Experts examine why violence persists, debunk myths about mental health, and explain which policies and community actions are effective.
Although the number of mass shootings in the United States has fallen to its lowest level in two decades, the country continues to lead high-income nations in gun-related deaths. This contradiction set the tone for a briefing held by American Community Media (ACoM), where experts in public health, mental health, and education-based activism examined why gun violence persists—and which policies and community initiatives have proven effective.
“National outrage erupts after every mass shooting, but policy responses remain uneven and deeply polarized,” organizers said as they opened the event. The panel addressed both the structural drivers behind mass shootings and recent advances in prevention, highlighting concrete examples from cities such as Baltimore and New York.
From the Classroom to Activism: Living Through a School Shooting
Sarah Lerner, co-founder of Teachers Unify to End Gun Violence and a survivor of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, shared her experience with stark clarity. Lerner was a teacher when a gunman killed 17 people and injured 17 others. “It was the most horrific experience of my life,” she recalled. “Locked in a room with my students for hours, hearing gunshots and screams, not knowing if we were going to make it out alive.”
The trauma did not end when police evacuated the school. “No one was teaching when we went back,” Lerner said. “How do you ask a student to read 1984 when you’ve just buried 17 people?” Instead of lesson plans, the return to school centered on emotional support, therapy, and community care. “There were therapy dogs, donations, food, coloring books. People didn’t know what to do, but they wanted to help.”
That experience pushed Lerner toward activism and trauma-informed journalism. Through Teachers Unify, she works to amplify the voices of educators who face not only school shootings, but also domestic and community violence. “School shootings are only a small part of the problem, but they get almost all the media attention,” she warned.
Lerner was unequivocal in rejecting proposals to arm teachers, such as a law passed in Tennessee. “It’s the most absurd idea,” she said. “You’re adding more guns to a space full of children. I studied English literature—not to become a police officer.” She also criticized policy rollbacks in Florida, where the minimum age to purchase firearms was lowered again to 18. “It’s deeply frustrating. We know what works, and yet we keep moving backward.”
Debunking the Mental Health Myth
Dr. Ragy Girgis, psychiatrist and director of the Center of Prevention and Evaluation (COPE) at Columbia University, challenged one of the most common narratives that resurfaces after mass shootings: the idea that they are primarily caused by mental illness.
Drawing on a database of more than 2,300 mass killings worldwide since 1900, Girgis was blunt: “Only about 5% of mass shootings in the United States are linked to severe mental illness. Ninety-five percent are not.”
Cases that do involve mental illness typically feature extreme psychosis, including delusions or hallucinations—conditions that are statistically rare. “Blaming mental health is not only inaccurate,” Girgis said. “It increases stigma and discourages people from seeking help.” He also dismissed claims that antidepressants increase the risk of violence. “The evidence shows the opposite: these medications help prevent suicide.”
Girgis’ research identifies other recurring patterns among perpetrators: fascination with firearms, nihilism—a profound sense of meaninglessness—and narcissistic traits. Another critical factor is suicide. “More than 50% of perpetrators kill themselves after the attack,” he explained. “Once someone has decided to die, fear of legal consequences disappears.”
In that context, Girgis emphasized the role of public policy. “States with weaker gun laws have higher rates of mass shootings per capita,” he said. “Almost all of the weapons used were legally purchased and later diverted. The issue isn’t just the law—it’s enforcement.”
What the Data Actually Shows
Dr. Daniel Webster, Bloomberg Professor of American Health at Johns Hopkins University, offered a data point rarely emphasized in news coverage: gun violence is declining. “If you only followed the headlines, you’d think everything is getting worse,” he said. “But the data tells a different story.”
Using 12-month rolling averages, Webster noted that homicides have dropped by nearly 40% since their peak in 2021–2022, with some cities seeing declines of up to 60%. He attributed the trend to multiple factors: recovery of social systems weakened during the pandemic, federal investments under the Biden administration, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, community-based violence intervention programs, and new regulations targeting ghost guns.
“Every shooting prevented today reduces the likelihood of future shootings tomorrow,” Webster explained. “Violence is contagious—but so is prevention.”
Asked about domestic violence, Webster was unequivocal: “The single factor that makes domestic violence lethal is access to a firearm. Restricting that access saves lives, and the evidence is overwhelming.”
As the briefing concluded, panelists shared a message directed squarely at journalists: gun violence is not inevitable, and coverage matters. “Trauma-informed journalism makes a real difference,” Lerner said. “How you speak to survivors and victims can either help them heal—or reopen wounds.”
The diagnosis was clear, and the consensus unusual. The United States can make progress against gun violence. The data exists. Effective policies exist. The question, as ever, is whether political leaders are willing to listen.