Lexington's notebook (雷辛頓關鍵記事簿)
American politics (美國政治)
Gun control (槍枝控管)
The gun control that works: no guns (有效的槍枝管理-禁止槍枝銷售)
Dec 15th 2012, 4:56 by Lexington (作者:雷辛頓，撰於2012年12月15號 4點56分)
I HESITATE to offer thoughts about the school shooting in Connecticut that has seen 20 children and seven adults murdered and the gunman also dead. Your correspondent has been in the rural Midwest researching a column and heard the news on the car radio. Along with a sense of gloom, I found I mostly wanted to see my own, elementary-school-age children back home in Washington, DC, and had little desire to listen to pundits of any stripe: hence my reluctance to weigh in now.
美國康乃迪克州的校園槍擊案造成二十位孩童與七位成人不幸喪生，而槍手本人隨後也吞彈自盡。對於這件慘案，我實在不太想發表任何意見。貴公司的特派員先前就在美國中西部鄉村準備專欄，而且也早藉由車上的無線電廣播得知此消息。伴隨在一股暗沉陰鬱的氛圍中，我猛然驚覺，我好想親眼看到我還在讀小學的孩子們，已安然回到位於華盛頓哥倫比亞特區的家。對於各領域專家的見解，我沒有多大的興趣。此刻，陣陣的厭惡感沉重地壓著我。
To be fair, on NPR, the liberal columnist E.J. Dionne had sensible things to say about President Barack Obama’s statement on the killings, and how it was probably significant when the president seemed to suggest that he was minded to take action on gun control, and never mind the politics. On the same show the moderate conservative columnist, David Brooks, expressed sensible caution about assuming that stricter gun controls could have stopped this particular shooting.
不過還是說句公道話吧!關於巴拉克·歐巴馬總統對於罹難者提出的宣言，全國公共廣播電台的自由專欄作家-小尤金‧約瑟夫‧迪昂對它發表了實際的看法。或許在總統看似不再顧慮政治因素，且意圖要對槍枝控管上有所行對後，此看法會變的更意義重大。同場節目中，溫和派保守專欄作家-大衛·布魯克斯也對“更嚴謹的槍枝控管能中止這類的槍擊案”之假設性說法，表達了適當的告誡。
Switching to red-blooded conservative talk radio, I found two hosts offering a “move along, nothing to see here” defence of the status quo. One suggested that listeners should not torment themselves trying to understand “craziness”, though it would, the pair agreed, be understandable if some parents were tempted to remove their children from public education and homeschool them.
在改聽典型的保守派廣播談話性節目後，我發現那兩位主持人只對現況提出了一段「離開吧，這裡沒有什麼好看」的辯論。其中一位主持人建議聽眾不要折磨自己的腦袋，嘗試去理解這種「狂熱」,但兩位主持人都同意,若一些家長試圖把他們的孩子從公眾教育轉變為在家自學，要了解這種狂熱也是輕而易舉。
To that debate, all I can offer is the perspective of someone who has lived and worked in different corners of the world, with different gun laws.
關於那場辯論，我所能提供的就只有那些生活且工作於世界不同角落及處於不同槍枝管理法中民眾的看法。
Here is my small thought. It is quite possible, perhaps probable, that stricter gun laws of the sort that Mr Obama may or may not be planning, would not have stopped the horrible killings of this morning. But that is a separate question from whether it is a good idea to allow private individuals to own guns. And that, really, is what I think I understand by gun control. Once you have guns in circulation, in significant numbers, I suspect that specific controls on things like automatic weapons or large magazines can have only marginal effects. Once lots of other people have guns, it becomes rational for you to want your own too.
以下是我微不足道的看法：那類歐巴馬能夠(或不太能夠)有所計畫的更嚴厲槍枝管理法，對於阻止今早發生的駭人槍殺案，是有非常高的機率，或者是很有希望。但對於「私有個人持有槍枝是否為一個好主意」- 這件事來說，根本是 兩碼 子的問題。以這件事來講，我想我真的是藉由槍枝管理才得以了解其中道理。我猜想一旦你讓大量的槍枝處於流動狀態後，控管自動武器或龐大彈藥室的效果，將淪落於邊緣化。在許多人持有槍枝後，理所當然，你也會想要有一把啊。
The first time that I was posted to Washington, DC some years ago, the capital and suburbs endured a frightening few days at the hands of a pair of snipers, who took to killing people at random from a shooting position they had established in the boot of a car. I remember meeting a couple of White House correspondents from American papers, and hearing one say: but the strange thing is that Maryland (where most of the killings were taking place) has really strict gun laws. And I remember thinking: from the British perspective, those aren’t strict gun laws. Strict laws involve having no guns.
