I just can't wrap my head around why someone in New Zealand would ever commit suicide if it wasn't for a high ping because there's no one in his timezone to play with online. Apart from that, everything I ever heard or saw of that country seems like paradise to me.
I think their economy is stuffed and that is why a lot migrate to Australia. That could possibly be the issue, hard to get a job, no sense of self worth. Maybe one of our friends from across the ditch can inform us.
Typical belief that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, I'd say. In the end, life is life and same shit and joy for everyone: born, go to school, get a job, marry, retire, die. Very simple. Why there are more suicides in some countries? Difficult to say, it defintely isn't the scenery, population structure or something like that but deeper in the psyche of the people. In the end, what is happiness and how do we define or experience it?
@Christian Göpfert About the gun ownership, one thing that I think most Europeans get wrong is how gun ownership is defined by law in the United States. It is in constitution, and while constituion laws in many countries can be changed, in the US constitution is is the basis forming the whole United part, written like the founding fathers meant. US consitution is still perhaps the most democratic constitutions in the world, and at the time of its creation, gun ownership was one of the means to guarantee people safety and a deterrent to the government. How modern US abides to these freedom principles, I leave to one's judgment. That is not the point here. Where this leads to us then? US people have a long standing suspicion on the central authority mostly related to their history. This stuff drives the politics of US of A also today, which can be seen as different legislature between the states. States are different, though, and binding force is the consitution as well as the power granted to the federation, that is part of the law and order, military and some other central government functions. As the basis of the United States is formed and still lives on the constitution where gun ownership is just one amendment, it is definitely a red flag for a many, if someone wants to change that right. If you can change the 2nd amendment, one may ask that you can change the others too, right? No, constitution is sacred, so is the private ownerhsip, both heavily built on the american psyche. I'm not excusing gun violence. I'm a gun owner myself, in a different country where legislation is very strict in the matters. The difference is that in US gun ownership is baked on the constitution and where freedoms granted by it are a sacred fact. In the end, nation wide strict gun regulation would be impossible to gain in the US: everyone who wants them, has them. Guns are there, both in the hands of criminals and law abiding cítizens alike. Changing the 2nd might give some results after a century or so, which is perhaps the reason why there haven't been changes. It just is what it is, simple as that.
I've actually talked to a lot of Americans about this, we had a large military facility in both towns I've been living in in the past years. And they all tell me that same story. And I can totally respect that, history is the most important part in a nations mythology, it's self-concept. What I don't/can't understand is exactly this sacred believe in the Constitution and that everything written in there is the gold-standard of democracy, as if the people 250 years ago had some greater knowledge, had the capabilities to make laws that are universally and interminably true and right. That might be true for some positivistic rights, basic human rights layed down in this special code. But I don't get why the vast majority of Americans don't even want to consider the possibility of things getting outdated. It's the same thing with German penal law. We have laws that are 100 years old or more, which is absurd cause it doesn't reflect and cover the changing realities in a dynamic society. And this leads to drug dealers being send to prison for up to 10 years while rapists can get a suspended sentence f.e. I have no interest in starting a constitutional debate, this interpretation of what the founding fathers might have meant is just as mysterious to me as are some of the laws they are regarding. But when the right to keep and bear arms is founded on a law that was drafted over 200 years, during a time in which the relationship between individuals and between individuals and the state was completely different, wheen people had to fear being subjugated by an external force, then I don't understand why this text is held as a holy document, passed down by infallible super-humans. It just seems so hidebound (by which I don't want to insult anyone, again, every country/people has its quirks, I'd just like to be able to understand that reasoning).
