While it seems that much of the discourse around curbing gun violence focuses on the need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, these two issues — gun violence and mental illness — “intersect only at their edges.” These are the words of Jeffrey Swanson and his colleagues in their new article examining the personality characteristics of American gun owners.
To think otherwise, they argue, is to fall prey to the narrative of gun rights advocates, who want us to think that “controlling people with serious mental illness instead of controlling firearms is the key policy answer.” Since the majority of people with mental illnesses are never violent, this is unlikely to be an effective strategy while, at the same time, further stigmatizing people with mental illness.
What is a good strategy, then, short of the unlikely event that we take America’s guns away?
Swanson and colleagues argue that a better policy would be to look for signs of impulsive, angry, and aggressive behavior and limit gun rights based on that. Evidence of such behavior, they believe, “conveys inherent risk of aggressive or violent acts” substantial enough to justify limiting gun ownership.
Using a nationally representative data set, they estimate that 8,865 people out of every 100,000 both (1) owns at least one gun and (2) exhibits impulsive angry behavior: angry outbursts, smashing things in anger, or losing their temper and engaging in physical fights. If I do my math right, that’s almost 22 million American adults (~321,300,000 people minus the 23% under 18 divided by 100,000 and multiplied by 8,865).
1,488 out of those 100,000, or almost 3.6 million, also carries a gun outside the home. People who owned lots of guns (six or more) were four times as likely to both have anger issues and carry outside the home.
The numbers of angry and impulsive people who own and carry guns, importantly, far exceeds the number of people who have been hospitalized for mental illness. This is a dangerous population, in other words, much larger than the one currently excluded from legal gun ownership.
“It is reasonable to imagine,” Swanson and his colleagues conclude, that people who are angry, aggressive, and impulsive have an arrest history. Accordingly, they advocate gun restrictions based on indicators of this personality type, such as convictions for misdemeanor violence, DUIs, and restraining orders. This, they think, would do a much better job of reducing gun violence than a focus on certified mental illness.
H/t to gin and tacos. Cross-posted at Pacific Standard.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 14
CityMouse — July 16, 2015
Twice I have had police intervene for what could have been "misdemeanor violence" when I defended myself against grab-assing men. Both times I used my hands and did not reach for my gun at all.
Once I had police intervene for what could have been a "restraining order" because when my husband filed for divorce, he wanted to out of the house so he could pack all of the valuables and keep them, so he claimed I verbally threatened him and asked I be removed, when no word was spoken or any action made toward him. The police spotted his obvious lie.
None of those three instances paint me in a light as an angry, aggressive, and impulsive. Why? Because I am not. I own a firearm hoping I never have to use it. I have never held it at anyone in 20 years. I am 5'1" and have trained to defend myself as best I can without a firearm.
Biggus Disqus — July 16, 2015
Dang, that's a lot of angry dudes with guns... Sounds like I'd better go get one ASAP (and a permit to carry it)!
Steve — July 16, 2015
"Accordingly, they advocate gun restrictions based on indicators of this personality type, such as convictions for misdemeanor violence, DUIs, and restraining orders."
If that type of infraction were to have occurred once, should that person be denied a gun? I don't think so: the authorities would be looking for stable *trait* characteristics of this personality type, so a pattern of behaviour would need to be shown (...or a particularly egregious one-time offence, maybe).
We're talking about "trait" vs. "state" here.
http://projects.ori.org/lrg/PDFs_papers/states-traits88.pdf
Chris — July 17, 2015
Hello,
Can you please post the link the the published article, or at least give the cite? All you have is the link to Occidental's library, which guests can not access. Thank you.
Watch out! Millions of angry, impulsive Americans with guns — July 24, 2015
[…] Lisa Wade writes: […]
Jaki Benson — August 4, 2015
I'm sure if you passed a law saying they had to, all those angry people would turn their firearms in at their local police department. ;]
Occidental College Professor Lisa Wade 'Horrified' by Conservative Student Group, Calls Economics Majors "anti-social", More - The Liberty Standard — September 1, 2015
[…] that’s all? Ha! There’s plenty more to choose from. Take some of her others hits, There are 22 Million Angry, Impulsive Americans with Guns, or White American men with their weapons and the bloody summer of 2015, or how about Where […]
THM — October 5, 2015
This is far more reasonable than discriminating on the basis of mental illness, and such fantastic progress, but did anyone else get a bit nervous when they read 'interactions'? I wonder how often white people would be listed as 'conversations' rather than 'altercations'...
Yo mama — October 17, 2015
You're an idiotic Obama supporter, take your bs study and shove it up your ass