reply to post by muse7
See what you ignorantly did just there, in ignorance of your own ignorance?
You made a sweeping generalisation implying that ANY persons with ANY mental health disorders are dangerous criminals who can't be trusted to keep
themselves from killing other people.
You understand why that's just about the most ignorant thing I've read on ATS in recent times?
A MINORITY of persons with SOME mental health conditions are dangerous under SOME circumstances. But they are in a distinct minority, perhaps 10% of
patients with long-term, severe conditions of a psychotic nature, if they are unmedicated and unsupervised...
People who are feeling a little down every now and then, often get labelled as depressive, even if they hold down a job & have a family, social life
etc. Just because they feel a bit despondent at times, unsure of their purpose in life, etc, they get labeled as someone with 'mental health issues'.
Then some ignorant schmuck comes along and thinks that he/she can't be trusted around animals with a butter knife, let alone around people with a
Violent criminals are the ones who law-abiding citizens should be concerned about. The ones who would loot your home, rape your wife, kill your
parents for getting in the way, etc, in the event of a natural disaster when ordinary law broke down temporarily. The decades upon decades of the
availability of guns in the US means that any home break-in can automatically be assumed to be a potential murderer creeping around in your home,
whereas in the UK we rarely have armed break-ins. If I lived in America, I would own a gun or two for the protection of my family. Simples.
As regards the gun question in general:
If a person wanted to kill or harm, they could just pick up a kitchen knife. Those who kill use the weapons at their disposal - in the UK we have a
terrible knife crime culture amongst the youth in gangs.. However, the gang members who want to can get a gun here very easily on the black market -
but they have to save up a little extra cash compared to the gang members in the US, simply because guns are less prevalent on our streets, and
therefore a higher price tag (supply & demand..) They also quite frequently have to ask permission to use the gun in a certain way, or expect
repercussions from established criminal elements, though as described below such organisation & self-regulation is less common than it used to be..
Our nation is easier to control & monitor due to size & areas of high population density being centred in a very few locations. Crime is easier to
detect & correct, therefore, and so gun crime has never taken off here the way it has in the States, even when handguns were legal. Plus, we had a
different attitude bred into our consciousness, as regards fair play - guns are cheating, effectively - all the organised criminal gangs used to frown
on indiscriminate use of weapons in crime, and they would have mafioso-style control of cities to prevent their complex operations from being
compromised by idiots who went around indiscriminately wounding or killing members of the public. These days, that sort of 'honor amongst thieves' is
almost dead & gone, and the degeneration into savagery has begun, only just being held back by determined police & intelligence efforts, and by what
remains of the gangland code.
Law-abiding civilian gun owners in the US are much less likely to ever be involved in a crime with their gun, than those of a criminal bent who can
pick up a gun on a street corner in less than 20 minutes, illegally, simply by making that choice & despite a small amount of cash in their pocket.
It can be done cheaper in the US, but it can still be done here in the UK. Criminals will be able to get hold of guns if they want to.
If the criminals can buy guns illegally without hassle, and there is an abundance of such illegal gun owners in the USA, where is the logic in
disarming the law-abiding civilian populace? It would take ten generations of determined forcible disarmament by the State to remove the guns from
mainland USA. It therefore makes sense to allow the law-abiding civilians to own guns for their own defence against the criminals who will always
have guns and won't ever be afraid to use them, won't ever register them, and won't ever struggle to find opportunities to kill with them if someone
stands in their way.
Gun crime would actually go up if there were less law-abiding citizen gun owners in the USA, because the criminals would be less afraid of being shot
when making decisions to attack the life, liberties & property of others, and because the country would be saturated with black-market weapons
(therefore the price would go down).
I suspect that if an administration ever tried taking the guns away forcibly, the nation would collapse in open revolution.
edit on 18-4-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: muddled words swapped round