在拉斯维加斯可怕的枪击事件发生后，为什么禁枪在美国仍被认为是个坏主意？ [美国媒体]

After the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas, why is banning all guns in the United States a bad idea?

在拉斯维加斯可怕的枪击事件发生后，为什么禁枪在美国仍被认为是个坏主意？



1.Matthew Moore, 10 years as an NRA instructor, 30 years owning guns, much reading 

任职步枪协会教练10年，已经拥有枪支30年，热爱阅读
​
Try a few variations on that question:
After the 2016 Nice attack, why is banning all trucks from France a bad idea?
After the 2016 Nice attack and many others, why is expelling all Muslims from France a bad idea?
After <the latest horrific airplane crash>, why is banning commercial air travel a bad idea?
After the Oklahoma City bombing, why is banning fertilizer a bad idea?
</Snark>

看看这个问题的一些变种:
在2016年的尼斯袭击之后，为什么在法国禁止所有的卡车是一个坏主意?
在2016年的尼斯袭击和其他许多恐袭之后，为什么要把所有的穆斯林驱逐出法国是个坏主意?
在经历了可怕的飞行事故之后，为什么禁止商业航空旅行是个坏主意呢?
在俄克拉何城爆炸案之后，为什么禁止化肥是个坏主意?（硝酸铵化肥做炸药，简单上手，致富捷径，包吃包住，牢底坐穿。）
< /毒舌>

Banning guns is a bad idea because self-defense is a fundamental individual right, and guns are what make self-defense practical for most people.
After every gun crime that makes a big splash in the news, variations on this question are asked. The answer is always the same.
Americans are not ready to give up on individualism yet. We analyze these questions at the level of the individual, not on the level of social utility. On an individual level, owning guns is cost effective for me. I have no intention of committing crimes. I might be selected by a criminal as his next victim, and I value the option of defending myself if that happens. Having a gun makes that option much more favorable on average (i.e. it wouldn’t improve my odds in all cases, but it would help more often than it hurt).

禁止枪支是一个坏主意，因为自卫是基本的个人权利，而枪支则是大多数人的自卫手段。
每一次发生重大的枪击事件之后，人们就会问这个问题。但答案从未改变。
美国人还没有准备好放弃个人主义。我们在个人层面分析这些问题，而不是在社会效用层面上。在个人层面上，拥有枪支对我来说很有利。我没有犯罪的意图。我可能会被一个罪犯选为他的下一个受害者，如果发生这种情况，我就会选择保护自己。通常情况下，拥有一把枪能让这个抉择更有利(也就是说，它不会提高我在所有情况成功保护自己的概率，但大多数情况下它能帮到我而不是让我受到更大的伤害)。

For those who favor a social utility argument: gun murders run around 9000 per year in the USA, but most of those are criminals murdering other criminals over criminal activities. Truly innocent victims are in the low 1000’s annually (mostly robberies and some proportion of domestic violence). Self-defense via firearms run in the low 1,000,000’s annually. Banning guns would throw out millions of self-defense uses in the hopes of preventing thousands of murders (an unfavorable ratio of around 1000:1), and most of those murders wouldn’t be prevented anyways, just shifted to illegal guns or other weapons.
People intent on murder are not deterred by weapons bans. They find the weapons they need or make creative plans based on the weapons available. All sorts of useful things can be re-purposed as weapons. Banning weapons to prevent violence is fundamentally misguided, like banning hotels to prevent adultery.

对于那些支持社会效用论的人来说:在美国，每年大约有9000起枪支谋杀案，但其中大多数都是罪犯在犯罪活动中谋杀其他罪犯。真正无辜的受害者是每年1000人(主要源自于抢劫和家庭暴力)。而每年有100万起借助枪支自卫的案例。禁止使用枪支是否决其在数百万起自卫事件中的用途，否决其防止了成千上万的谋杀的作用(这一比率在1000:1左右)。而且大多数的谋杀都不会因禁枪被阻止，只是转移到非法枪支或其他武器上。
意图杀人的人不会被武器禁令吓退。他们会设法找到所需的武器，或者根据现有的武器制定出有创意的计划。所有有用的东西都可以被重新定义为武器。禁止使用武器来防止暴力行为从根本上就是错的，就像禁止酒店来防止通奸一样不靠谱。

----------------------------------------------------------------

2.Frank McCown, lives in The United States of America 住在美国
Governments are far far more dangerous than terrorists, criminals and insane people. In the 20th century governments killed 262,000,000innocent people. These are not warriors opposing one another but non combatant civilians. Homicides totaled8.5 million that’s 3% the number killed by governments. The second amendment was not created so we could protect ourselves against intruders it was created so we could defend ourselves against tyrannical governments. Before any government tries to kill off a portion of its population it will try to disarm them first. In America there are about 300 million guns in private hands, more guns than adults. “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Weather or not the quote attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto was genuine the sentiment is valid. Fire arms are deeply ingrained in our culture and heritage. The right to bear arms and form militias is enshrined in our constitution and shall not be infringed. That does not mean you can infringe a little here or there regardless if liberals assert it to be “common sense”.

