Stanford Study: Most Mass Shooters Have Undiagnosed Psychiatric Illnesses


Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News,

Researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine have published a study that reveals most of the perpetrators of mass shootings in America are people with undiagnosed psychiatric disorders.

The study focused on 115 assailants of shootings committed between 1982 and 2019, and then narrowed that number down to ones who survived.

“We found that most mass shooters in our study experienced undiagnosed and unmedicated psychiatric illness,” the researchers noted.

Describing the findings as “striking,” the study notes that symptoms of clinical psychiatric disorders were identified in almost all the shooters, 32 out of 35.

Over half of the perpetrators, 18, were found to have schizophrenia, with psychotic symptoms including the belief they were receiving messages from demons and seeing hallucinations ordering them to “kill, burn or destroy.”

A further 10 of the shooters were diagnosed as bipolar, delusional and suffering from personality disorders.

The study also noted that “None were medicated or received other treatment prior to the crime.”

To make the diagnoses, the study focused on the records of forensic psychiatrists and court proceedings, in addition to writings and social media posts made by the shooters.

Researchers also found that in 20 mass shooting cases where the perpetrators died, at least eight had schizophrenia, seven had other diagnoses, and five had unknown mental illnesses.

While concluding that diagnosis and treatment of mental illness could have “decreased violence,” the study notes that “Psychiatric research… on the nature and the incidence of mental illness among mass shooters, however, remains largely understudied.”

“Most of the cases of domestic mass murders possibly might have been prevented had the assailant… been more consistently assisted to receive a correct diagnosis… followed by psychiatric medication treatment… to save lives,” the study suggests.

*  *  *


  1. Yeeeeahhhhhh… So, tell me, then… Why do so many mass killers have histories of psychotropic medication in their background?

    Columbine killers both had diagnoses going for various things, and were medicated at some point before the killings. Stories vary as to whether they were at the time, though. That kid down in Florida? He was diagnosed and on meds, as well.

    I think I’m gonna be a little dubious of this whole thing, being as it would be in the best interests of the psychiatric and pharmaceutical companies for this to be true–And, I’ve read the diametric opposite in many reports. Undiagnosed? Yeah, pull the other one–It’s got bells on.

    The reality is that we didn’t have these sorts of mass killings as commonly as we do today before the advent of psychiatry and the medications we’re now commonly prescribing. Is that correlation, or cause and effect?

    I think we’d be a lot better off if we still locked the nutters away somewhere, encouraged life-shortening vices, and kept them out of normal society. God knows the quality of life in many major cities would be much improved…

    • Most mass shooters have poor organisational skills and are terrible marksmen.

      Seriously, what strikes me in nearly every case is how few people the shooters hit, and how few are killed, particularly the muslims. I guess if they are really nuts, as this study claims, that would go a long way to explaining it.

      • Most of them are utter failures at life.

        If they were at all successful it is unlikely they would have done it; and if they did to it the body count would be higher.

    • “Why do so many mass killers have histories of psychotropic medication in their background?“

      I would personally like to see this studied more closely. Of course, a confounding factor here is that half of everyone has been on an SSRI at one time or another.

      IMHO we don’t have the slightest idea what these things do to us. Ask a neurologist what we really understand about the brain. They’ll tell you it’s a complex, sensitive instrument that does lots of weird things that are barely explained. Take something pretty common, like narcolepsy. What is it? What causes it? How do you treat it? Doctors have -some- clues about this stuff, but it’s nowhere near the level of something like trauma medicine.

      I have this sneaking hunch that we’re currently at the “laudanum” phase of SSRIs. “Here, this will make you feel better. If you want more, let me know.”

      But it’s all terribly under-studied. I assume mostly because Big Pharma isn’t interested in knowing the answers.

      • The entire field is frighteningly amateurish. The doctors I ran into in the service were all like “Here, try this… Come back in two weeks, and we’ll see how it works…”. Meanwhile, the poor bastard’s leaders had no idea, thanks to medical privacy, that anyone was running an open-air free-floating purely subjective experiment on this kid’s mind. You’d have a troop suddenly go narcoleptic and be constantly late for work, or develop hair-trigger temper, and all you’d know is “Hey, has Fredricks been acting weird lately…? Is it just me?”. Hell, sometimes their wives and kids would have no idea at all why Daddy went “odd”, ‘cos he wasn’t even telling them he’d gone in for help.

        Then, the whole thing would get compounded because the doctors would be asking the subject of their testing, who likely wasn’t even aware of his own behavioral changes, how effective the drugs were…

        Here’s my opinion: Psychoactives should only be administered under medical observation in clinical environments and then periodically should have the subjects brought in for re-evaluation. As well, everyone in their lives ought to at least be aware that they’re under medication, in order to know that they should be observant of changes and report those to the medical authorities.

        If it were up to me, that’s the only way it’d be legal to go around screwing with people’s brain chemistry, and I’d have the fucking doctors post bond for every patient they let out of the clinics. Right now, they’re like gleeful little kids screwing around with fun new toys, and not caring about it at all–Because, there are no consequences for them if one of their patients goes off the reservation and kills someone or themselves.

        The whole field is flatly criminal, in my opinion.

  2. Not surprising. I personally think that a lot of people into guns would rather claw their eyes out then having mental illness and guns mentioned in the same sentence. At least that’s my impression when I am on GD when I see a mass shooting thread. It’s always filled with people performing mental gymnastics to come up with any other reason then the shooter being mentally unfit and people failing to notice/keep firearms away from these people.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here