“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,” said Miranda L. Baumann, postdoctoral research fellow at Georgia State University. That’s a statement that flips a common narrative on its head—and it’s backed by data. For decades, the conversation around gun violence in the United States has been tangled up with assumptions about mental illness, but new research is painting a much more nuanced picture.
A recent study published in Psychological Reports found that cultural and personal background factors—like rural upbringing, religious identity, and racial attitudes—are far stronger predictors of gun access than mental health status. For example, people raised in rural areas were nearly 25% more likely to have firearms at home than those from cities. Protestant religious affiliation also stood out, with higher rates of gun ownership compared to other groups. These findings echo broader research showing that evangelical Protestants, in particular, are more likely to own guns and oppose stricter gun control laws than other religious traditions.
It’s not just about where you grew up or your faith, though. The study also found that those who moved frequently as children—a pattern often seen in military families—had elevated rates of gun access. And when it comes to attitudes, people who expressed a strong preference for same-race marriage, a proxy for racial prejudice, were more likely to own firearms. Early experiences with intimate partner violence also played a role, increasing the likelihood of adult gun access by about 10%.
What about mental health? Here’s where things get interesting. Having a mental illness—regardless of type or severity—did not significantly increase the odds of having access to firearms. In fact, the only mental health-related variable that consistently predicted lower gun access was receiving professional mental health treatment in the past year. This aligns with findings from the National Comorbidity Study-Replication, which showed that people with mental disorders were no more likely to own or carry guns than those without such diagnoses (see detailed epidemiologic evidence here).
So why does the myth of the “dangerous mentally ill gun owner” persist? Media coverage of mass shootings often zeroes in on the perpetrator’s mental health, fueling public fears and policy responses that target mental illness rather than addressing the broader cultural and social drivers of gun ownership. As Baumann points out, “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.” The infamous Dickey Amendment, for example, led to years of restricted federal funding, leaving gaps in our understanding of what actually drives gun access and violence.
This misattribution has real-world consequences. Policies that focus on mental illness as the root cause of gun violence can unfairly stigmatize people living with mental health conditions, discouraging them from seeking help and missing the mark on prevention. “Public attention to the mass shootings—too often fueled by ill-informed and sensationalized media portrayals that overgeneralize the connection between mental illness and violence—must be redirected and channeled to build support for evidence-based policies both to improve mental health care and reduce gun violence, in ways that will promote public safety without increasing stigma,” wrote Dr. Jeffrey Swanson and colleagues in their comprehensive review on mental illness and gun violence.
The evidence also points to the importance of community-based interventions. Under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, new funding is supporting local programs that address gun violence and mental health in tandem, with a focus on at-risk individuals and community-level solutions. These programs are being rigorously evaluated to see what actually works, a much-needed shift after years of policy shaped more by fear than by facts.
It’s also worth noting that the presence of guns in the home can have psychological effects, especially on young people. Research shows that in-home firearm access is associated with increased depressive symptoms among adolescents, particularly girls (see this longitudinal study). The mechanism? Reduced perceptions of safety at school, which can ripple out into broader mental health challenges.
For public health and policy researchers, mental health advocates, and anyone invested in evidence-based solutions, the message is clear: effective gun policy needs to focus on cultural, social, and behavioral risk factors—not just mental illness diagnoses. This means investing in robust research, supporting community-driven prevention programs, and crafting policies that protect both public safety and the dignity of people living with mental health conditions. The path forward is grounded in data, not stigma, and in understanding the complex tapestry of American gun culture.