政府远比恐怖分子、罪犯以及那些神经病危险得多。单在20世纪，政府就杀害了2.62亿无辜的人。这些人不是战士，而是非武装的平民。谋杀案的死亡人数只有850万，占政府杀害人数的3%。第二修正案没有被创造出来的时候，我们就可以保护自己不受枪支谋杀的威胁；但第二修正案颁布以后，我们就可以保护自己不受暴政政府的伤害。无论哪个政府，在试图屠杀自身的一部分人民之前，它首先必须得尝试解除武装。在美国，私人手里有大约3亿支枪，比成年人口还要多。“你不能入侵美国大陆，因为这儿的每一片草叶后面都有一支步枪！“无论这句话是否真的是山本五十六说的，它的观点是正确的。火枪在我们的文化和传统中根深蒂固。我们的宪法规定了公民携带武器和民兵组织的权利是不可侵犯的。这意味着你一点都不能违背，不管自由主义者是不是称其（禁枪）为“共识”。

----------------------------------------------------------------

3.Daniel Sokol, President 总裁
Many Americans live in sparsely populated areas where there is a limited police presence. I have a friend in Oregon, their Sheriff's office is closed from 1700 on Friday to 0900 on Monday. Monday through Friday they average a 1 hour response time.
I am in NE Florida, near Daytona Beach I own and use guns for livestock management. I work on a ranch, I have had to protect our horses and property from coyotes, feral dogs, and hogs. Police response time is 30 minutes or more.
I don’t like shooting coyotes and dogs, it saddens me, but the livestock is part of my livelihood.
So in many places in the US having a firearm is a necessary fact of life. The fact that city slickers and suburban soccer moms dont like our lifestyle is more than a little humorous. You don't like us, or the way we live, but pay us to give little Suzie riding lessons.

许多美国人居住在人口稀少的地区，那里的警察数量有限。我在俄勒冈州有个朋友，他们的警长办公室从周五的17：00到周一的09：00是关闭的。即使是在工作日，他们的平均反应时间也要1小时。
我本人住在佛罗里达东北部的大托纳海滩附近，我拥有并使用枪支管理牲畜。我在一个牧场工作，我必须保护我们的马匹和财产免受土狼、野狗和猪的伤害。在我这里，警方的反应时间是30分钟甚至更久。
我不喜欢射杀土狼和狗，这让我很难过，但我得保护牲畜。
所以在美国的很多地方，拥有枪支是生活的必要条件。城市里的食肉糜者和郊区的足球妈咪们不喜欢我们的生活方式，这真是搞笑。你不喜欢我们或者我们的生活方式，但却付钱给我们让我们教你点苏西马术课。



For a great many of us, this is our backyard ( for the record this is Glacier National Park in Montana).

对于我们中的许多人来说，这就是我们的后院(这是蒙大拿州的冰川国家公园)。



This is Billings, Montana, what many of us call a city.

这是蒙大拿的比林斯，我们很多人称之为城市。



And the people who live here want to tell us how to live and what we need. The condescension is strong, just look at the comments by M. Bloomberg, H. Clinton, N. Pelosi. “No one needs a semiauto or more than 10 rounds”. How do they know? 

而住在上面这里的人想告诉我们如何生活和我们需要什么。他们的态度是那么的傲慢，只要看看M. Bloomberg, H. Clinton, N. Pelosi的评论就可以了。“没有人需要半自动或者超过10发弹药的枪。”他们怎么知道的?

----------------------------------------------------------------

4.Patrick Gibbs, Amateur smart-ass
Originally Answered: How does the US feel about their gun laws now, after the Las Vegas mass shooting?

回答的原问题是:在拉斯维加斯枪击案之后，美国人现在怎么看待自己的枪支法律呢?

