在美國擺脫槍支的最佳方式是什么？（一）
What would be the best way to get rid of guns in America?
譯文簡介
你可以從自己做起。扔掉你擁有的任何槍支，不要再買。這樣，你就不再持有槍支了。現(xiàn)在，去管好自己的事情，讓其他人也自己做自己的事情。
正文翻譯
圖
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
You can start with yourself. Get rid of any guns you have and don’t buy any more. There. You are gun free. No go mind your own business and let other people do the same.
你可以從自己做起。扔掉你擁有的任何槍支，不要再買。這樣，你就不再持有槍支了?，F(xiàn)在，去管好自己的事情，讓其他人也自己做自己的事情。
The “best” way? Here you go.
1.Decide if you mean
a.all guns, including those possessed by law enforcement and military or
b.just those that are privately owned (for this question, let’s go with “b” though it makes no difference in how quickly things will get very bad. Just remember that if you go with “a” you’ll want to attempt to disarm the populace first)
2.Make the decision, ahead of time, that getting rid of guns is worth killing as many people as you have to in order to accomplish your goal
3.Outlaw private possession of firearms. You can proceed with this in 1 of 2 ways.
a.begin the long, arduous and likely ineffective process of amending the Constitution so as to repeal the 2nd Amendment. “Crap” or not, the 2nd Amendment is a reality any effort to get rid of guns would have to address, pink sparkly unicorns notwithstanding.
b.outlaw them by fiat
4.Regardless of whether you choose 3a or 3b, be prepared for the bloody civil war that would follow.
5.Send out teams to collect privately held weapons. Undoubtedly, some of them would be effective. Others would simply not return.
“最好”的方式？這里有：
1. 確定您的意思是
a. 包括執(zhí)法和軍事部門的所有槍支或
b. 只有私人擁有的槍支（對于這個問題，讓我們選擇“b”，盡管在事情變得非常糟糕的方式上沒有區(qū)別。只要記住，如果您選擇“a”，您需要首先試圖解除武裝民眾）
2. 預(yù)先做出決定，消除槍支的價值高于殺死必要的人數(shù)來實現(xiàn)您的目標(biāo)
3. 禁止私人持有槍支。您可以采用以下兩種方式之一進(jìn)行此項工作。
a. 開始漫長、艱苦且可能無效的修憲過程，以廢除第二修正案。無論粉紅色閃閃發(fā)光的獨(dú)角獸是否存在，“廢除槍支”的任何努力都必須考慮到第二修正案這個事實。
b. 通過行政命令禁止持有。
4. 無論您選擇3a還是3b，都要做好準(zhǔn)備，面對隨之而來的血腥內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。
5. 派出小組收集私人持有的武器。毫無疑問，其中一些是有效的。其他人可能會叛變。
7.Have a contingency plan for when significant numbers of law enforcement officers refuse to stack up at the front door of a gun owner’s house.
8.Have a contingency plan for when significant numbers of military personnel refuse to comply with the unconstitutional orders.
9.Have a contingency plan for when multiple National Guard units, and all the “goodies” at the nearest armory, simply disappear.
10.Have a contingency plan for all the active and former law enforcement and military personnel who choose to put their extensive training and experience to use in the service of the resistance.
11.Remember most of the resistance will not target your loyal-to-the-government combat troops directly, or at all. As a result, you must have a plan to protect
6. 保持這些團(tuán)隊的成員身份保密，以減少成員在家門口被槍殺的可能性。
7. 為當(dāng)大量執(zhí)法人員拒絕在槍支持有者家門口排隊時制定應(yīng)急計劃。
8. 為當(dāng)大量軍事人員拒絕遵守違憲命令時制定應(yīng)急計劃。
9. 為當(dāng)多個國民警衛(wèi)隊單位和最近軍械庫的所有物資突然消失時制定應(yīng)急計劃。
10. 為所有選擇將其廣泛的訓(xùn)練和經(jīng)驗用于反抗服務(wù)的現(xiàn)役和前任執(zhí)法和軍事人員制定應(yīng)急計劃。
11. 記住，大多數(shù)反抗者不會直接或完全針對你們忠誠于政府的戰(zhàn)斗部隊。因此，你必須有一個保護(hù)計劃。
b.Political leaders who support this gross violation of civil liberty
c.Popular media figures who support the regime that engages in this travesty
d.Military supply units (tanks without fuel are not terribly effective)
12.Be prepared for your efforts to become increasingly unpopular as those who publicly support it begin to die in great numbers.
