IF STUDIES ARE any indication of the compelling factors behind the culture of violence among the youth, the government’s leniency on gun ownership and regulation could have something to do with the series of “blood bath” in school campuses.
A preliminary analysis conducted by UP Associate Professor Dr. Rogelio Alicor Panao over 5,000 academic papers on mass violence found that easy access to firearms and gaps in gun regulation were the most frequently discussed factors in the academic papers, accounting for 26.81% of the statements in the study.
Panao however clarified that the finding should not be read as proof that any particular factor causes a shooting. “We note that this analysis is a preliminary text-based mapping exercise. It does not establish statistical significance, effect size or the relative importance of any factor.”
Panao said the studies assessed whether existing safeguards were sufficient to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from gaining access to firearms and ammunition.
He explained that the finding means firearm access and regulatory gaps were among the issues most frequently discussed in the body of research examined. But it does not establish that these factors caused any particular shooting or determine their relative importance in producing mass violence, the Inquirer wrote.
The Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP), in its discussion of school violence following the deadly Tacloban City shooting, likewise included easy access to lethal weapons among a range of risk factors identified by psychological science. The PAP cautioned against treating any one risk factor as a direct explanation for violence.
“School violence is a complex issue that cannot be explained by any single factor,” PAP said, citing interactions among developmental, relational, social, community, digital, cultural and societal influences.
Unaddressed mental health crises accounted for 21.25% of the statements identified in the data analysis, making it the second most frequently discussed factor which counts “severe emotional distress, depression or suicidal thoughts.”
But this should not be interpreted to mean that people experiencing mental health problems are likely to commit mass violence or cause mass shootings or that a person involved in a particular shooting had a mental health condition.
Psychologists have also warned against drawing a direct line between mental health problems and violence.
The PAP earlier said that serious violence among young people develops through the interaction of multiple circumstances rather than from a single influence such as violent video games, social media, mental illness, bullying or family problems alone.
The PAP identified emotional distress and difficulty regulating emotions among possible risk factors, along with trauma and adverse childhood experiences, bullying, victimization, family conflict, social isolation and peer rejection, exposure to violence, unsafe or exclusionary school environments, access to lethal weapons, and harmful online and offline influences.
But PAP emphasized that the presence of one or several of these factors does not mean a young person will become violent. “Most young people exposed to adversity do not commit serious acts of violence,” the PAP said.
PAP said risk develops over time through the interaction of multiple circumstances, while protective factors such as supportive families, trusted adults, positive school environments, healthy peer relationships and accessible mental health services can reduce the likelihood of violent behavior.
The association has also called for comprehensive school mental health systems covering prevention, early identification, counseling, intervention and referral to specialized services.
It urged schools to provide safe and inclusive environments through anti-bullying programs, social-emotional learning, conflict resolution and mental health literacy.
Panao said the third most discussed factor for mass violence was childhood trauma and early abuse, which accounted for 16.24% based on academic papers, which included exposure to domestic violence, neglect and abuse.
Again it does not mean that childhood trauma or abuse cause mass shootings. It indicates that these experiences were among the factors researchers discussed when examining mass violence.
PAP previously noted that risk factors do not operate in isolation and that their effects may interact and accumulate across a young person’s development.
“Their effects may interact and accumulate across development, with risk shaped by the timing, duration, intensity, and combination of experiences,” PAP said.
The association also said the presence or absence of protective relationships and resources can shape how risk develops over time.
Beyond firearms access, mental health crises and childhood trauma, Panao’s analysis identified several other themes in the academic studies namely: Media attention and copycat behavior, at 7.45% of the statements; Bullying, rejection and loneliness accounted for 5.78%, while gaps in school safety and security accounted for 5.67%.
The remaining factors were: Unstable or violent home lives: 4.34%; Poverty and community disadvantage: 3.78%; Radical beliefs and hate: 3.45%; Personal grievance and power seeking: 2.56%; Gender dynamics and toxic masculinity: 2% and Substance abuse or intoxication: 0.67%
The range of categories reflects the different levels at which researchers have examined mass violence, from individual circumstances to family relationships, schools, communities and wider social conditions.
Panao said the literature takes a broader approach that includes not only perpetrators but also the wider conditions that contribute to mass shootings.
“Taken together, the map shows that researchers do not examine mass shootings solely through the individual perpetrator but also the social environment, institutions and circumstances surrounding a potential attack, including access to lethal weapons.”
Thus, the analysis should be viewed as a starting point for further examination rather than a definitive explanation of what drives mass shootings. “Again, the analysis offers a map, not an answer,” he said.
“It is now up to policymakers to use that map to systematically assess local risks, identify gaps in prevention and response, and direct resources toward interventions supported by evidence,” he added.