For quite a while, there has been widespread sentiment among many Americans that it is time for the government to take action on gun control. And yet, despite what seems to be a constantly increasing number of mass shootings that affect a variety of public spaces, there has been relatively little by way of effective action. Various precedents and academic studies show that the complete outlawing and confiscation of guns may be the only type of gun control that really works, but seeing that even the most miniscule of measures are challenged intensely by conservatives, that idea certainly doesn’t seem very realistic. At this point, we just might have to accept that our current policy on guns, or something very close to it, will be our reality for the time being. In that case, perhaps there are some other actions that the United States can take to reduce mass shootings.
One of the most commonly mentioned ideas regarding a reduction of mass shootings has been the topic of mental health care. This concept has been hotly debated in recent years; there are many disagreements about whether mental illness is actually an important factor in mass shootings. But according to research by The Los Angeles Times, there is a real connection between mental illness and mass gun violence. Since 1900, at least 59 percent of what The Times defines as “mass public shootings” have been committed by those with diagnosed mental illness, or serious signs of it.
The potential solution here, though, is not as simple as just locking the mentally ill up in mental health institutions, as some politicians, including President Trump, have advocated. Rather, a reduction of mass shootings could very well occur with a major extension of mental healthcare in the United States. This idea, most commonly included in the concept of universal healthcare, may still have a long way to go, but it has rapidly gained popular support. If mental healthcare can be drastically improved, it might go a long way towards reducing the epidemic of mass shootings.
However, the burden of reducing mass shootings does not necessarily rely entirely on the government. In fact, societal problems beyond guns may play a big part in mass shootings. As already mentioned, extending mental healthcare could help reduce mass shootings, but the effect would be much greater if steps were taken to address the societal stigmatization of mental health issues.
Additionally, one of the most well-documented societal problems that may be contributing is the prevalence of anger between groups. When one feels the level of anger that has become so common, thanks in part to an “us-versus-them” culture, all it can take is an interest in guns for that rage to manifest in one of the worst ways possible. Then, perhaps, the interest in guns is not the problem; the rage is. According to Cornell psychology professor David Pizarro, “The way the Internet and cable news work, outrage over any event can be mustered easily.” Therefore, combatting the sensationalization of issues could help reduce mass shootings.
Overall, it is clear that there are other actions that can be taken to limit the prevalence of mass shootings in the United States, both by the government and by society in general. If Americans can look beyond gun control, we just might be able to find other ways to fix the problem.