美國網友：頻頻爆發的“美國大屠殺”，全賴開國元勳！_風聞

近日，在美版知乎“quora”上有美國網友提了這樣一個問題：

為什麼中國人享有更多的自由，比如每天晚上在街上自由行走，而美國人卻沒有？

美國網友的回答，相當有意思：

1、Yves Hermit

Because of the crime rate, to be specific.

具體來説，是因為犯罪率的緣故。

Also, I’d like to appeal to all the Americans asking for more freedom such as walking freely in streets daily and night.

另外，我想呼籲所有美國人去要求更多的自由，比如每天和晚上在街上行走的自由。

2、James Cardin

The crime level in China is 22.1 ranking 83th, less than one-third of the counterpart of the US with a crime level at 55.84 ranking 30th.

中國的犯罪水平為22.1，排在第83位，不到美國的三分之一，美國的犯罪水平為55.84，排在第30位。

Why?Because of violence precaution measures ranging from legislation to surveillance.

為什麼？因為從立法到監控等方面的暴力預防措施。

To acquire validity, this answer won’t involve any professional legislative analysis in terms of criminal law or administrative construction. But one thing for sure, China is a country with relatively stricter law enforcement in crime. The execution data in what follows can get it verified.

為了保持正確性，這個答案不涉及任何專業的刑法或行政建設方面的立法分析。但可以肯定的是，中國是一個執法相對嚴格的國家。下面的死刑數據可以驗證這一點。

In China, suspects face tougher laws and sentences once convicted. In the United States, out of pity for criminals, it is more likely that they will only be put into prison, no matter how bloody crimes they have committed.

在中國，嫌疑人一旦被定罪，將面臨更嚴厲的法律和判決。而在美國，出於對罪犯的憐憫，更有可能只是將他們投入監獄了事，而不管他們犯下了多麼血腥的罪行。

There goes a unique phenomenon where American jails often early release prisoners due to the inadequacy of cells.

有一個獨特的現象是：美國監獄經常因為牢房不足而提前釋放囚犯。

Statistics from source World Prison Brief, an online database offering an insight into prison systems around the globe, demonstrates that America houses more than two million inmates — nearly 500,000 more than China, which is the next highest on the list.

來自《世界監獄簡報》——一個提供全球監獄系統信息的在線數據庫——的統計數據顯示，美國關押了200多萬名囚犯，比排名第二的中國多出了近50萬。

The notorious singer Chris Brown, for instance, being famous for abusing his girlfriend in 2009, the winner of Grammy Awards Rihanna, was given early release from jail due to overcrowding in June 2014.

例如，2009年因虐待女友——格萊美獎得主蕾哈娜——而臭名昭著的歌手克里斯?布朗在2014年6月因為監獄人滿為患而被提前釋放。

3、Rudi Pan

(monitor along a street in a small city of Henan Province)

河南省某小城鎮的沿街監控

monitor at the entry of a common apartment

一幢普通公寓入口處的監視器

monitors in villages

村莊裏所安裝的監視器

In the end, FREEDOM concludes not only the rights of possessing guns or the rights of criminals to live again but also incorporates the rights to live in safety without being shoot all of a sudden in streets.

最後我要説的是，自由不僅包括擁有槍支的權利或罪犯重新做人的權利，而且還包括了人們在大街上安全活動而不會被突然射殺的權利。

4、George Na

China also does not have a diverse population. That also means that the goverment would use surveilance everywhere to control its population. Even if China’s laws were to be implemented in the USA,it wouldn’t work anyway because the population would revolt.

中國沒有多樣化的人口。這也意味着它的政府能夠利用這些手段來管理人口。即使中國的法律在美國得以實施，也不會起到什麼作用，因為美國人會起而反抗。

5、Dan Goerke

I live in the US. I go walking at night all the time without fear of crime. I live in a suburb of Detroit, a city with a bad reputation where I would not go walking at night in any neighborhood. (The night life and “tourist” areas are relatively safe.) So, it depends where you go. If you use common sense, crime/walking at night is not a real issue.

