Canada because like almost every civilized country you won't need to bear arms in defense of yourself. The populace is not as hostile or volatile as our good friends to the south, and despite not having 99 different levels of law enforcement and a massive for-profit prison system, the police generally manage to keep people safe.
Of course you can always find a few exceptions to this, but Canadians do not live in fear.
You're a lot more likely to get randomly shot and killed by a nutjob in the USA, that to get killed in Canada because you didn't have a gun to defend yourself.
You can believe whatever you'd like (no objective facts nor sources were provided, so they are assumed as irrational beliefs only), but you still can't refute the fact America lets people own firearms to defend themselves, while Canada does not recognize this human right.
The argument that gun ownership = right to self-defense is a non-sequitur. Self-defense is a recognized legal justification for the use of force in the States already.
What you're really talking about is either one of a few different statements offered up about guns, none of which really add up:
1. "Guns can be used to defend yourself from a tyrannous government" (a wholly impractical proposition - you're not going to stop the third largest army on their own home turf with a small cabal of renegade soldiers. You could even argue this is an irresponsible proposition, because government needs your participation as a stakeholder and beneficiary to improve, not your suspicion. If a civil situation gets to the point where the only way out is to overthrow a corrupt government, you don't need a constitutional right to guns to accomplish that - the original American revolutionaries certainly did not)
2. "Guns can be used to defend yourself from other people in the failure or absence of law enforcement intervention" (sure, but this property is not unique to guns - carry mace or a switchblade, weapons that limit unintended damage)
There's nothing a gun can't do that safer weapons can't accomplish, and nothing a gun could do that would alter the equation in favour of needing them. Perhaps there's a reason why guns are needed as a right that I am not aware of, and I'd be open to hearing it, but on the whole there's nothing really going for them.
Believing?I don't believe in anything, I know facts and statistics.
Nobody's refuting the fact that you created the perfect conditions to get an abominable number of mass shootings. You say that like it's a good or interesting thing, maybe brag about your healthcare system.
I'm very thankful to live in a country where even +99% of criminals don't have guns. And by the way even if I do get shot here, I won't go bankrupt paying the hospital, no matter how much I earn.
Human right? Lmao.
I'll do you one better, owning tanks and nukes should be a human right, you're not a real free country if you can't start a war from your backyard.
"no objective facts nor sources were provided, so they are assumed as irrational beliefs only"
That's just a reflect of your ignorance. You live in a bubble and you're ignorant about your own country, I don't have time to do google search for you.
You're telling me a for-profit, closed source, proprietary application store where anyone can submit software and call it anything they want has perverse incentives? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Let's definitely not put the name of the app in the title, so people are forced to visit our shitty site loaded with dozens of tracking domains and scripts.
yeah.. pretty much. i did not say "I'm more important than animals because I said so!!!". i said "humanity is more important than animals". there is a difference. if you can't see that then the joke is on you
> Where is that definition from? I couldn't find it in DSM-5.
The term defines itself. I assume you understand what is meant by Privacy Derangement Syndrome, something like: valuing privacy above all other virtues. For example, somebody who refuses to use a mobile phone due to iOS privacy concerns, and falls out of touch with family and friends.
But I don't even really appreciate this point even as a joke. The idea that every possible mental malady is constrained and gatekept by a single book seems entirely too rigid.
The subjective view of privacy has some value, I'll grant that, but so to does a municipality preparing to lay infrastructure to support a growing population. When it comes to tangible value, the census is one of the most well-known value-adding resources I can think of.
I almost never argue against privacy, and policies and measures protecting individual privacy. But the US census is value-adding for research, policy, and individual purposes, let there be no doubt.