13.Answer this question: How many industries are you willing to nationalize to provide needed supplies for what will begin as an unpopular movement and only become increasingly so as the government kills more and more civilians?
See. That’s all there is to it.
a. 當(dāng)高級軍事領(lǐng)導(dǎo)不在軍營時
b. 支持這種嚴(yán)重侵犯公民自由的政治領(lǐng)袖
c. 支持從事這種丑聞的政權(quán)的流行媒體人物
d. 軍事補(bǔ)給單位（沒有燃料的坦克效果不太好）
12. 準(zhǔn)備好你的努力會越來越不受歡迎，因為那些公開支持這種行動的人會開始大量死亡。
13. 回答這個問題：你愿意國有化多少產(chǎn)業(yè)來為開始就不受歡迎并且隨著政府殺害越來越多平民而變得越來越不受歡迎的運(yùn)動提供所需的物資？
就是這樣。
Well, if there was federal policy of complete gun confiscation, you know, forcing everyone to turn in their guns and then sending officers house to house to take firearms from anyone who didn't voluntarily turn theirs in, all of the millions and millions of guns would still not be found.
They would be significantly reduced, at least in the hands of the law abiding. The police and the military would of course still have them.
Would you be happy with your government taking away private ownership of guns, but then still having sole lawful ownership of firearms themselves? If so, you may be the problem.
History shows that periods of freedom are rare, and exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights.
如果實行完全沒收槍支的聯(lián)邦政策，強(qiáng)迫每個人交出他們的槍支，然后派遣警察逐戶搜查從拒絕主動交出槍支的人手中奪取，數(shù)以百萬計的槍支仍然找不到。
至少在守法公民手中，槍支數(shù)量會大幅減少。警察和軍隊當(dāng)然仍將擁有槍支。
如果你的政府剝奪了私人擁有槍支的權(quán)利，但自己仍然擁有槍支的合法所有權(quán)，你會感到滿意嗎？如果是這樣，你可能就是問題所在。
歷史表明，自由時期是罕見的，只有當(dāng)自由公民堅決捍衛(wèi)他們的權(quán)利時才存在。
Replace them with something better. I would happily trade all of my guns for a Star Trek phasor, and I would always keep it set on stun.
I know that sounds snarky, but you did ask for imaginative solutions. My solution is attractive because it replaces a political problem, where you are losing and will continue to lose for the foreseeable future, with a technological problem, which is not obviously unsolvable. Take all that money that you waste on gun prohibition advocacy and fund research into non-lethal self-defense weapons instead. Your chances of success are at least as good, you will have many fewer hostile interactions, and you might even get rich.
EDIT: I would actually prefer a Star Trek phasor modified so that it only has a stun setting. Lethality is a negative feature for civilian self defense, which I accept because lethal weapons are the only reliable weapons. A reliable stunning weapon would give me everything I want out of a firearm with fewer legal risks.
用更好的東西來替代它們吧。我非常愿意用一把《星際迷航》的相位槍來交換我所有的槍支，而且我會始終將它設(shè)定為電擊模式。
我知道這聽起來很諷刺，但你確實要求有創(chuàng)意的解決方案。我的解決方案之所以有吸引力，是因為它取代了一個政治問題，而你在可預(yù)見的未來中會一直失敗，轉(zhuǎn)而成為一個技術(shù)問題，這個問題并不明顯無法解決。把你浪費(fèi)在禁槍倡導(dǎo)上的所有錢都用于資助非致命自衛(wèi)武器的研究。你的成功機(jī)會至少與禁槍同樣好，你將會少遭遇很多敵對的交互，并且你甚至可能會變得富有。
編輯：實際上，我更喜歡一種被改裝成只有電擊設(shè)置的《星際迷航》相位槍。致命性是民用自衛(wèi)的負(fù)面特征，我接受這一點(diǎn)，因為致命武器是唯一可靠的武器。一個可靠的電擊武器將為我提供所有我想要的與槍支相同的功能，同時具有較少的法律風(fēng)險。
Repeal the entire Bill of Rights.