我就住在美國。我總是在晚上出去散步，我不怕犯罪活動。我住在底特律的郊區，這是一個名聲很不好的城市，我不會在晚上去城裏的任何一個社區散步。(夜生活和“旅遊區”相對安全。)所以，這取決於你去到了哪裏。如果你用常識思考一下，就會知道犯罪和夜間出去閒逛不是一個真正的問題。

I have also spent six weeks in China. I very much enjoy the feeling of physical safety I experience when I am there. I am uncertain, however, what my feelings would be if I lived there. The presence of cameras and omni-present police and security personnel would likely give me the creeps.

我也在中國呆過六個星期。當我在那裏的時候，我非常享受身體上的安全感。然而，我不確定如果我住在那裏，我會有什麼感受。攝像頭、警察和安全人員的無處不在可能會讓我毛骨悚然。

6、Sam King

As you said, with common sense you’ll be absolutely fine in China as long as you’re not the problem where most people would be worried. I have more doubts about the US even if proper measures were taken, where anyone with a gun is a problem.

就像你説的，只要你不是大多數人所擔心的麻煩所在，你在中國就絕對沒問題。我對美國有更多的懷疑，即使你採取了適當的措施，在那裏，任何人都持槍是一個大問題。

7、Janis

It is a fact that the US has some of the highest rates of violence (on all levels) in the world (1) it has the highest ownership of guns (2) it has economic inequality that produces poorer areas with almost 40 million in poverty (3) racism exists, the majority of mass shooters/attackers in US history have been white.

事實是美國有着最高的暴力事件發生率(在各種層級上)：(1)世界上最高槍支所有率；(2)它的經濟不平等狀況製造出了有着將近4000萬貧困人口的貧困地區；(3)種族主義仍然存在，美國曆史上的大多數大規模槍擊事件的攻擊者都是白人。

These are the facts.

這些都是事實。

“if you live in a culture that has a little more violence than Chinese cultures, and especially if you are not careful, you might meet someone on the street who wants to rob or murder you. In such a situation, is it better to have an option for a gun or to have the government say you can NEVER have a gun?”

“現在，如果你生活在一個比中國文化暴力多一點的文化裏，特別是如果你不小心的話，你可能就會在街上遇到一個想要搶劫或謀殺你的人。在這種情況下，到底持槍是更好的選擇，還是政府説你永遠不能持槍更好？”

8、Village man

I think we can agree that the US is significantly more violent than China, both in internal and external affairs. The likelihood of being attacked by someone with a gun in China is low, guns are banned from public purchases and use and have been banned since the 60s. There are exceptions (such as for cultural purposes in some ethnic groups) although they are controlled and regulated.

我想我們都同意這樣一點，即無論在內政還是在外交事務上，美國都比中國暴力得多。在中國，被持槍者襲擊的可能性很低，政府禁止公眾購買和使用槍支，自60年代以來它就一直被禁止。當然也有例外(比如一些民族出於文化目的使用槍支)，儘管這些例外情況也是受到控制和管制的。

It is a fact that countries that have banned guns have significantly less gun violence - UK, Singapore, China, Japan, Australia and recently New Zealand (after a mass shooting by a tourist that killed 50 people). That’s the progress that society in these countries have made moving forward from the past because they have laws and social responsibilities to follow them. In Australia, our last major mass shooting was back 1996 where 35 people were killed.

事實上，在禁止槍支的國家，如英國、新加坡、中國、日本、澳大利亞和新西蘭，槍支暴力事件都明顯減少了。這是這些國家的社會相比於過去所取得的進步，因為他們有法律和社會責任可以遵守。在澳大利亞，我們上一次的大規模槍擊事件還發生在1996年，當時有35人喪生。

It was only recently this year that we had a major shooting that took the lives of 4 people from a racist crazed gunman who used a stolen gun from 1997. Considering that Australia used to have a prominent gun culture, it has done extremely well in reducing gun violence but guns are not eliminated completely yet. There are still people out there who are involved in illegal gun trade who make it possible for criminals to get their hands on guns. The best action is of course to eliminate the available of guns altogether.

