FT社評：制止美國槍支瘟疫蔓延

If nothing has happened yet, why would anything happen now? Five years ago in Sandy Hook, 27 students and teachers were shot dead. Two years ago in Orlando, 49 people were shot dead in a nightclub. Five months ago in Las Vegas, 58 were shot dead at a music festival. None of these incidents — and this is not, of course, a comprehensive list of recent mass shootings in the US — was followed by significant national gun legislation.

如果以往什么都沒做，那如今為何要采取行動?5年前，在桑迪•胡克小學(xué)(Sandy Hook)，27名師生被槍殺。兩年前，在奧蘭多一家夜店，49人被槍殺。5個月前，在拉斯維加斯一個音樂節(jié)上，58人被槍殺。這些事件——當(dāng)然，這還不是美國近年來發(fā)生的全部大規(guī)模槍擊事件——都沒有促使美國出臺重要的全國槍支法案。

If these atrocities did not inspire change, the easy conclusion is that the death of 17 students and teachers in Parkland, Florida, last week will not lead to new laws, either. The US, on this view, has collectively decided that more than 30,000 gun deaths a year — a rate many times higher than the rest of the developed world — is a price worth paying for unrestricted access to firearms. The deaths will continue because they are rooted in US gun culture.

如果這些暴行未能激發(fā)變革，那很容易就會得出的結(jié)論是，上周佛羅里達(dá)州帕克蘭17名師生的死亡也不會促使新的法律出臺。根據(jù)這一觀點，美國已集體決定，為了享有不受限制的持槍權(quán)，每年有超過30000人死于槍擊——這一數(shù)字比其他發(fā)達(dá)國家高出許多倍——是值得付出的代價。

Such a conclusion, while tempting, is wrong. America does have a gun culture, but cultures are not immutable. In other areas — race relations, for example — cultural changes over the past half century have been immense. And there are signs of cultural change on firearms: the proportion of US households that own guns has decreased significantly in recent decades. While national legislative change has been minimal, the funding and organisation of gun control groups, such as the Brady Campaign and Moms Demand Action, is improving.

盡管我們很容易得出這個結(jié)論，但它并不正確。美國的確有槍支文化，但文化卻并非是一成不變的。在其他領(lǐng)域——如種族關(guān)系——過去半個世紀(jì)以來就發(fā)生了巨大的文化改變。有跡象表明，槍支文化也發(fā)生了變化：最近數(shù)十年，美國擁有槍支的家庭比例大幅下降。雖然全國的立法改變微乎其微，但布拉迪運動(Brady Campaign)及Moms Demand Action等槍支管制團(tuán)體的資金狀況和組織情況都在改善。

For the first time, the young survivors of a school shooting are speaking out, and the classmates of the victims in Parkland speak very well indeed. President Trump, a stalwart friend of the gun lobby, is calling for a ban on “bump stocks” which turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. The political calculus may be shifting.

帕克蘭槍擊案遇難者的同學(xué)們公開發(fā)聲，這在美國校園槍擊案的年輕幸存者中是頭一次，并且他們的發(fā)言很出色。槍支游說團(tuán)體的忠實朋友、美國總統(tǒng)特朗普，正在呼吁禁用將半自動武器變?yōu)闄C槍的“撞火槍托”。政治上的考量也許正在改變。

Incremental measures such as a bump stock ban will not end mass shootings. Even if all gun sales were banned today, the sheer number of guns in the the US — more than one per person — means that the gun plague would rage on. Gun violence cannot, sadly, be overcome all at once or by any single measure. Indeed, it has at least four distinct strands: domestic violence, urban violence, suicide, and mass shootings. This does not mean we should do nothing. Reducing the harm done by each form of gun violence will require different policies, from background checks to better tracking of high-risk individuals. Each step will have a only a small effect. That does not make them collectively futile.

禁止“撞火槍托”等漸進(jìn)式舉措不會終結(jié)大規(guī)模槍擊事件。即使如今禁止一切槍支銷售，美國人持有槍支的絕對數(shù)量——人均超過一支——也意味著槍支瘟疫仍將肆虐?？杀氖?，槍支暴力的問題不可能立即或通過任何單一的舉措得到解決。事實上，這一問題有著4個不同的組成部分：家庭暴力、城市暴力、自殺和大規(guī)模槍擊事件。這并不表示我們就該聽之任之。減少每種槍支暴力所造成的傷害需要不同的政策，從背景調(diào)查到更好地追蹤高危個體。每一步都只會起到微小的效果，但加在一起并不是白費力氣。

That said, over decades to come, the goal should be broad: significantly reducing the number of guns of all sorts in America. The form of gun violence that takes by far the most lives, suicide, demonstrates this. Well over half of all US gun deaths are suicides, and the strong link between gun ownership and suicide has been demonstrated. Suicide is an impulsive act, and is more likely when effective means are at hand. Yes, as gun rights advocates point out, suicide rates in the US are in line with global averages. But the data suggest that America — an optimistic country — might be below the average if it were not for its gun problem.

盡管如此，未來幾十年，目標(biāo)應(yīng)該是遠(yuǎn)大的：大幅減少美國各類槍支的數(shù)量。迄今為止，剝奪了最多生命的槍支暴力就是自殺，這正說明了這一點。美國槍支致死人數(shù)的一半以上都是自殺所致，持有槍支和自殺之間的緊密聯(lián)系已得到證實。自殺是一種沖動行為，手頭有稱手的工具就更可能導(dǎo)致這種行為的發(fā)生。是的，正如持槍權(quán)利倡導(dǎo)者指出的那樣，美國的自殺率與全球平均水平相當(dāng)。但數(shù)據(jù)顯示，如果沒有槍支問題，美國這個樂觀國家的自殺率可能會低于平均水平。

Almost any gun is effective for suicide. Locking a gun away is little help when the person most likely to use it — the man of the house — has the keys. The same holds true for domestic killings. Understandably massacres such as Parkland capture attention and focus minds, but America’s gun addiction is destroying lives and families every day. The best way to cut all forms of gun death is to reduce the number of guns. This will take many years. No single change will make it happen. But it can undoubtedly be done.

用幾乎任何槍支都能實施自殺。當(dāng)最有可能使用槍的那個人、也就是房子的主人擁有鑰匙時，把槍鎖起來沒什么用。家庭槍殺也是如此?？梢岳斫獾氖?，帕克蘭等慘案最引人關(guān)注和令人憂心，但美國的持槍癮每天都在制造家破人亡的慘劇。要想減少各種形式的槍支致死事件，最好的辦法就是減少槍支的數(shù)量。實現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)需要很多年的時間。任何單一的改變都不會令其發(fā)生。但這無疑是可以做到的。