Wage a bloody, violent, protracted civil war… and win.
Execute the 20–50 million Americans who will not submit for any reason.
Establish “reeducation camps” for another 40 million former gun owners. Exterminate at least 1/3 of the least compliant ones.
Spend the next 300 years going door to door, house to house, searching… digging up yards, etc.
That should do it.
廢除整個《權(quán)利法案》。
發(fā)動一場血腥、暴力、漫長的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)...并獲勝。
執(zhí)行對任何原因不屈服的2000萬-5000萬美國人。
為另外4000萬名前槍支持有者建立“再教育營”。消滅至少三分之一最不順從的人。
在接下來的300年中，挨家挨戶地搜索...挖掘院子等。
就這樣。
Two thirds of Congress would have to vote for getting rid of them.
Thirty-eight states would have to ratify the gun ban.
Confiscation would be illegal. And unconstitutional. So they’d have to give fair market value to the gun owners. Not enough money in the coffers for that.
Cops and military called to enforce the ban. They will most likely refuse. They would have to go house to house anyway, and most folks would say they lost theirs.
SCOTUS could still halt the ban calling it unconstitutional.
In other words, too difficult to be feasible.
要廢除它們，必須有國會三分之二的投票支持。
三十八個州必須批準(zhǔn)槍支禁令。
沒收將是非法的，違反憲法。所以他們必須向槍支持有者提供公平市場價值。但國庫里的錢不夠。
警察和軍人被要求執(zhí)行禁令。他們很可能會拒絕。他們必須挨家挨戶地搜查，但大多數(shù)人會說他們已經(jīng)丟失了。
最高法院仍然可以叫停禁令，并稱其違反憲法。
換句話說，這太困難以至于不現(xiàn)實。
don’t give me any second amendment crap or tell me it can’t me done, just use your imagination…”
You start a civil war and somehow win. In doing so you violate everyone’s basic human rights and dignity with house to house searches across the entire nation, killing all who refuse to comply with your orders to disarm. There is no way you cold do this through any other means.
Any law you pass that even hints at confiscation (such as a registry) would be ignored by the vast majority of gun owners. New York state implemented a mandatory registry a few years back (the SAFE Act). They are currently at an estimated 5% compliance rate, with even sheriffs of some counties daring the state to attempt enforcement. The state is wisely not going to attempt that enforcement, realizing the amount of bloodshed it would entail, and the law is now effectively dead letter.
不要跟我說什么第二修正案之類的廢話，或者告訴我沒法做到，你就動動腦筋吧…如果你發(fā)動了一場內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，并贏得了勝利，那么你會違反所有人的基本人權(quán)和尊嚴(yán)，對整個國家進(jìn)行一次次的搜查，殺死所有拒絕服從你的解除武裝指令的人。沒有其他手段可以實現(xiàn)這個目標(biāo)。如果你通過任何暗示解除槍支使用的法律（例如槍支注冊），那么絕大多數(shù)槍支持有人會將其置之不理。幾年前，紐約州實施了一項強(qiáng)制注冊法（安全法案）。目前估計只有5%的人遵守了，甚至有一些縣的警長敢挑戰(zhàn)這項法律的執(zhí)行。州政府明智地決定不嘗試執(zhí)行這個法律，因為他們意識到這將會造成多少流血，這個法律已經(jīng)成為了一紙廢紙。
Death for millions is your only hope to achieve this goal. Molon Labe.
Addendum: To all the answers saying to pass laws or even repeal the 2nd amendment, you must remember that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it merely recognizes preexisting natural rights and guarantees that the government will not infringe on those natural rights. A repeal of those laws will merely exacerbate an already adversarial relationship between the people and the government, ultimately resulting in the above mentioned civil war. There is no way to accomplish this task through peaceful “l(fā)egal” means.
