Every flag flying at half-mast is another kick-to-the-gut reminder of the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, a week ago. Our nation is in mourning. Again. Another senseless shooting by another enraged person who chose to play out his anger in the most horrific way possible. The mourning is peppered with the same gun rights vs. gun control rhetoric, the same one-sided arguments coming from opposite corners of the same room, never meeting in the middle.

Well, what about that gun? We have answers about everything that happened in front of the gun — the date, the place, the victims, the timetable.

But what happened behind the gun? What happened a day before the shooting? A week before? A month? A year? Ten years? Eighteen years? A mass shooter doesn’t grow overnight. There’s history leading up to a decision like that. How does a person evolve into someone who ends up shooting masses of people?

A 2019 Department of Justice-funded study of all mass shootings since 1966 found the shooters share a few basic commonalities: childhood trauma and/or exposure to violence, a personal crisis or grievance, and examples that justify their motives.

Additional studies found that mass shooters often display warning signs of being a potential threat to themselves or others long before they act, signs that include violence, treatment at mental facilities, prison sentences, expressed death threats or warnings, police intervention and suicidal thoughts. Statista database reports that since 1982, 123 mass shootings in the U.S. were carried out by male shooters, while three shootings were carried out by women.

While studies caution there is no single profile for a mass shooter, the information summarized is worth contemplating since most of us wonder after each shooting what can possibly be done to make a difference. These findings suggest that opening our eyes — and our attention — to those around us could help.

Think again about the three primary evidences of a potential mass shooter. First is childhood trauma and/or violence. What if a troubled young person had a trusted friend he could lean on during traumatic times, a person who nudged him away from violent tendencies. That could change a life.

The second evidence is a personal crisis. What if that person’s friend was still there for him when his life gets messy? If his choices were to either to explode or talk to his friend who happens to make a timely phone call to check in on him, that could change a life.

The third evidence is justification of their motives. If that person was looking for validation to hurt others and instead found honest concern and support, that could change a life.

We often hear the shooter was a loner who kept to himself. Our natural but unfortunate response is to perpetuate his aloneness. We think, “Well, if he likes to keep to himself, then let’s not interrupt that.” But hindsight suggests we should interrupt that. Often.

The DOJ study indicated mass shootings are becoming more frequent: of the 166 incidents, 20% occurred in the last five years, and half since 2000. The trend is escalating, and neither the gun debate nor mental health professionals have made much of a dent. It seems one possible answer lies in the hands — and hearts — of concerned, average Americans.

Fortunately, that’s what most of us are. Mass shooters constitute less than .00000005% of our country’s population. Paying attention to anyone anywhere near that path could actually save at least one life. Being an influence for good in a troubled friend’s life means we exchange validation for violence, caring for crisis and mercy for motive. We might never know the good we’ve done or a disaster we’ve averted. But that’s OK.

A gun is fired at innocent people by someone with a troubled mind. That mind behind the gun needs attention — not the gun.

D. Louise Brown lives in Layton. She writes a biweekly column for the Standard-Examiner.

Newsletter