Mental illness doesn’t explain who owns or carries guns

A new study published in Psychological Reports challenges a widespread belief that mental illness is a key driver of firearm access and carrying in the United States. Instead, the findings suggest that people with mental illnesses tend to own and carry guns for the same reasons as anyone else—reasons rooted in cultural background and personal experiences, not clinical diagnoses. Cultural factors like growing up in a rural area or identifying as Protestant were much stronger predictors of gun access than any mental health-related variable.

Miranda L. Baumann, the study’s author, conducted the research to address a persistent gap in the national conversation about gun ownership and mental health. Despite frequent public claims linking mental illness with gun violence—especially in the aftermath of mass shootings—empirical data to support this association has been limited.

Previous studies often focused narrowly on the risk of suicide or violence among people with mental disorders, ignoring the broader context in which gun ownership occurs. Baumann aimed to explore whether mental illness is genuinely linked to firearm access and carrying, or whether other factors offer better explanations.

“I developed a strong research interest in the justice-related experiences of individuals with serious and persistent mental illnesses early in my graduate school career,” said Baumann, a postdoctoral research fellow at Georgia State University and a data & analytics research fellow at the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities.

“But a research collaboration with one of my mentors, Brent Teasdale, exploring the impact of firearm access among individuals recently released from inpatient psychiatric treatment inspired me to dig deeper into the issue of mental health-related gun policy. Given the limited body of empirical evidence available to support sound policy, I wanted to start with a basic question: Why do people with mental health problems own and carry guns?”

Free daily newsletter

To examine these questions, Baumann analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, a nationally representative study conducted between 2001 and 2003. She focused on a subsample of 5,481 adults who answered detailed questions about mental health, firearm access, and personal history. The dataset included a wide range of clinical measures—such as diagnoses of anxiety, mood, and impulse control disorders—as well as information on mental health treatment, suicidal behavior, and functional impairment. In addition, it captured cultural variables like childhood environment and religious affiliation, and criminological experiences like early exposure to intimate partner violence.

Firearm access was defined as having at least one working gun in the home. Gun carrying was defined as having carried a firearm in the past 30 days, not including hunting or target shooting. Baumann used statistical models to evaluate whether mental health conditions predicted these outcomes, and whether they influenced the effects of cultural and criminological factors.

She found that having a mental illness—regardless of type or severity—did not significantly increase the odds of having access to firearms. Nor did past year hospitalizations or suicide attempts. In fact, the only mental health-related variable that showed a consistent relationship with gun access was receiving professional mental health treatment in the past year, which was linked to a lower likelihood of having guns at home.

By contrast, several cultural and personal background factors were strong predictors of firearm access. People who grew up in rural areas were nearly 25% more likely to report having guns than those raised in cities. Those who moved frequently as children—a pattern common in military families—also showed elevated rates of gun access. Protestant religious affiliation was associated with higher firearm access compared to other religions or no religion. Respondents who expressed strong preferences for same-race marriage—a proxy for racial prejudice—were more likely to own firearms than those who expressed little or no preference.

Early life experiences of intimate partner violence also played a significant role. People who reported being victims or perpetrators of dating violence before age 21 were around 10% more likely to have access to firearms in adulthood. Even higher levels of what Baumann calls “criminogenic disinhibition”—a tendency toward risk-taking and getting into trouble—were associated with increased firearm access. Interestingly, angry impulsivity, a different kind of disinhibition characterized by emotional outbursts, was linked to a slightly lower probability of having guns.

These patterns were also reflected in who was most likely to carry guns in public. Although carrying a gun was far less common than simply having one at home—only about 4.5% of people in the sample had carried a gun in the past month—those who did carry were overwhelmingly those who had access. In fact, having a firearm in the home more than doubled the probability of carrying. Other predictors included a history of early dating violence, high criminogenic disinhibition, and prior employment in jobs that require firearms, such as military or law enforcement.

“I was surprised that none of the cultural factors associated with gun access and ownership were predictive of carrying,” Baumann told PsyPost. “I had assumed that cultural contexts that normalized firearms would also normalize carrying behaviors. But that was not the case. I also did not expect the effect of gun access on carrying to be so large in comparison to the other predictive factors. Having access increases the probability of past month carrying by almost 9%, but the next highest magnitude effect, engaging in risky or criminal behaviors (criminogenic disinhibition), only increases the probability of carrying by a little less than 5%.”

Mental illness was not a significant predictor of carrying once cultural and criminological factors were taken into account. Even when the models were adjusted for possible statistical issues related to the low number of people reporting recent carrying, the results held steady. None of the relationships between carrying and cultural or criminal history varied based on mental health status. These findings support Baumann’s conclusion that firearm-related behaviors among people with mental illness are not distinct from those of the general population.

“I think the big takeaway from this study should be that people with mental illnesses own and carry guns for the same reasons and in the same contexts as everyone else,” Baumann said. “In other words, it’s our cultural norms and backgrounds, not our mental health, that influence whether and how we own firearms.”

The implications of these findings are wide-reaching. According to Baumann, efforts to reduce gun-related violence and suicide often target people with mental illnesses, based on the assumption that they pose a special risk. But the evidence from this study suggests that such policies may be misguided. While gun violence prevention is a valid goal, focusing on mental illness may unfairly stigmatize a vulnerable population without addressing the real drivers of firearm access and misuse.

At the same time, Baumann emphasizes that her study has limitations. The data were collected over two decades ago, and the gun-related questions were limited in scope. Respondents may have underreported their access or carrying behaviors, and many of the other measures lacked information about when certain experiences occurred. These limitations make it difficult to determine cause-and-effect relationships or assess recent trends.

“Unfortunately, limitations imposed by Congress on how federal funds could be used for firearm-related research served as barriers to the collection of comprehensive data on firearm-related behaviors and outcomes,” Baumann noted. “While Congress has attempted to clarify its stance on firearm-related research in recent years, we are still living the consequences of a de facto research ban.”

Baumann, who conducted the study as part of her dissertation, is continuing her research on the topic. In follow-up work, she has developed models to estimate firearm access rates among people with various mental health conditions using newer datasets, and she is examining the potential impact of different policy approaches. Looking ahead, she plans to participate in the evaluation of projects funded through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

“In the longer term, I plan to participate in the evaluation of Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program projects funded through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022,” Baumann explained. “Those grants funded a wide array of community, court, and law enforcement initiatives to reduce gun violence and improve mental health service utilization among individuals at risk of gun-related offending or victimization.”

“While this study did not examine respondents’ willingness to seek treatment for mental illness, I believe that the study’s findings should be considered with respect to the effect of stigma on treatment engagement. One of the goals of my line of research is to reduce this stigma by providing empirical insights into the causes and consequences of gun-related violence. By emphasizing that the processes underlying gun ownership or access and carrying are no different for people with and without mental illnesses, I hope this study will serve to inform the public and counter the popular, and false, narrative that our nation’s gun violence problem is a mental health problem.”

The study, “Mental Illness, Gun Access and Carrying: A Test of Competing Hypotheses,” was published January 7, 2024.