the person would have…done something else.
But this is bullshit.
There is a science behind why people commit violence. Why We Snap points out several “triggers”:
- Life-or Limb
- Insult
- Family
- Environment
- Mate
- Order in society
- Resources
- Tribe
- Stopped
It’s completely reasonable to kill a person in self-defense. Almost no one denies this. That is the primary justification for the proliferation of guns in American society. This is not a mental illness.
At home, 72% of all murder-suicides involve an intimate partner; 94% of the victims of these murder suicides are female. There are a lot of reasons why men hurt and murder women, but fragile male egos that treat women as inferior and interpret their actions as insulting and as challenging to a man’s masculinity is an entire trope. And yet, the gender essentialism of traditional masculinity isn’t treated as mentally ill (or even just plain wrong).
Tucker Carlson was renowned for his supposed truth-telling about how the order of American society is being threatened by an invasion of immigrants. Trump did the same thing. A reasonable conclusion, then, is that the El Paso mass shooter was merely defending his beloved nation against this invasion of immigrants, whom he just so happens to hate because they threaten the order of society.
Similarly, the Nashville Christian academy shooter was trans. For many of us, transgenderism isn’t a mental illness, and thus not a cause of excessive violence in and of itself. However, coupled with the antagonistic relationship between traditional Christianity and transgenderism, several of the triggers that don’t assume mental illness make sense.
And, of course, tribe…oh boy! As American polarization increases among the electorate, the salience of tribes increases. Only like a week ago, GOP lawmakers that didn’t support Jim Jordan’s nomination for House Speaker were sent death threats over the phone. If you don’t vote for their guy, they’ll fuck you up! (But non-violently…listen to the clip). Being protective and supportive of people like you isn’t considered a mental illlness.
Again, I don’t believe any of this violence is justified, nor am I advocating for it. (I cannot stress that enough). My argument is that there are seemingly rational reasons to engage in violence in the moment. So, rather than scapegoating the mentally ill, maybe, just maybe, we should look to why it seemed like a rational decision for a mass shooter to kill a bunch of people. What was their motivation? What problem were they trying to solve? And why did excessive violence seem like a good way to solve the problem?
I believe this is a much better approach to any shooting or violence in general than the allowing an immediate pivot to mental illness as the causal factor.
You seem to be implying people murder because they desire to. There’s definitely some people who do and perhaps that should qualify*. But a lot of people kill who don’t want to kill and sometimes intentionally do so anyways and that’s what OP seems to be talking about.
Take people working at slaughterhouses, for example, who kill regularly for pay. I don’t think it takes mental illness to do such a thing. People regularly drive cars, for example, despite how many people they kill, most of which are caused indirectly via things like pollution. It doesn’t mean someone is mentally ill for driving a car to the store. Of course most people don’t think about the impact of their actions on the lives and health of others, so its not intentional killing. But are you suggesting someone who in conscientious of the impacts of their actions is mentally ill for driving anyways? Given the outcome is the same, I don’t see why thinking “I know this is killing others, but my convenience is worth their sacrifice” to drive a car wouldn’t be mentally ill while using a gun to kill someone who you don’t want to kill in order to defend yourself or your loved ones would be consider mentally ill.
Illness shouldn’t be conflated with immorality. Nothing in OP’s comment suggests they don’t think murder isn’t wrong.
*Personally, I think illnesses in general should be based on how they affect the person with it, not others around them so I’d still disagree that a desire to murder would be indicative of illness, but that’s a semantics thing that puts me at odds with the common usages, colloquially and medically. Someone carrying a bacteria but having no ill effects does not have an illness, even if they can spread it to others and those people do get ill as a result. Not sure why we treat mental illnesses differently. Socially unfit behaviors/desires should be classified differently and conflating the two leads to additional stigma for those who have illnesses. Not really relevant to this discussion though.