Which recent publicized shooters had documented mental health diagnoses in the past decade (2015-2025)?

1. What the documents actually claim about named shooters and diagnoses — a reality check that surprises readers

The assembled source notes that a few high‑profile shooters have documented mental‑health histories in public records and reporting, but the materials repeatedly state that the majority of recent publicized shooters do not have documented severe psychiatric diagnoses. The Columbia Mass Murder Database piece and related reviews report that severe psychiatric illnesses such as psychosis or schizophrenia are absent in most perpetrators, and that individual case naming in the 2015–2025 period is not present in the supplied texts. While historical examples (e.g., Sandy Hook, Aurora) are used to illustrate diagnostic patterns, the datasets and reviews provided decline to offer a roster of contemporary perpetrators with verified clinical diagnoses, underscoring an evidentiary gap in the supplied analyses ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

2. Population patterns: how often mental illness shows up in mass‑shooting research

Several analyses summarize research estimates rather than case lists: only a small fraction — roughly 5% — of mass shootings are associated with severe mental illness, while a larger minority — approximately 25% — may involve non‑psychotic psychiatric or neurological conditions. The pieces stress that these conditions are often incidental and not the primary causal driver of violence. This population‑level framing is consistent across the Columbia review and related academic discussions, which caution against equating psychiatric diagnosis with predictive utility for violence prevention. The message across the supplied materials is that diagnosis alone is a poor predictor of who will commit mass violence, according to the cited analyses ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Named individuals cited in background — what the sources actually present and omit

The materials reference a handful of historically publicized perpetrators as exemplars of diagnostic claims, but they do not present a contemporaneous, evidence‑verified list of shooters from 2015–2025 with documented clinical records. Analyses mention Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Loughner, and Elliot Rodger as cases historically linked to psychiatric descriptions, yet those incidents largely predate the decade in question or are used as context rather than as verified, recent instances. The provided reviews explicitly note the absence of verifiable documented diagnoses for most recent shooters and emphasize that specific naming is not part of their datasets, making any definitive list for 2015–2025 impossible from these materials alone ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Why experts warn against oversimplifying mental illness as the main explanation for mass shootings

The supplied sources uniformly argue that framing mass shootings primarily as a problem of mental illness is misleading and counterproductive. Analyses indicate that substance abuse, acute life stressors, criminal histories, social grievances, and the pursuit of notoriety among young men are more consistent correlates. Psychiatric diagnoses, when present, frequently appear alongside these other risk factors and often post‑date or flank the trajectory toward violence rather than serve as sole causal agents. The overarching scholarly stance offered in these materials is that policy and prevention strategies should focus on multi‑factorial risk networks rather than attributing mass violence to clinical diagnosis alone ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Bottom line, evidentiary gaps, and what’s missing from the supplied material

The clear bottom line: from the provided analyses you cannot produce a reliable, evidence‑based list of recent (2015–2025) publicized shooters with documented mental‑health diagnoses because the sources do not contain such lists and explicitly caution that severe mental illness accounts for a small share of cases. Important omissions in the supplied material include systematic case‑by‑case verification of clinical records for recent shooters and longitudinal, public‑health style scripts linking documented diagnoses to adjudicated violent acts. The materials instead advocate shifting attention to alternative, better‑documented prevention targets and call for more rigorous, case‑level data collection if policymakers or journalists seek precise rosters of shooters with verified diagnoses ^{[7] [8] [2]}.