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're making two different arguments here and trying to pass them off as one.
Is manslaughter indicative of mental illness in every case? Absolutely not. You point this out and I agree with it.
Is every person who picks up a machine gun and goes out to kill people mentally ill? Yes, absolutely.
Fucked up thoughts that lead to a mass shooting == mental illness
In which case then it's a matter of you not knowing how mental illness is diagnosed. If a person expressed homicidal thoughts with intent to a psychiatrist, they would be diagnosed with some form of mental illness. If nothing else, the disregard for other lives would qualify a person for a sociopathy diagnosis. In other words, it's medically impossible for someone to do one without the other (commit a mass shooting and being deemed mentally ill).
This is again two arguments presented as one. There are (limited) cases where manslaughter with a.machine gun would not qualify someone as being mentally ill. Self-defense is one, which I agreed with in my original comment. However, mass shootings and premeditated killings are not every manslaughter case.
Have a look at wikipedia. Homicidal ideation is not a mental illness. It is actually common, at least among university students surveyed.
Homicidal ideation is a common medical term for thoughts about homicide. There is a range of homicidal thoughts which spans from vague ideas of revenge to detailed and fully formulated plans without the act itself.[1] Most people who have homicidal ideation do not commit homicide. 50–91% of people surveyed on university grounds in various places in the United States admit to having had a homicidal fantasy.[2] Homicidal ideation is common, accounting for 10–17% of patient presentations to psychiatric facilities in the United States.[1]
Homicidal ideation is not a disease itself, but may result from other illnesses such as delirium and psychosis. Psychosis, which accounts for 89% of admissions with homicidal ideation in one US study,[3] includes substance-induced psychosis (e.g. amphetamine psychosis) and the psychoses related to schizophreniform disorder and schizophrenia. Delirium is often drug induced or secondary to general medical illness(es).
It may arise in association with personality disorders or it may occur in people who do not have any detectable illness. In fact, surveys have shown that the majority of people have had homicidal fantasies at some stage in their life.[2] Many theories have been proposed to explain this.