在美国摆脱枪支的最佳方式是什么？（一）
正文翻译
图
图
评论翻译
Mike Turner
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.
你可以从自己做起。扔掉你拥有的任何枪支，不要再买。这样，你就不再持有枪支了。现在，去管好自己的事情，让其他人也自己做自己的事情。
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.
你可以从自己做起。扔掉你拥有的任何枪支，不要再买。这样，你就不再持有枪支了。现在，去管好自己的事情，让其他人也自己做自己的事情。
Ken Rabon
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？这里有：
1. 确定您的意思是
a. 包括执法和军事部门的所有枪支或
b. 只有私人拥有的枪支（对于这个问题，让我们选择“b”，尽管在事情变得非常糟糕的方式上没有区别。只要记住，如果您选择“a”，您需要首先试图解除武装民众）
2. 预先做出决定，消除枪支的价值高于杀死必要的人数来实现您的目标
3. 禁止私人持有枪支。您可以采用以下两种方式之一进行此项工作。
a. 开始漫长、艰苦且可能无效的修宪过程，以废除第二修正案。无论粉红色闪闪发光的独角兽是否存在，“废除枪支”的任何努力都必须考虑到第二修正案这个事实。
b. 通过行政命令禁止持有。
4. 无论您选择3a还是3b，都要做好准备，面对随之而来的血腥内战。
5. 派出小组收集私人持有的武器。毫无疑问，其中一些是有效的。其他人可能会叛变。
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？这里有：
1. 确定您的意思是
a. 包括执法和军事部门的所有枪支或
b. 只有私人拥有的枪支（对于这个问题，让我们选择“b”，尽管在事情变得非常糟糕的方式上没有区别。只要记住，如果您选择“a”，您需要首先试图解除武装民众）
2. 预先做出决定，消除枪支的价值高于杀死必要的人数来实现您的目标
3. 禁止私人持有枪支。您可以采用以下两种方式之一进行此项工作。
a. 开始漫长、艰苦且可能无效的修宪过程，以废除第二修正案。无论粉红色闪闪发光的独角兽是否存在，“废除枪支”的任何努力都必须考虑到第二修正案这个事实。
b. 通过行政命令禁止持有。
4. 无论您选择3a还是3b，都要做好准备，面对随之而来的血腥内战。
5. 派出小组收集私人持有的武器。毫无疑问，其中一些是有效的。其他人可能会叛变。
6.keep the membership of these teams secret to reduce the likelihood of team members being shot on the doorsteps of their houses.
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. 保持这些团队的成员身份保密，以减少成员在家门口被枪杀的可能性。
7. 为当大量执法人员拒绝在枪支持有者家门口排队时制定应急计划。
8. 为当大量军事人员拒绝遵守违宪命令时制定应急计划。
9. 为当多个国民警卫队单位和最近军械库的所有物资突然消失时制定应急计划。
10. 为所有选择将其广泛的训练和经验用于反抗服务的现役和前任执法和军事人员制定应急计划。
11. 记住，大多数反抗者不会直接或完全针对你们忠诚于政府的战斗部队。因此，你必须有一个保护计划。
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. 保持这些团队的成员身份保密，以减少成员在家门口被枪杀的可能性。
7. 为当大量执法人员拒绝在枪支持有者家门口排队时制定应急计划。
8. 为当大量军事人员拒绝遵守违宪命令时制定应急计划。
9. 为当多个国民警卫队单位和最近军械库的所有物资突然消失时制定应急计划。
10. 为所有选择将其广泛的训练和经验用于反抗服务的现役和前任执法和军事人员制定应急计划。
11. 记住，大多数反抗者不会直接或完全针对你们忠诚于政府的战斗部队。因此，你必须有一个保护计划。
a.Senior military leaders when they are not in garrison
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. 当高级军事领导不在军营时
b. 支持这种严重侵犯公民自由的政治领袖
c. 支持从事这种丑闻的政权的流行媒体人物
d. 军事补给单位（没有燃料的坦克效果不太好）
12. 准备好你的努力会越来越不受欢迎，因为那些公开支持这种行动的人会开始大量死亡。
13. 回答这个问题：你愿意国有化多少产业来为开始就不受欢迎并且随着政府杀害越来越多平民而变得越来越不受欢迎的运动提供所需的物资？
就是这样。
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. 当高级军事领导不在军营时
b. 支持这种严重侵犯公民自由的政治领袖
c. 支持从事这种丑闻的政权的流行媒体人物
d. 军事补给单位（没有燃料的坦克效果不太好）
12. 准备好你的努力会越来越不受欢迎，因为那些公开支持这种行动的人会开始大量死亡。
13. 回答这个问题：你愿意国有化多少产业来为开始就不受欢迎并且随着政府杀害越来越多平民而变得越来越不受欢迎的运动提供所需的物资？
就是这样。
Barry Jantz
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.