許多年前，我第一次分發至華盛頓哥倫比亞特區時，其首都與近郊正因為一對狙擊手，吃了好幾天的苦頭。他們會在車子後行李箱內，建立射擊點，然後隨意殺人。我記得我見過幾位來自於美國報紙(社) 的白宮特派員，聽到其中一位這樣說著:「但是怪就怪在美國馬里蘭州(大多數槍殺案的發生地)的槍枝管理法竟是非常嚴謹的。」然後我記得我有從英國人的觀點去思考 - 這些(法律)都不是嚴謹的槍枝管理法。嚴謹的槍枝管理法應該是要私人個體沒有槍枝(的所有權)。
After a couple of horrible mass shootings in Britain, handguns and automatic weapons have been effectively banned. It is possible to own shotguns, and rifles if you can demonstrate to the police that you have a good reason to own one, such as target shooting at a gun club, or deer stalking, say. The firearms-ownership rules are onerous, involving hours of paperwork. You must provide a referee who has to answer nosy questions about the applicant's mental state, home life (including family or domestic tensions) and their attitude towards guns. In addition to criminal-record checks, the police talk to applicants’ family doctors and ask about any histories of alcohol or drug abuse or personality disorders.
英國在發生好幾場的駭人槍擊大屠殺後，手槍與自動武器有效地已禁售。若你能對警方提出強而有力的持槍原因，例如要在槍支俱樂部玩打靶、獵鹿等諸如此類的活動，你才有可能去持有手槍與步槍。有關槍砲持有的章程是非常繁重的，這要花好幾個小時的文書處理工作。你還要有一位鑑定人，他必須能夠回答基於要徹底了解申請者心靈狀態、家庭生活(包含家庭或是家務壓力)與他們的用槍態度所設計出的問題。除了確認有無前科外，警方要與申請者的家庭醫師會談，並且詢問家庭醫生有關申請者是否有酗酒或藥物濫用的紀錄，或者是申請者是否有人格障礙方面的問題。
Vitally, it is also very hard to get hold of ammunition. Just before leaving Britain in the summer, I had lunch with a member of parliament whose constituency is plagued with gang violence and drug gangs. She told me of a shooting, and how it had not led to a death, because the gang had had to make its own bullets, which did not work well, and how this was very common, according to her local police commander. Even hardened criminals willing to pay for a handgun in Britain are often getting only an illegally modified starter’s pistol turned into a single-shot weapon.
重要地是要掌控軍火是艱困無比。就在今年夏天，要離開英國前，我與一位國會成員共度午餐，她的選民因幫派暴力與藥物幫派而苦惱不已。她對我講起了一起槍擊案，與為何它沒有讓任何人成為槍下亡魂。因為這幫派必須自己製造子彈，但這些自製子彈並不太靈光，根據當地警長，這種事極為普遍。在英國，就算慣犯有意願付錢購買手槍，他通常只能買到一隻由非法改造的手槍而來的單發武器。
And, to be crude, having few guns does mean that few people get shot. In 2008-2009, there were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in England and Wales, with a population about one sixth the size of America’s. In America, there were 12,000 gun-related homicides in 2008.
此外，粗略估計，較少人擁有槍枝並不意味只有較少人會中槍。自2008年到2009年之間，英格蘭與威爾斯共發生三十九起與槍砲有關的槍擊致命案，這總數相當於約美國六分之ㄧ的人口總數。 2008年期間，美國共發生一萬兩千起與槍枝有關聯的他殺事件。
I would also say, to stick my neck out a bit further, that I find many of the arguments advanced for private gun ownership in America a bit unconvincing, and tinged with a blend of excessive self-confidence and faulty risk perception.