Which law? Murdering people, if I am not very much mistaken, is still illegal. Modifying semi automatic weapons to fire automatic? Also illegal. Having weapons someplace that prohibits them? Yup…illegal. So what are we missing? We could make all that stuff more illegal-er, I suppose. Or propose a bunch of feel-good legislation that isn't going to change anything, but will allow the political battle lines to sharpen and for the "It's a step in the right direction" folks to show that they're fighting valiantly against the big bad NRA. That's pretty much what's in play: Bad thing happens, so gun control enthusiasts chant "Gun Control NOW!" And if anyone has the temerity to suggest that the proposed legislation is highly unlikely to work at all, much less as advertised, they are branded a heartless thug at best, and usually some form of terrorist. So what about the usual proposed legislation? Five round magazine limits and assault weapons bans historically have not done a thing. Registration? There's around 400 million guns in this country, so you'd better get cracking. Start with the criminals, please. I'm sure they will meekly comply with any and all registration requirements, as their dedication to a safer society is the stuff of legend.

什么法律?谋杀吗？如果我没弄错的话，那仍然是非法的。将半自动武器改装成自动武器吗?那也是非法的。在不被允许的地方持有枪支吗?是的......是非法的。那么我们还遗漏了什么呢?我想，我们可以把所有这些东西都变得更非法。或者提出一堆让人感觉良好的立法，但那不会改变任何事情，只会让政治争端变得更加尖锐，而且由于“这是迈向正确方向的一步”，人们会表现出他们正在勇敢地对抗强大而邪恶的美国步枪协会。剧本差不多就是这样:一旦糟糕的事情发生了，控枪的狂热支持者们便高喊着“枪支管制！”如果有人冒失地表示提出的法案根本不可能奏效，起码不像宣传的那样有效时。最好的状况下，他们也会被认为是一个无情的暴徒，通常是被当做某种形式的恐怖分子。所以，那些立法提案到底怎么样呢?从历史上来看，五发弹仓的限制和突击武器禁令并没有什么卵用。注册?这个国家大约有4亿支枪，所以你最好搞快点。请让我们先从罪犯说起，我相信他们会温顺地遵守所有的注册要求，因为他们希望通过无私奉献以成为一个更安全社会的传奇缔造者。

There's two problems this sort of thing always dances around, and I alluded to one already. Pandora's box. Gun powder was developed in the 13th century, and it was all downhill from there. Fast forward to today and 400 million firearms in the USA. What are we going to do about it? They aren't just going to be wished away, no matter how many politicians vote for it to be so.
The second is this: What problem are you trying to solve? Gun Violence? The EU has all the gun control any hand-wringing alarmist could wish for. So what do they get? Knife violence. Mass killings with vehicles or explosives. And yes, shootings. So what then? Stigmatize knives, motor vehicles, and ammonia based fertilizer? Start giving chefs, car owners, and farmers the stink-eye even though they've done nothing wrong? How's that going to play out? Or does it really not matter how someone is murdered, as long as they are not shot? Forgive me if I disagree with that particular sentiment.

这件事情一直存在两个问题，我已经提到过了其中之一。这就像打开了潘多拉的盒子。火药是从13世纪发展起来的，从那时开始就一直在进步。发展到今天，美国已拥有4亿支枪械。我们要怎么做呢?不管有多少政客投了赞成票，他们都不会轻易消失。
第二个问题是:你想解决什么问题?枪支暴力吗?欧盟的枪支管制能满足最绝望最杞人忧天的禁枪支持者的愿望。他们得到了什么?持刀暴力事件，用车辆或爆炸物进行大规模杀戮。是的,也同样有枪击事件。那么又要怎么做呢?归罪于刀、机动车辆和氨基化肥吗？要开始用雷达监视厨师、车主和农民们，即使他们没有做错什么吗？这最终会怎样呢?或者说，一个人只要不是被枪杀的就无所谓喽?请原谅我不能苟同。

The reality is, and has always been, that gun control is bunk. It is closing the barn door after the horses have got out, and that's putting it kindly. It is also focusing on the wrong problems. Because of that, the problems will remain, even if every single firearm vanishes tomorrow. Maybe, at that point, politicians would realize that working for a disarmed society was a dead end street, and what we need to be working for a peaceful one.