如果实行完全没收枪支的联邦政策，强迫每个人交出他们的枪支，然后派遣警察逐户搜查从拒绝主动交出枪支的人手中夺取，数以百万计的枪支仍然找不到。
至少在守法公民手中，枪支数量会大幅减少。警察和军队当然仍将拥有枪支。
如果你的政府剥夺了私人拥有枪支的权利，但自己仍然拥有枪支的合法所有权，你会感到满意吗？如果是这样，你可能就是问题所在。
历史表明，自由时期是罕见的，只有当自由公民坚决捍卫他们的权利时才存在。
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.
如果实行完全没收枪支的联邦政策，强迫每个人交出他们的枪支，然后派遣警察逐户搜查从拒绝主动交出枪支的人手中夺取，数以百万计的枪支仍然找不到。
至少在守法公民手中，枪支数量会大幅减少。警察和军队当然仍将拥有枪支。
如果你的政府剥夺了私人拥有枪支的权利，但自己仍然拥有枪支的合法所有权，你会感到满意吗？如果是这样，你可能就是问题所在。
历史表明，自由时期是罕见的，只有当自由公民坚决捍卫他们的权利时才存在。
Matthew Park Moore
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.
用更好的东西来替代它们吧。我非常愿意用一把《星际迷航》的相位枪来交换我所有的枪支，而且我会始终将它设定为电击模式。
我知道这听起来很讽刺，但你确实要求有创意的解决方案。我的解决方案之所以有吸引力，是因为它取代了一个政治问题，而你在可预见的未来中会一直失败，转而成为一个技术问题，这个问题并不明显无法解决。把你浪费在禁枪倡导上的所有钱都用于资助非致命自卫武器的研究。你的成功机会至少与禁枪同样好，你将会少遭遇很多敌对的交互，并且你甚至可能会变得富有。
编辑：实际上，我更喜欢一种被改装成只有电击设置的《星际迷航》相位枪。致命性是民用自卫的负面特征，我接受这一点，因为致命武器是唯一可靠的武器。一个可靠的电击武器将为我提供所有我想要的与枪支相同的功能，同时具有较少的法律风险。
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.
用更好的东西来替代它们吧。我非常愿意用一把《星际迷航》的相位枪来交换我所有的枪支，而且我会始终将它设定为电击模式。
我知道这听起来很讽刺，但你确实要求有创意的解决方案。我的解决方案之所以有吸引力，是因为它取代了一个政治问题，而你在可预见的未来中会一直失败，转而成为一个技术问题，这个问题并不明显无法解决。把你浪费在禁枪倡导上的所有钱都用于资助非致命自卫武器的研究。你的成功机会至少与禁枪同样好，你将会少遭遇很多敌对的交互，并且你甚至可能会变得富有。
编辑：实际上，我更喜欢一种被改装成只有电击设置的《星际迷航》相位枪。致命性是民用自卫的负面特征，我接受这一点，因为致命武器是唯一可靠的武器。一个可靠的电击武器将为我提供所有我想要的与枪支相同的功能，同时具有较少的法律风险。
Paul Feist
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.