就在今年，我們又發生了一起重大的槍擊事件，那名瘋狂的種族主義瘋狂者用的是在1997年偷來的槍，它導致了4人喪生。考慮到澳大利亞曾經擁有過顯赫的槍支文化，它在減少槍支暴力方面已經做得非常好了，但槍支仍然沒有被徹底清除。仍然有人蔘與非法槍支交易，讓罪犯有可能得到槍支。最好的行動當然是徹底清除槍支。

In the US, it has had 12 mass shooting attacks this year, over 50 people killed and more than 100 injured. Last year, it was worst.

在美國，今年已經發生了12起大規模槍擊事件，超過50人死亡，100多人受傷。去年則是最糟糕的一年。

Due to the prence of guns, people are likely to be involved in a gun situation involving threats, attacks and deaths. This is a fact, and it’s because of the lack of progress in US society where they are unable to move beyond the mentality of possessing weapons. So the issue is not whether you need to have a gun in this situation, the question is why does everyone need one? Should students in the classroom possess some weapon to protect themselves from bullies? Of course not, and they’re the immature ones who have not yet developed reasoning and accountability.

由於槍支的普遍持有，人們很可能會捲入涉及威脅、攻擊和死亡的槍支事件當中。這是事實，這是因為美國社會缺乏進步，他們無法超脱出持有武器的心態。所以問題不是在這種情況下你是否需要有槍，問題是為什麼每個人都需要槍？教室裏的學生應該擁有一些武器來保護自己免受欺凌嗎？當然不是，他們是不成熟的未成年人，還沒有發展出理性和負責任的能力。

9、Scott

“The gun issue in America is very complicated. However, I believe to start to understand it you must remember two things. First, is that “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. Almost every gun law in the US causes problems for people who will never harm anyone with their gun and does nothing at all to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Second, is that the cities with the most crime (Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles) have VERY strict guns laws. The criminals just ignore these laws and crime remains very high.”

“美國的槍支問題非常複雜。然而，我相信要開始理解它，你必須記住兩件事。首先，“如果槍支是非法的，那麼就只有不法之徒才會擁有槍支”。在美國，幾乎每一項槍支法都會給那些永遠不會用槍來傷害任何人的人帶來了麻煩，而且根本無法防止槍支落入罪犯之手。其次，犯罪活動最猖獗的城市(芝加哥、底特律、洛杉磯)都有非常嚴格的槍支法律。然而罪犯無視了這些法律，犯罪率居高不下。”

10、Cristina

I think the countries that I have mentioned earlier prove that real gun laws work, gun violence has decreased significantly and mass shootings have been virtually zero for many years (other than New Zealand which had lax gun laws but not anymore). The onus is on you to justify why these countries should have more guns.

我認為之前提到的那些國家證明了真正的槍支管制法律是有效的，在這些國家，槍支暴力已經顯著減少，大規模槍擊事件多年來幾乎從未發生過(新西蘭除外，該國槍支管制法律寬鬆，但現在的情況已經不是如此了)。你有責任證明為什麼這些國家應該擁有更多的槍支。

11、Flying bear

Gun laws in the US are simply too weak to manage such a high gun ownership culture with low accountability, that’s on the people who continue to make these laws weak, like gun lobbyists and the NRA. It is simply not normal to accept kids getting their hands on semi-automatic rifles to wipe out tens of their classmates and innocent children every single year, even if it is to you.

