Garth: no, my point that you are using a logical fallacy still stands. Go google it if you don’t understand. You’re trying to deny a group of people the right to protect themselves because a minuscule fraction of them can have violent tendencies. Wiki has a wonderful example about security cameras and what not.
Also, I can tell you know absolutely nothing of the disorder or you wouldn’t be making such sweeping generalizations. When I have episodes they usually involve me by myself, flipping shit, away from everyone else. The very last thing I want is to see another human being. If someone approaches me and tries to touch or talk to me I go comatose and stop responding. Schizophrenia and the related disorders are extremely inwardly focused. When you’re terrified that some immaterial, non-existent force is going to lock you up the last thing on your mind is giving them reasons to. It’s such an over-whelming, crushing feeling that the only thing you can do is close your eyes and wait for it to pass.
Violent felons cannot own guns (I’m not sure if this is a federal or state law, but I know it’s an extremely common practice). It makes more sense to deny someone the ability to own a gun AFTER they’ve proven themselves to be violent.
Anybody can have violent tendencies. Why just ban schizophrenics from having guns? If you’re so worried about it, why not ban everybody from having guns, if you think that’s going to fix the problem. (which it won’t).
If someone really wants to hurt or kill another human being, they’re going to find a way.
Your argument is bad and you should feel bad.