废除整个《权利法案》。
发动一场血腥、暴力、漫长的内战...并获胜。
执行对任何原因不屈服的2000万-5000万美国人。
为另外4000万名前枪支持有者建立“再教育营”。消灭至少三分之一最不顺从的人。
在接下来的300年中，挨家挨户地搜索...挖掘院子等。
就这样。
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.
废除整个《权利法案》。
发动一场血腥、暴力、漫长的内战...并获胜。
执行对任何原因不屈服的2000万-5000万美国人。
为另外4000万名前枪支持有者建立“再教育营”。消灭至少三分之一最不顺从的人。
在接下来的300年中，挨家挨户地搜索...挖掘院子等。
就这样。
Dennis Manning
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.
要废除它们，必须有国会三分之二的投票支持。
三十八个州必须批准枪支禁令。
没收将是非法的，违反宪法。所以他们必须向枪支持有者提供公平市场价值。但国库里的钱不够。
警察和军人被要求执行禁令。他们很可能会拒绝。他们必须挨家挨户地搜查，但大多数人会说他们已经丢失了。
最高法院仍然可以叫停禁令，并称其违反宪法。
换句话说，这太困难以至于不现实。
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.
要废除它们，必须有国会三分之二的投票支持。
三十八个州必须批准枪支禁令。
没收将是非法的，违反宪法。所以他们必须向枪支持有者提供公平市场价值。但国库里的钱不够。
警察和军人被要求执行禁令。他们很可能会拒绝。他们必须挨家挨户地搜查，但大多数人会说他们已经丢失了。
最高法院仍然可以叫停禁令，并称其违反宪法。
换句话说，这太困难以至于不现实。
Anthony Caputo
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.
不要跟我说什么第二修正案之类的废话，或者告诉我没法做到，你就动动脑筋吧…如果你发动了一场内战，并赢得了胜利，那么你会违反所有人的基本人权和尊严，对整个国家进行一次次的搜查，杀死所有拒绝服从你的解除武装指令的人。没有其他手段可以实现这个目标。如果你通过任何暗示解除枪支使用的法律（例如枪支注册），那么绝大多数枪支持有人会将其置之不理。几年前，纽约州实施了一项强制注册法（安全法案）。目前估计只有5%的人遵守了，甚至有一些县的警长敢挑战这项法律的执行。州政府明智地决定不尝试执行这个法律，因为他们意识到这将会造成多少流血，这个法律已经成为了一纸废纸。
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.
不要跟我说什么第二修正案之类的废话，或者告诉我没法做到，你就动动脑筋吧…如果你发动了一场内战，并赢得了胜利，那么你会违反所有人的基本人权和尊严，对整个国家进行一次次的搜查，杀死所有拒绝服从你的解除武装指令的人。没有其他手段可以实现这个目标。如果你通过任何暗示解除枪支使用的法律（例如枪支注册），那么绝大多数枪支持有人会将其置之不理。几年前，纽约州实施了一项强制注册法（安全法案）。目前估计只有5%的人遵守了，甚至有一些县的警长敢挑战这项法律的执行。州政府明智地决定不尝试执行这个法律，因为他们意识到这将会造成多少流血，这个法律已经成为了一纸废纸。
Of course the logistics of a civil war would not be in your favor either, but I will leave that as an exercise for the reader to figure out (hint, the modern military does not stand a chance against a full scale civil uprising, no matter what you think about warfare with tanks and drones. And that even overlooks the likely scenario that a significant portion of the military defects, taking the tanks and drones with them). Needless to say your chances of disarming the American public are virtually nil. We just will not comply, and any attempt to enforce compliance will be met with the full force of our arms.
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 “legal” means.
当然，内战的后勤也不会对你有利，但我将把这留给读者去思考（提示：现代军队在全面内乱中没有任何机会，无论你对坦克和无人机战争有什么看法。这还忽略了可能的情况，即相当一部分军队叛变，带走了坦克和无人机）。不用说，你取缔美国民众持枪的机会几乎为零。我们只会坚持自己的立场，任何试图强制履行禁枪规定的企图都将遭到我们全部武力的反击。
你唯一能实现这个目标的希望就是让数百万人死亡。Molon Labe。
补充说明：对于所有建议通过制定法律或甚至废除第二修正案的答案，你必须记住，权利法案并非授予权利，而是仅承认既有的自然权利，并保证政府不侵犯这些自然权利。对这些法律的废除只会加剧人民和政府之间已经敌对的关系，最终导致上述的内战。没有通过和平“合法”手段来完成这个任务的方法。
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 “legal” means.