當(dāng)然，內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的后勤也不會對你有利，但我將把這留給讀者去思考（提示：現(xiàn)代軍隊在全面內(nèi)亂中沒有任何機(jī)會，無論你對坦克和無人機(jī)戰(zhàn)爭有什么看法。這還忽略了可能的情況，即相當(dāng)一部分軍隊叛變，帶走了坦克和無人機(jī)）。不用說，你取締美國民眾持槍的機(jī)會幾乎為零。我們只會堅持自己的立場，任何試圖強(qiáng)制履行禁槍規(guī)定的企圖都將遭到我們?nèi)课淞Φ姆磽簟?br /> 你唯一能實現(xiàn)這個目標(biāo)的希望就是讓數(shù)百萬人死亡。Molon Labe。
補(bǔ)充說明：對于所有建議通過制定法律或甚至廢除第二修正案的答案，你必須記住，權(quán)利法案并非授予權(quán)利，而是僅承認(rèn)既有的自然權(quán)利，并保證政府不侵犯這些自然權(quán)利。對這些法律的廢除只會加劇人民和政府之間已經(jīng)敵對的關(guān)系，最終導(dǎo)致上述的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。沒有通過和平“合法”手段來完成這個任務(wù)的方法。
The only way to get rid of 300 million of anything is to induce a set of circumstances that causes the owners to decide that owning that thing is more trouble than it’s worth, so they discard them voluntarily.
With a question like this on Quora, you’re just going to get a bunch of answers from gun-rights people saying some variation on “from my cold dead hands, and if you try we will kill you.” They will make it sound like there is just no way to rid America of guns.
And there isn’t, not in the way that Australia or Britain did, because yes, there are way too many guns out there to practicably do that. But, as an aisle-straddling gun owner, I am going to present to you a way to effectively do it, using one very, very interesting statistic about guns in America.
擺脫三億支槍的唯一方法是引發(fā)一系列情況，使所有者決定擁有這件東西比它的價值更麻煩，于是他們自愿放棄。
像這樣在Quora上提問，你只會得到一堆來自支持槍支權(quán)利的人的回答，說出一些變化版本的話，比如“除非從我的冰冷的手中搶過來，否則我們會殺了你?！?他們會讓你覺得，美國沒有辦法消除槍支。
確實如此，不像澳大利亞或英國那樣，因為實際上美國里有太多槍支了，無法實際操作。 但是，作為一個持槍人，我要向你提出一種有效的方法，利用一項非常有趣的有關(guān)美國槍支的統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)。
But here’s something else you don’t often hear: the percentage of households owning at least one gun has been dropping steadily over the past 50 years. In 1960, roughly 50% of households owned at least one gun. Depending on which survey you ask, today only about 15 - 22% of households own at least one gun. How can this be?
首先，你可能已經(jīng)聽說美國有3億支槍，比人口還多。這是一個巨大的數(shù)字，而你很難去沒收這么多東西。我們甚至能否沒收3億個“Beanie Babies”呢？這一數(shù)字在過去十年中穩(wěn)步增長，主要是由于對大規(guī)模槍支管制立法的擔(dān)憂，這是對大規(guī)模槍擊事件的反應(yīng)。
但這里還有一些你很少聽到的事情：擁有至少一支槍的家庭的比例在過去50年中持續(xù)下降。在1960年，大約50%的家庭至少擁有一支槍。根據(jù)不同的調(diào)查，如今只有大約15％至22％的家庭擁有至少一支槍。這是為什么呢？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
People generally buy guns for home defense out of a fear of crime. While there’s a lot of news these days hyping up the crimes that do happen, the actual crime rate has also been dropping steadily over the past 50 years. People really are safer, most of them (correctly) feel safer and as a result, most of them don’t feel the need to own guns.
