Should the Mentally Ill Be Barred From Owning Firearms

You listed a lot of sources about suicide, and I won't refute-- as I mentioned suicide in my argument. I'm sure it makes it more dangerous for them, but I don't believe in confining the rights of the majority of mentally ill people in exchange for keeping the minority from harming themselves. Without a gun, some that would commit suicide might never, but the number of lives a government ban would save isn't enough to take away the rights of the majority of mentally ill people. In the US at least, a supreme court case (O'Connor vs Donaldson, . https://mentalillnesspolicy.org...) established the rights of the mentally ill to not be incarcerated with out evidence of being dangerous to others. I don't know about other countries, but I assume most of the first world has a sense of rights for the mentally ill. This should translate easily to gun rights. Both involve a belief that an individual is dangerous, yet without evidence that that particular person is prone to violence it isn't reasonable to infringe on their rights. You talked a lot about Schizophrenia and violence statistically, and I will refute some of your points, but like I said earlier, even if there were an increase in violent behavior on average, it would have to be very large to be justifiable for a blanket ban. On average, men are more violent than women, and on average blacks are more violent than other races (I can find the statistics if you'd like, but it was more a general point). Does that excuse taking away the rights of entire groups on a legal level? Why shouldn't only white and Asian women own guns? At the end of the day, we could compare averages and take away the gun rights of half the country. If the mentally ill can be an exception and have their gun rights taken away, why not anyone else? So while I'm sure there's somewhat of an increase in violent tendencies, I don't think it's as much as you think (as I'm about to go over) and I don't believe it excuses taking away their guns. Now, moving on to what you said, you talked a lot about mpds, yet didn't cite your source. And schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder are very different (. https://www.webmd.com...). "Contrary to popular misconceptions, people with schizophrenia do not have multiple personalities. ". This was a mischaracterization, and I'm inclined to believe that your sources that you didn't list (past the fourth source) might be incorrect. As for the fourth source, it seems to be correct from what other sources suggest, although the 5-10% seems more correct overall. But how many of those would be prevented by a gun ban? The few that commit murder (and by your own study, in the UK only 30 murders, granted with severe gun regulation overall), which is not by any means the majority of mentally ill people, would have to be filtered out specifically, and (as can be seen in US mass shootings) many get through that legislation. Then you have to assume that many wouldn't simply use another weapon (after all, of someone is mentally ill and wants to kill someone, they aren't usually prone to giving up). Even if we're talking about a thousand or so deaths per year, like in the US (. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org...), how many would that really save? And at what cost? Mentally ill individuals are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime, (. https://news.ncsu.edu...); shouldn't they be able to protect themselves? And of they would, might they not prevent some trauma that might increase their chance of committing violence? The evidence of a ban working to strongly prevent deaths isn't there, and the debate acknowledged that guns are already considered to be a right, so with such weak evidence how can you justify taking away their rights? You talked about keeping them in a "safe haven", but most mentally ill individuals don't want to be locked up in some place where they can be "safe" (just look at all the legal issues surrounding confining them against their will, even when there was evidence of violence). A large percentage of the US at least (relatively large, enough to matter) has one of these mental illnesses. 3.4% have major depressive disorder alone (. https://www.webmd.com...). We can't have all these people in a "safe haven". Nor can we remove other rights, like being able to drive a car. That could kill people. Is it a good idea to keep 3.4% of Americans crime driving? Brits? What would that do to the economy? Many mentally ill people manage somewhat normal lives. They have rights. They can own a car. Why can't they own a gun, too, if we've agreed it's a right?