当然，内战的后勤也不会对你有利，但我将把这留给读者去思考（提示：现代军队在全面内乱中没有任何机会，无论你对坦克和无人机战争有什么看法。这还忽略了可能的情况，即相当一部分军队叛变，带走了坦克和无人机）。不用说，你取缔美国民众持枪的机会几乎为零。我们只会坚持自己的立场，任何试图强制履行禁枪规定的企图都将遭到我们全部武力的反击。
你唯一能实现这个目标的希望就是让数百万人死亡。Molon Labe。
补充说明：对于所有建议通过制定法律或甚至废除第二修正案的答案，你必须记住，权利法案并非授予权利，而是仅承认既有的自然权利，并保证政府不侵犯这些自然权利。对这些法律的废除只会加剧人民和政府之间已经敌对的关系，最终导致上述的内战。没有通过和平“合法”手段来完成这个任务的方法。
Yishan Wong
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.
摆脱三亿支枪的唯一方法是引发一系列情况，使所有者决定拥有这件东西比它的价值更麻烦，于是他们自愿放弃。
像这样在Quora上提问，你只会得到一堆来自支持枪支权利的人的回答，说出一些变化版本的话，比如“除非从我的冰冷的手中抢过来，否则我们会杀了你。” 他们会让你觉得，美国没有办法消除枪支。
确实如此，不像澳大利亚或英国那样，因为实际上美国里有太多枪支了，无法实际操作。 但是，作为一个持枪人，我要向你提出一种有效的方法，利用一项非常有趣的有关美国枪支的统计数据。
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.
摆脱三亿支枪的唯一方法是引发一系列情况，使所有者决定拥有这件东西比它的价值更麻烦，于是他们自愿放弃。
像这样在Quora上提问，你只会得到一堆来自支持枪支权利的人的回答，说出一些变化版本的话，比如“除非从我的冰冷的手中抢过来，否则我们会杀了你。” 他们会让你觉得，美国没有办法消除枪支。
确实如此，不像澳大利亚或英国那样，因为实际上美国里有太多枪支了，无法实际操作。 但是，作为一个持枪人，我要向你提出一种有效的方法，利用一项非常有趣的有关美国枪支的统计数据。
First, you’ve probably heard that there are 300 million guns in America, more guns than people. That’s a phenomenal number, and you’d be hard-pressed to confiscate this many units of anything. Could we even confiscate 300 million Beanie Babies? That number has steadily grown over the past decade, fueled largely by fears of gun control legislation in reaction to news of mass shootings.
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，你可能已经听说美国有3亿支枪，比人口还多。这是一个巨大的数字，而你很难去没收这么多东西。我们甚至能否没收3亿个“Beanie Babies”呢？这一数字在过去十年中稳步增长，主要是由于对大规模枪支管制立法的担忧，这是对大规模枪击事件的反应。
但这里还有一些你很少听到的事情：拥有至少一支枪的家庭的比例在过去50年中持续下降。在1960年，大约50%的家庭至少拥有一支枪。根据不同的调查，如今只有大约15％至22％的家庭拥有至少一支枪。这是为什么呢？
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，你可能已经听说美国有3亿支枪，比人口还多。这是一个巨大的数字，而你很难去没收这么多东西。我们甚至能否没收3亿个“Beanie Babies”呢？这一数字在过去十年中稳步增长，主要是由于对大规模枪支管制立法的担忧，这是对大规模枪击事件的反应。
但这里还有一些你很少听到的事情：拥有至少一支枪的家庭的比例在过去50年中持续下降。在1960年，大约50%的家庭至少拥有一支枪。根据不同的调查，如今只有大约15％至22％的家庭拥有至少一支枪。这是为什么呢？
It’s because a relatively small number of people are buying a LOT of guns, but most people aren’t, or have even gotten rid of their guns.