The distribution of gun ownership in America is really quite long-tail: 3% of Americans own more than half of those 300 million guns. Yes, that’s right, the gun ownership distribution today is:
這是因為相對較少的人購買了大量的槍支，但大多數(shù)人沒有，甚至已經(jīng)丟棄了他們的槍。
人們通常購買槍支是為了家庭防御，擔(dān)心犯罪問題。雖然現(xiàn)在有很多新聞報道犯罪事件，但實際犯罪率在過去50年里一直在穩(wěn)步下降。大多數(shù)人感到更安全，（正確地）覺得更安全，因此大多數(shù)人不覺得有必要擁有槍支。
美國槍支所有權(quán)的分布非常長尾：3％的美國人擁有300萬槍支中超過一半。是的，沒錯，現(xiàn)在的槍支所有權(quán)分布是：
19% of Americans own 50% of guns, and
3% of Americans own the remaining 50% of the guns.
So despite “record numbers of guns” in America, they are all owned by less than a quarter of our population, and half of that by only 3% of the population. And that percentage of households owning at least one gun has been dropping steadily since 1960 (and before).
So here’s how you rid America, practicably speaking, of guns:
You just keep making it safer. You keep doing the things we have been doing over the past 50 years that have improved our communities, improved our schools, improved our policing, and improved our standard of life. And as people feel safer, they become less likely to feel they need a gun.
The people who own tons of guns are actually very responsible people. They take guns very seriously, and they practice extremely rigorous safety procedures in storing, using and transporting their guns.
美國有78%的人不擁有任何槍支，19%的人擁有50%的槍支，而3%的人擁有剩下50%的槍支。因此，盡管美國擁有“創(chuàng)紀(jì)錄數(shù)量的槍支”，但它們都由不到四分之一的人口擁有，其中僅有3%的人口擁有一半以上的槍支。而且，自1960年以來（甚至更早之前），至少擁有一支槍的家庭所占的比例一直在穩(wěn)步下降。
因此，下面是擺脫美國槍支的可實行方法：
只需繼續(xù)提高民眾的安全感。我們要堅持過去50年來改善社區(qū)、學(xué)校、執(zhí)法以及我們生活標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的舉措，隨著人們越來越感到安全，他們就會越來越不覺得需要擁有槍支。
其實，大量擁有槍支的人非常負(fù)責(zé)任。他們非常認(rèn)真對待他們的槍支，嚴(yán)格遵守儲存、使用和運(yùn)輸槍支的安全程序。
It’s not about taking guns away. It’s about creating a society where people feel safe enough to not need guns.
想象一下，只有少數(shù)非常專注于槍械的人擁有美國所有的槍支，將它們保存得很安全，而大多數(shù)人卻沒有槍支，主要是因為他們感覺足夠安全而不需要槍支。而這種“感覺足夠安全”通常意味著他們認(rèn)識的人沒有成為暴力犯罪的受害者，他們所在的社區(qū)沒有發(fā)生入室盜竊案，或者即使發(fā)生了，警方也能迅速有效地響應(yīng)，他們感覺不需要武裝自己。
這不是要取走槍支，而是要創(chuàng)造一個讓人們感到足夠安全而不需要槍支的社會。
There’s a similar argument in the abortion-rights camp: we want all women to have the unfettered right to an abortion, but we would prefer a society where no abortions were ever necessary. Because a high abortion rate is not a primary problem, it’s the symptom of a problem: too many people are getting pregnant where they didn’t intend to. Comprehensive sex education and access to contraceptives is the answer here. As a liberal gun-control proponent, you’re probably sympathetic to this argument.
在一個社會中擁有大量槍支并不是一個主要問題，而是問題的癥狀：這意味著人們感到如此不安全和不信任旨在保護(hù)他們安全的機(jī)構(gòu)，以至于他們感到需要武裝自己以致命的武力。在支持墮胎權(quán)的陣營中也有類似的論點(diǎn)：我們希望所有婦女都有無拘束的墮胎權(quán)，但我們更希望有一個不需要墮胎的社會。因為高墮胎率不是一個主要問題，而是問題的癥狀：太多的人在沒有意圖的情況下懷孕。全面的性教育和獲得避孕措施是解決這個問題的答案。作為一個自由派的槍支管制支持者，你可能對這個論點(diǎn)表示同情。
Then, on a practical basis, there really won’t be that many “l(fā)oose” guns floating around, easily acquirable by lunatics or mentally disturbed young men or toddlers. Because those are the guns that are a real practical danger, and the incidence of those occurrences has been falling for over 50 years now, and we just need to continue the trend of social and economic progress that has made that possible: the exercise of voluntary choice by people who have every right to own a gun but choose not to because they don’t need one.
