General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety [View all]HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Previous violence is the best predictor of violence, not a diagnosis of mental illness.
Substance abuse/intoxication is the next best predictor of violence (accounting for an estimated 35% of violent crime), not a diagnosis of mental illness.
Best estimates suggest that something near 8% of reported violence in society is associated with mental illness...
That doesn't mean that reducing that violence of the mentally ill wouldn't be beneficial to society. A three percent reduction wouldn't be sneezed at by criminal justice. But it means if government is ham-handed about it, it will simultaneously act against over 90% of people who present no risk.
I'm all for keeping guns out of dangerous peoples hand's. But I'm also for doing that in a way that respects all individuals. It surely can't be done targeting groups too broadly defined.
There is a preponderance of such general statements being thrown around. Mostly very similar to what you used "People with mental illness shouldn't have access to guns".
That suggests the people stating such things believe the risk of violence from all mental illnesses are equivalent. They aren't. Anyone who seriously claims such a thing is blowing smoke.
I think everyone knows that overly broad definitions will fail It would be a shame to have to wait until people are harmed so that challenges can be made all the way through the court system.