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:
这是因为相对较少的人购买了大量的枪支，但大多数人没有，甚至已经丢弃了他们的枪。
人们通常购买枪支是为了家庭防御，担心犯罪问题。虽然现在有很多新闻报道犯罪事件，但实际犯罪率在过去50年里一直在稳步下降。大多数人感到更安全，（正确地）觉得更安全，因此大多数人不觉得有必要拥有枪支。
美国枪支所有权的分布非常长尾：3％的美国人拥有300万枪支中超过一半。是的，没错，现在的枪支所有权分布是：
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:
这是因为相对较少的人购买了大量的枪支，但大多数人没有，甚至已经丢弃了他们的枪。
人们通常购买枪支是为了家庭防御，担心犯罪问题。虽然现在有很多新闻报道犯罪事件，但实际犯罪率在过去50年里一直在稳步下降。大多数人感到更安全，（正确地）觉得更安全，因此大多数人不觉得有必要拥有枪支。
美国枪支所有权的分布非常长尾：3％的美国人拥有300万枪支中超过一半。是的，没错，现在的枪支所有权分布是：
78% of Americans don’t own any guns,
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.
美国有78%的人不拥有任何枪支，19%的人拥有50%的枪支，而3%的人拥有剩下50%的枪支。因此，尽管美国拥有“创纪录数量的枪支”，但它们都由不到四分之一的人口拥有，其中仅有3%的人口拥有一半以上的枪支。而且，自1960年以来（甚至更早之前），至少拥有一支枪的家庭所占的比例一直在稳步下降。
因此，下面是摆脱美国枪支的可实行方法：
只需继续提高民众的安全感。我们要坚持过去50年来改善社区、学校、执法以及我们生活标准的举措，随着人们越来越感到安全，他们就会越来越不觉得需要拥有枪支。
其实，大量拥有枪支的人非常负责任。他们非常认真对待他们的枪支，严格遵守储存、使用和运输枪支的安全程序。
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.
美国有78%的人不拥有任何枪支，19%的人拥有50%的枪支，而3%的人拥有剩下50%的枪支。因此，尽管美国拥有“创纪录数量的枪支”，但它们都由不到四分之一的人口拥有，其中仅有3%的人口拥有一半以上的枪支。而且，自1960年以来（甚至更早之前），至少拥有一支枪的家庭所占的比例一直在稳步下降。
因此，下面是摆脱美国枪支的可实行方法：
只需继续提高民众的安全感。我们要坚持过去50年来改善社区、学校、执法以及我们生活标准的举措，随着人们越来越感到安全，他们就会越来越不觉得需要拥有枪支。
其实，大量拥有枪支的人非常负责任。他们非常认真对待他们的枪支，严格遵守储存、使用和运输枪支的安全程序。
So imagine having a handful of very gun-dedicated people owning ALL the guns in America, keeping them very safe, and most everyone else not owning a gun, primarily because they feel safe enough not to need one. And by “feel safe enough,” this usually means no one they know has been the victim of a violent crime, no one in their neighborhood has been the victim of a break-in, or if they have, police have responded quickly and effectively and they don’t feel any need to arm themselves.
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，只有少数非常专注于枪械的人拥有美国所有的枪支，将它们保存得很安全，而大多数人却没有枪支，主要是因为他们感觉足够安全而不需要枪支。而这种“感觉足够安全”通常意味着他们认识的人没有成为暴力犯罪的受害者，他们所在的社区没有发生入室盗窃案，或者即使发生了，警方也能迅速有效地响应，他们感觉不需要武装自己。
这不是要取走枪支，而是要创造一个让人们感到足够安全而不需要枪支的社会。
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，只有少数非常专注于枪械的人拥有美国所有的枪支，将它们保存得很安全，而大多数人却没有枪支，主要是因为他们感觉足够安全而不需要枪支。而这种“感觉足够安全”通常意味着他们认识的人没有成为暴力犯罪的受害者，他们所在的社区没有发生入室盗窃案，或者即使发生了，警方也能迅速有效地响应，他们感觉不需要武装自己。
这不是要取走枪支，而是要创造一个让人们感到足够安全而不需要枪支的社会。
Having a lot of guns in a society isn’t a primary problem, it’s the symptom of a problem: it means people feel so unsafe and so distrusting of the institutions designed to keep them safe that they feel they need to arm themselves with deadly force.