美國的槍支管制法律太弱了，它無法管控得住這種高槍支擁有率、低問責的文化，這是那些繼續讓這些法律變得軟弱的人的責任，比如槍支遊説者和全國步槍協會。每年都有孩子拿着半自動步槍殺害他們的同學和無辜的孩子，這是很不正常的情況，即使是對你們來説。

12、Adam Levett

I feel that I would be more safe with a gun on my person, and I don’t really care about everyone else, I put my life over others. Having a gun in America is a right, so with China removing that, they then remove more rights. Would you want to live in China?

我覺得帶槍對我自己而言會更安全，我並不在乎其他人，我把自己的生命放在了別人的生命之上。在美國，持有槍支是一種權利，所以當中國取消了這一權利之後，他們就會取消更多的權利。你想住在中國嗎？

13、Adam Hu

Owning a firearm is a right in the US but not any other country, including China. Thus no rights have been “removed". To claim otherwise is cultural jingoism, which is quite popular in the West and HK.

持有槍支在美國是一種權利，但在其他任何國家都不是，包括中國。因此，沒有權利被“剝奪”。你的這種説法就是一種文化沙文主義，在西方和HK都很流行。

Also, what are people forgetting in terms of human rights violations? A convenient phrase, which can be accurately used to describe Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo…

還有，人們在人權侵犯方面忘記了什麼？這是一個可以準確描述阿布格萊布監獄和關塔那摩監獄等等地方的詞彙…

14、Zhang Le

As far as I know guns and knives are two things. 1000s of years ago our ancestors already used knives to kill each other while guns were a recent weapons. Why? Clearly guns are much much more effective in killing.

據我所知，槍和刀是兩種東西。一千多年前，我們的祖先就已經用刀互相殘殺了，而槍是最近才出現的武器。為什麼？顯然，用槍殺人要有效得多。

Let me asked you, one crazy mad man, which weapon do you want him to use?Remember the Alaska mass shooting? Machine gun involved. In 4 minutes about 60 people were killed.

我想問你一個問題：如果你碰到了一個瘋子，你希望他用的是什麼武器？還記得阿拉斯加的大規模槍擊事件嗎？那個人用的是機槍。在4分鐘內，大約有60人被殺死了。

In every society there are always crazy mad men. Guns just amplify their devastating power. If I have to give them a weapon, defense it is not gun.“Now add guns to both sides and they have equal power, but they have an equal chance of winning”

每個社會都有一些瘋子。槍支放大了他們的破壞力。如果我必須給他們武器的話，那就不會是槍。“現在如果兩邊都有槍，他們有同等的力量，於是他們就有同等的獲勝機會”

Jesus. I can’’t believe you write these words. Maybe a society is a arena to you. So everyone should have a “equal chanve of winning”. Your opinions are not data and logic supported. While we have seen enough massacres involved guns in USA.

天吶。我不敢相信你寫出了這些話。也許社會對你而言就是一個舞台。所以每個人都應該有“平等的獲勝機會”。你的觀點缺乏數據和邏輯的支持。我們已經在美國看到了太多涉及槍支的屠殺事件了。

15、Adam Levett

You need to think with a bit of logic, people can and will kill, and there are weak people out there too. I know putting odds like that doesn’t sound great but it’s the best we can do. And really, guns are not anything fancy.

你需要用一點邏輯來思考這個問題，人可以殺人，也會去殺人，而且社會上總是存在着弱者。我知道這樣的措辭聽起來不太好，但這是我們能做的最好的事情了。事實上，槍支並不是什麼新奇的東西。

Sure, they are easy to use, so good defence, but if I had time to train and wanted to really kill, I could probably figure out 10 better ways to do it. (hinting at attacks with vehicles etc, what do you then, ban cars?) And on another note, guns are used many times legally, look at the amount of shooters and compare to the amount of guns used.