枪支管制，事实上一直以来都是一派胡言。马跑了以后去关上马厩的门是善意的。但它把注意力集中在了错误的问题上。正因为如此，即使明天每一把枪都消失了，问题依然会继续存在。也许，到那时政客才们会意识到，致力于创造一个解除武装的社会是一条死胡同，我们需要为一个和平的社会而努力。

----------------------------------------------------------------

5.Paul Theodoropoulos, Constitutional Scholar and legal expert. 宪法学者和法律专家
Originally Answered: What are the reasons why guns aren't banned in the US? The Las Vegas shooting alone should be enough for a gun ban.
(The little banner indicating merged questions is something I routinely overlook, so in the interest of clarity, the question I answered was:
What are the reasons why guns aren’t banned in the US? The Las Vegas shooting alone should be enough for a gun ban.
The _reason_ guns aren’t banned in the U.S. is because gun ownership is an enumerated civil right in this country. Nearly half the homes in this country have at least one firearm in them. That’s hundreds of millions of guns that are NOT being used to murder people. And those people - who are not violent, and who do not commit crimes - take serious umbrage at the notion that they should be disarmed, while leaving the violent criminals armed (which is precisely what would happen if pixie dust fell and guns were magically banned in the U.S.)
But for reasons that I cannot fathom, people seem to believe that disarming the hundred million people who are precisely NOT the people who are murdering people will somehow make the world better.

(合并问题的小横幅是我经常忽略的，所以为了清晰起见，我回答的原问题是:为什么美国没有禁止枪支的原因?单单拉斯维加斯的枪击事件就足以实施枪支禁令了。）
枪支在美国没有被禁止的原因是因为持枪在美国是公民的一项基本权利。这个国家有将近一半的家庭至少拥有一把枪。这数以亿计的枪支并没有用于谋杀。对于那些没有使用暴力、也没有犯罪的人，打算收缴他们的枪支是相当令人生气的，而与此同时暴力罪犯依然会持有武器(准确的说除非撒一把精灵尘，枪支才会在美国神奇的消失)。
但是，出于某种我无法理解的原因，人们似乎相信让数亿不是杀人凶手的人去解除武装，会让世界变得更美好。

Jesus. Look, I know from the outside looking in, banning just makes all the sense in the world. It’s a simplistic idea, fit for those who cannot see beyond their own nose. But the reality is that *guns are not going to be banned in the U.S.*. Period. Not this century. Probably not in the next. You can wish for it, you can pray for it, you can stomp your feet and yell all you want, but they aren’t going to be banned.
So, instead of whinging about how America gotta ban guns, How about thinking just a little, teeny bit further down the problem and try and contemplate things that *can* reduce homicides and suicides.
There *are* steps that can be taken, that *will* reduce both homicides and suicides. They aren’t far-fetched, they are politically possible. But narrow minds seek narrow “solutions”.

上帝啊！听着，即使从表面看来，在这个世界上禁止也是没有任何意义的。这是一个过于简单的想法，适合那些目光短浅的人。但事实是，在美国枪支不会被禁止。即使有这个时候也不是在本世纪，可能下个世纪也不行。你可以期盼，你可以为它祈祷，你可以跺脚并高喊你想要的一切，但它们不会被禁止。
所以，与其抱怨美国必须禁止枪支，不如稍微思考一下，稍微深入思考下如何能减少杀人和自杀事件的发生吧。
我们可以采取一些措施，既可以减少谋杀，也可以减少自杀。它们并非牵强附会，它们在政治上是可行的。但是，狭隘的思想只会去寻求狭隘的“解决方案”。

----------------------------------------------------------------

6.Taj Manohar, High School Student 高中生
1）It’s a complete violation of the 2nd amendment. Denying people their constitutional rights is a bad idea .
2）There are at least 300+ million guns circulating throughout the country right now. The Federal government will fail miserably trying to go after guns already on the black market.
3）Most gun-owners are not going to willingly hand-over their guns. You are going to start a civil war.
4）There are approximately 115,000 defensive gun uses (conservative estimate) per year.
5）Most crime is committed with “illegally obtained” guns. Banning them will only affect abidding citizens.
6）Guns themselves are not particularly difficult to manufacture. You can build these weapons with tool that are obtainable. Once a ban is put forth, the demand for these black market gun-smiths will skyrocket. Ammunition is even easier to make.

1)这是一个完全违反了第二修正案，剥夺宪法赋予人民的权利的坏主意。
2)全国现在至少有三亿多枪支在流通。联邦政府将会将会遭遇惨败，因为枪支会在黑市交易。
3)大多数枪支拥有者不会心甘情愿地上交他们的枪支。你将面临一场内战。
4)每年大约有11.5万起使用枪支进行自卫的案例(保守估计)。
5)大多数犯罪使用的是“违法所得”的枪支。禁止他们只会影响到守法公民。
6)枪支本身并不难造，你可以用易于获得的工具来制造这些武器。一旦禁令颁布，对黑市枪支交易的需求将会激增。弹药甚至更容易制造。