I think you base on false assumptions, got some facts not straight. Again, the article I linked you to, sheds some light on official numbers. With number of guns raising, murder rates is falling currently - since years. There are a small handfull of counties in the US where inhabitants even are legally obliged to hold one firearm per household - and their crime rates dropped very significantly. The argument raised by many that just a few armed people in a highschool or a cionema where an amok shooters starts to have his way could mark the difference between few or nobody killed, and many killed, is valid. Shooting incidents like this, however, mark huge scores in sensationalism in the media, yes - but compared to the total statistics of yearly lethally-ending crimes, their meaning almost vanishes. Its better to have a weapon and not needing to use it, than to need a weapon and then not having one. Legal gun holders are making up for so microscopic amounts of gun crimes in Germany and elsewhere, that you rtegulate the wrong gus here. As long as you find no realistic way to regulate criminals holding guns, you do not really have a convincing argument. Ordinary citizens you target with regulation only because you find them easier available. That is like punishing normal, accident-free car drivers, because you cannot catch those who caused an accident and fled from the scene. Im telling you this a bit due to own experience. Also because of my father, who did precision pistol shooting as sports, and came to know criminal police officers and police officers occasionally training in the gallery where he did, too. He got some feedback from these that render your logic a bit naive, sorry to say so. However, to some degree I understand your antipathy to selling assault rifles and military grade rifles to the civil public. You do not need that for ordinary self defence and protecting your lonely farm, or for hunting. But: Americans are much more sensible about freedom than us lazy Europeans who take everything comfortable for granted, a quality that I learned to admire more and more over the years. You can endlessly talk about what is allowed under the rule of freedom and what not - or you have freedom. Its either the one, or the other. Not both. I can't stand this European and especially German state paternalism that regulates all and everything. People are being taught to be non-independent, state-believing and servile, and my contempt for this attitude is rapidly climbing since years while I see all and everything around getting regulated to death. Check that article, if you haven't. There is some plain reason in it. And some numbers that contradict your claims/implications. "Those who refuse to wield a sword, nevertheless can get killed by a sword." And hope is no strategy. Its better to be prepared - and then finding one did not need to be. Weapons are equalizers of uneven chances. And I like to run a principle that teaches every perpetrator that he indeed has all reason to fear his intended victim. Thats the best crime prevention you can have: criminals who are too afraid to strike, like in wildlife predators, as long as they are not desperate, do not risk to attack a prey if they find the chance of getting hurt too big. Or do you think this nonsense-defence works? LINK VIDEO The Fins ran this as official governmental campaign, I was told. Quite disconnected from the world I live in, I must say. She better has had some solid combat training and the physical fitness to deploy these skills - or has a weapon with her that she knows how to use. And sometimes pepperspray is not enough, not to mention that sensitive law makers have declared even pepperspray illegal in many European countries. Naked, defenceless and weak you shall walk in this world - but in good faith and hopes for expecting the best! That way, last but not least, governments must not fear their subjects.
You expect me to discuss some article in Die WeLT, the Bildzeitung for pseudo-intellectuals? Why not quote the NRA instead? Talk about being naive... You on the other hand are mistaking correllation for causality. http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...-gaetz/violent-crime-lower-states-open-carry/ Anybody who has a shred of knowledge about statistics and doesn't use them to drive home partial interests will tell you that the way those statistics are interpreted is questionable at the very least. So more weapons equals greater safety? Then how come that despite stricter weapons laws in the EU/Germany the number of armed crimes drops here too? Because we're all sheep who've become afraid enough of their own government to not kill each other? But yes, now I understand. I'd rather live in a Hobbes'sian world where every man is every mans wolf.
Meanwhile over here,in what feels like a very isolated UK.The Labour party are ripping themselves apart.The MP's are all resigning hand over fist.I don't know if I should laugh or cry,what on earth have we done to ourselves.It's being called the biggest crisis since WW2.
Oh, don't worry. It's a good step up towards the repetition of history and WW3, then your little fauxpas will fade and be soon forgotten.
Christian, eh - nothing, forget it. You are just too clever for me there. Game, set and match, five Oscars, ten Grammies and the cherry pie to you. If I ever again feel like needing to get explained what i actually have meant when saying something, I'll ask you.
Ha Ha.A group of fanatical extremist's do not make a nation.Iv'e a feeling we'l be side by side in the trenches in the next one mate.
Labour has been ripping itself apart for years, starting with Gordon Brown then Ed Miliband with Jeremy Corbyn being the icing on the cake. Labour has steadily been losing support in its traditional heartlands for many years and they need to ask themselves why that is. It should be noted that Corbyn was staunchly critical of the EU for almost the entirety of his 35 year political career. It was only with the referendum that he was reluctantly required to nail his colours to the mast. His support of the 'remain' campaign was half-arsed at best. By the way, don't buy into the media hysteria too much. We need to let the dust settle on this one. Things aren't all that rosy for the EU either as they know this could be the event that tips them over the edge too. I was speaking to a work colleague a few weeks ago who was going to vote remain, his only reason for doing so was he felt the EU project was going to collapse under its own weight at some point and he didn't want the UK to be blamed for it! Can't say I disagree.
Either way, it seems like every chance Labour have they just choose to fight with themselves instead; the problem is its representatives. I mean, the Conservatives have just sold out the country to xenophobic fear-mongerers and have no leadership or anyone willing to take responsibility, and yet STILL they manage to make it about themselves and their problems. They (formerly 'we', but having second thoughts) have an open goal and yet are still managing to score an own goal. Bloody pathetic, and likely would have been very different had the other Milliband won their internal struggle years ago. Unions are reaping what they've sown.