更進一步，我要說我發現在美國許多對於槍枝擁有權的先明論點，有點缺乏說服力，它也沾染上了由過度自信與錯誤風險認知所混合成的色彩。
I am willing to believe that some householders, in some cases, have defended their families from attack because they have been armed. But I also imagine that lots of ordinary adults, if woken in the night by an armed intruder, lack the skill to wake, find their weapon, keep hold of their weapon, use it correctly and avoid shooting the wrong person. And my hunch is that the model found in places like Japan or Britain—no guns in homes at all, or almost none—is on balance safer.
在某些情況下，我仍願意相信一些住戶，因為持有武器，而能夠捍衛他們的家庭免於外來攻擊。但我也能臆測許多一般成人，若被一位有武裝的外來入侵者驚醒，他可能缺乏察覺入侵者的技術，與缺少找出武器、掌控武器、正確使用與避免誤射他人的能力。我猜某些模範地區例如日本或英國,他們的情況是 - 居家無槍或幾乎無槍 -所以他們也相對處於較穩定的安全狀態。
As for the National Rifle Association bumper stickers arguing that only an armed citizenry can prevent tyranny, I wonder if that isn’t a form of narcissism, involving the belief that lone, heroic individuals will have the ability to identify tyranny as it descends, recognise it for what it is, and fight back. There is also the small matter that I don’t think America is remotely close to becoming a tyranny, and to suggest that it is both irrational and a bit offensive to people who actually do live under tyrannical rule.
而全國步槍協會的標語貼紙聲稱唯有武裝的公民才能避免暴虐，我很好奇這是否算是一種自戀，這包括了相信獨立且英勇的個人將會在暴動發生時，有能力認出它，辯其所以，接著全力反擊。我並不相信美國會逼近專制統治。有這種想法簡直是杞人憂天啊! 同時，這也顯示此想法根本不理智，也稍稍冒犯對於真正處於專制規定下的人民。
Nor is it the case that the British are relaxed about being subjects of a monarch, or are less fussed about freedoms. A conservative law professor was recently quoted in the papers saying he did not want to live in a country where the police were armed and the citizens not. I fear in Britain, at least, native gun-distrust goes even deeper than that: the British don’t even like their police to be armed (though more of them are than in the past).
事實上,英國人並非對於成為君主的臣民而感到放鬆，也絕非對於自由權抱持著大驚小怪的想法。最近一些論文引用了一位保守的法學教授的話，聲稱他不想住在一個「武裝警方，弱雞市民」的國家。至少,我很擔憂，在英國，當地的不信任槍枝者對這件事的情緒是更加的強烈。英國人根本不希望他們的警察是可以配帶武器的(雖然比起過往，有武裝的警察顯得更多)。
But here is the thing. The American gun debate takes place in America, not Britain or Japan. And banning all guns is not about to happen (and good luck collecting all 300m guns currently in circulation, should such a law be passed). It would also not be democratic. I personally dislike guns. I think the private ownership of guns is a tragic mistake. But a majority of Americans disagree with me, some of them very strongly. And at a certain point, when very large majorities disagree with you, a bit of deference is in order.
但事情就是這樣。美國槍枝辯論會是在美國舉行，而不是在英國或日本。全面禁槍，這條法律近期內是不會發生的(然而，萬一這樣的法律能通過的話, 就祝福能把所有流通中的300m手槍都聚集起來，這件事好運吧!)。這樣的做法並不民主。我個人並不喜歡槍枝。我認為槍枝的私人持有權是一場悲劇性的錯誤。但多數的美國人並不同意我的看法，其中有些甚至強烈反對著。但某些時候，當絕大多數的人不同意你的看法時，他們心中對你的尊敬也就井然有序地存在著
So in short I am not sure that tinkering with gun control will stop horrible massacres like today’s. And I am pretty sure that the sort of gun control that would work—banning all guns—is not going to happen. So I have a feeling that even a more courageous debate than has been heard for some time, with Mr Obama proposing gun-control laws that would have been unthinkable in his first term, will not change very much at all. Hence the gloom.
所以，總而言之，我並不確定對於槍枝控管所做的小修小補是否能夠阻止如同今天所發生的恐怖大屠殺。然後,我十分確定，最有效的槍枝控管 - 禁止槍枝銷售 - 是不會發生的。因此，我有一股預感，就算能夠聽到比起過去那些三分鐘熱度，還更英勇的辯論，在歐巴馬先生的第一次任期內，他的槍枝控管法仍是不可能實施的，也無法改變什麼。暗沉陰鬱的氛圍依舊瀰漫著。