當然，它們使用起來很簡單，所以是很好的防禦工具，但如果我有時間獲得訓練，並想要真正殺死某人，我可能會想出10種更好的方法來做到這一點。(比如用車輛進行攻擊等，然後你要做什麼，禁止使用汽車嗎？)另一方面，槍支在很多情況下都是被合法使用的，請看看槍擊者的數量，再拿它和槍支的數量進行比較。

Other things kill, look at how many are killed by drunk drivers, but you don’t ban cars because that is stupid, people are normally safe with cars. But banning things says to us you can’t be trusted, and that’s not what a government should do, that is what a babysitter is for

其他的東西也能被拿來殺人，看看有多少人死於酒後駕車，但你不能禁止汽車，因為那是非常愚蠢的事情，擁有汽車的人通常都很安全。但是禁止某些事情對我們來説是不可行的，這不是政府應該做的事情，這是保姆的職責。

16、Elijah Stansell

The right to bear arm’s isn’t to feel safer, its to prevent a tyrannical government, something you should know all about.

拿起武器的權利不是為了獲得安全感，而是為了防止一個專制的政府的出現，這是你應該知道的。

17、Quan Zhang

Yes, of course.Chinese have never been shy about overthrowing tyrannical governments. They’ve been doing it dozens of times in their history before Thomas Paine knew what a pen was. If there is a reason the current government has not been overthrown, it’s not because the people don’t have guns.

是的，我當然知道。中國人從來不憚於去推翻專制的政府。在托馬斯.潘恩知道鋼筆是什麼之前，他們就已經這麼幹過幾十次了。如果説現在的政府沒有被推翻有什麼原因的話，那並不是因為人們沒有槍。

18、Eliot

But how? Use your semi automatic rifles to fight the tanks, missiles and airplanes the government has? 200years ago all of these things didn’’t exist. 200years ago, you have a gun. 200years, you still have a gun. But the potential tyrannical government already light years were ahead. Tell me, what’’s the difference between a knives and a gun when facing the tyrannical government nowadays?

但那又怎樣？用你的半自動步槍來對付坦克、導彈和飛機嗎？200年前，所有這些東西都不存在。200年前，你們持有槍支。200年後，你還是持有槍支。但是那些潛在的專制政府已經在武器方面遙遙領先了。請告訴我，面對當今的專制政府，一把刀和一把槍有什麼區別？

19、Dominic

“its to prevent a tyrannical government”… right. i am going to use my gun against the irs. when the army comes at me with tanks, i am gonna fend them off with my gun. it’s an antiquated addition to the constitution from illogical paranoia from the founders that the brits would come at them with muskets. ironically, the best weapon against a tyrannical government is not guns, or knives, or swords.

“這是為了防止一個專制的政府的出現”……沒錯，我要用我的槍去對付國税局。當軍隊開着坦克向我進攻時，我要用我的槍把他們擋住。這是對憲法的一種過時的補充，它來自於美國的開國元勳們不合邏輯的偏執，他們認為英國人會拿着步槍攻擊他們。具有諷刺意味的是，對付專制政府的最好武器不是槍、刀或劍。

毫不諱言，對於美國網友“Eliot”的觀點，老鐵相當認同：

面對當今的專制政府，一把刀和一把槍有什麼區別？

是的，正如網友“Dominic”所説的那樣：

這是對憲法的一種過時的補充，它來自於美國的開國元勳們不合邏輯的偏執。

道理很簡單，如果造成了如今美國人權災難的“槍支氾濫”是美國政府為了防止專制政府產生的話，那麼他們就不應該設置許可範圍。

所以，美國公民應該擁有的難道僅僅只是半自動步槍嗎？

為了民主，美國人民應該被准許擁有勃朗寧M2H B 0.50英寸機槍！

為了民主，美國人民應該被准許擁有M1A2“艾布拉姆斯”坦克！

為了民主，美國人民應該被准許擁有AH-64“阿帕奇”武裝直升機！

為了民主，美國人民應該被准許擁有俄亥俄級戰略核潛艇、福特級航母、民兵、潘興和侏儒戰略核導彈！