因此，消除美國的槍支的真正方法與我們在解決財富不平等方面所嘗試做的事情相反：我們希望將槍支的所有權(quán)集中在少數(shù)人手中，這些負(fù)責(zé)任的槍支持有者致力于獲取和維護(hù)安全的槍支收藏。然后，在實際層面上，真正流浪的槍支就不會那么多，瘋子、精神病年輕人或幼兒很容易獲得的槍支就不會那么多。因為這些槍支是真正的實際危險，這種情況的發(fā)生率已經(jīng)下降了50多年，我們只需要繼續(xù)社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)進(jìn)步的趨勢，使這種情況成為可能：那些有權(quán)擁有槍支但選擇不擁有的人自愿選擇，因為他們不需要槍支。
Step by step. The same way they did in Britain. We could start by changing the age limit. Make it older than the voting age. Then ban certain features, say bump stocks or high capicity magazines. Then start getting sporting goods stores like say Dick's to stop selling supposed assault rifles. The slope continues from there. Just ban them one by one until there's nothing left but a pistol for target practice. Then say you really don't need those either because the intent all along was to ban guns… wait, I meant “to make Society safe”.
To those who don't want this, who realize that it is not a gun issue but a national values issue I say this: Give no ground! Not one inch! We have already given enough! The media makes these people into superstars and that is what they want. This is an issue with our media and our national values, nothing more.
逐步來，就像英國做的那樣。我們可以首先改變年齡限制，將其設(shè)為投票年齡以上。然后禁止某些功能，比如凸輪托和高容量彈匣。接著開始讓像Dick's這樣的運(yùn)動用品店停止出售所謂的“突擊步槍”等。從這里開始，一步步地禁止它們，直到只剩下手槍可以用于練習(xí)射擊。然后說你們真的也不需要那些，因為一直以來的目的都是禁槍...等等，我想說的是“讓社會更安全”。
對于那些不想這樣做的人，他們意識到這不是一個槍支問題，而是一個國家價值觀問題，我說這樣：不要讓步！一寸都不要！我們已經(jīng)讓出了足夠的空間！媒體將這些人塑造成超級巨星，這正是他們想要的。這是一個關(guān)于我們的媒體和國家價值觀的問題，僅此而已。
The only instance of eliminating guns, that I know of, was in Japan during the Tokugawa Shogunate, 1603 to 1867. That was one of the most violent and repressive societies in human history, utterly closed from contact with the outside world. No goods were allowed in, and all domestic manufacturing was strictly controlled. Still, it took about 100 years to get rid of guns.
I believe that is the only way to rid a society of guns: control everything and everyone as much as possible, oppress and exploit the lower classes (essentially enslaving them), and isolate the society from all contact with the outside world.
Sounds like a wonderful idea, don’t you think?
據(jù)我了解，日本江戶幕府時期（1603年至1867年）是唯一一次消除槍支的例子。那是人類歷史上最暴力和專制的社會之一，完全隔絕了與外界的聯(lián)系。禁止任何貨物進(jìn)入，國內(nèi)制造業(yè)也受到嚴(yán)格控制。即便如此，消除槍支還需要100年時間。我認(rèn)為，消除一個社會的槍支只有一個辦法：盡可能控制一切和每個人，壓迫和剝削下層階級（實際上是奴役他們），并將這個社會與外界隔絕。聽起來是個絕妙的想法，不是嗎？
There are an estimated 400 million guns in the US, owned by about 80 million adult legal gun owners.
There are about 76 million dogs in the US owned by about 48 million dog owners. Just for comparison.
You would have more success getting rid of dogs; but why would you want to?
I realize that many of the people who do not have dogs think they are a nasty, noisy, potentially dangerous pain in the ass. But, 48 million people ain’t going to put up with anyone trying to get rid of their dogs. The 80 million gun owners ain’t going to put up with you trying to get rid of their guns either.
Find another political hobby. Why not campaign for ways to reduce the number of falls? Falls kill more than twice as many people as are murdered by guns in the US. Most of the fatalities are children and old farts. One source reported that falls account for about 800,000 hospitalization per year in the US. There are useful things you could be wasting your time and effort on.
據(jù)估計，美國有大約4億支槍，由大約8000萬名合法槍支持有者擁有。
美國有大約7600萬只狗，由約4800萬名狗主人擁有。這只是作為比較而言。
想要擺脫狗的成功率會更高；但你為什么要這樣做呢？
我知道很多沒有養(yǎng)狗的人認(rèn)為它們很討厭，很吵鬧，有潛在的危險。但是，4800萬人不會容忍任何人試圖趕走他們的狗。同樣，8000萬名槍支持有者也不會容忍你試圖擺脫他們的槍支。
找一個新的政治愛好吧。為什么不倡導(dǎo)減少跌倒的數(shù)量？在美國，跌倒導(dǎo)致的死亡人數(shù)是被槍擊謀殺的兩倍以上。大多數(shù)死亡人數(shù)是兒童和老年人。有一份報告稱，每年大約有80萬人因跌倒住院治療。你可以把時間和精力用在有用的事情上。
That’s the wrong question. Let me pose this one to you. Why would you want to? I can promise you that 99% of legal gun owners have no intention of harming anyone. The 1% that might have to deal with law enforcement and the remainder of those that are legally carrying. So many people that have them legally are one of the biggest reasons most criminals are in fear of their lives when they do something wrong. Don’t fear legal gun owners. Fear those that get them illegally. If you notice all the major events of shootings happen in surprise. The person doing the wrong do everything they can to maintain the element of surprise. Why? Because they know the police or someone conceal carrying could potentially stop their plan.
Also, making guns go away from us will open the door for countries to invade. Sure we have our military, but do you honestly think that’s the main reason countries don’t try to come over here? No. It’s money. But beyond that, they also know that we have so many guns beyond our military that they wouldn’t be just fighting them.
Also, if you take the guns away from the legal citizens, you leave the only ones available to the criminals. And you won’t/can’t get rid of them in the criminal sector. If there’s a way to threaten peace, someone is going to have it. Unfortunately that’s just how it is. There’s someone out there always that want to hurt others. Don’t give up your right to protect yourself from them, even if you don’t want a gun yourself.
這個問題問錯了。讓我向您提出另外一個問題。為什么您會想這樣做？我可以向您保證，99%的合法槍支持有者沒有傷害任何人的意圖。1%的可能需要應(yīng)對執(zhí)法部門和其余的合法攜帶者。許多合法擁有槍支的人是大多數(shù)罪犯在犯罪時生命安全最擔(dān)心的原因之一。不要害怕合法的槍支持有者。要害怕那些非法獲得槍支的人。如果您注意到所有槍擊事件的主要發(fā)生地點(diǎn)都是意料之外的，那是因為肇事者盡一切可能維持驚喜元素。為什么？因為他們知道警察或攜槍者有可能阻止他們的計劃。
此外，如果我們要從合法公民手中奪走槍支，那么會為其他國家入侵美國打開大門。當(dāng)然，我們有自己的軍隊，但您真的認(rèn)為這是其他國家不會來這里的主要原因嗎？不是。那是錢的問題。但除此之外，他們也知道我們除了軍隊之外擁有太多的槍支，他們不僅僅是在與軍隊作戰(zhàn)。
此外，如果您從合法公民手中拿走槍支，您只會留下非法犯罪分子手中的槍支。您無法消滅犯罪領(lǐng)域中的槍支。如果有一種方式威脅和平，總有人會擁有它。不幸的是，這就是現(xiàn)實?？偸怯腥讼雮e人。即使您不想擁有槍支，也不要放棄自我保護(hù)的權(quán)利。