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.
在一个社会中拥有大量枪支并不是一个主要问题，而是问题的症状：这意味着人们感到如此不安全和不信任旨在保护他们安全的机构，以至于他们感到需要武装自己以致命的武力。在支持堕胎权的阵营中也有类似的论点：我们希望所有妇女都有无拘束的堕胎权，但我们更希望有一个不需要堕胎的社会。因为高堕胎率不是一个主要问题，而是问题的症状：太多的人在没有意图的情况下怀孕。全面的性教育和获得避孕措施是解决这个问题的答案。作为一个自由派的枪支管制支持者，你可能对这个论点表示同情。
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.
在一个社会中拥有大量枪支并不是一个主要问题，而是问题的症状：这意味着人们感到如此不安全和不信任旨在保护他们安全的机构，以至于他们感到需要武装自己以致命的武力。在支持堕胎权的阵营中也有类似的论点：我们希望所有妇女都有无拘束的堕胎权，但我们更希望有一个不需要堕胎的社会。因为高堕胎率不是一个主要问题，而是问题的症状：太多的人在没有意图的情况下怀孕。全面的性教育和获得避孕措施是解决这个问题的答案。作为一个自由派的枪支管制支持者，你可能对这个论点表示同情。
Thus, the real method to getting rid of guns in America is the opposite of the thing we’re trying to do around solving wealth inequality: we want to concentrate the ownership of guns into a tiny minority of people, responsible gun owners dedicated to acquiring and maintaining secure collections of guns.
Then, on a practical basis, there really won’t be that many “loose” 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，消除美国的枪支的真正方法与我们在解决财富不平等方面所尝试做的事情相反：我们希望将枪支的所有权集中在少数人手中，这些负责任的枪支持有者致力于获取和维护安全的枪支收藏。然后，在实际层面上，真正流浪的枪支就不会那么多，疯子、精神病年轻人或幼儿很容易获得的枪支就不会那么多。因为这些枪支是真正的实际危险，这种情况的发生率已经下降了50多年，我们只需要继续社会和经济进步的趋势，使这种情况成为可能：那些有权拥有枪支但选择不拥有的人自愿选择，因为他们不需要枪支。
Then, on a practical basis, there really won’t be that many “loose” 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，消除美国的枪支的真正方法与我们在解决财富不平等方面所尝试做的事情相反：我们希望将枪支的所有权集中在少数人手中，这些负责任的枪支持有者致力于获取和维护安全的枪支收藏。然后，在实际层面上，真正流浪的枪支就不会那么多，疯子、精神病年轻人或幼儿很容易获得的枪支就不会那么多。因为这些枪支是真正的实际危险，这种情况的发生率已经下降了50多年，我们只需要继续社会和经济进步的趋势，使这种情况成为可能：那些有权拥有枪支但选择不拥有的人自愿选择，因为他们不需要枪支。
Henry Mizer
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.
逐步来，就像英国做的那样。我们可以首先改变年龄限制，将其设为投票年龄以上。然后禁止某些功能，比如凸轮托和高容量弹匣。接着开始让像Dick's这样的运动用品店停止出售所谓的“突击步枪”等。从这里开始，一步步地禁止它们，直到只剩下手枪可以用于练习射击。然后说你们真的也不需要那些，因为一直以来的目的都是禁枪...等等，我想说的是“让社会更安全”。
对于那些不想这样做的人，他们意识到这不是一个枪支问题，而是一个国家价值观问题，我说这样：不要让步！一寸都不要！我们已经让出了足够的空间！媒体将这些人塑造成超级巨星，这正是他们想要的。这是一个关于我们的媒体和国家价值观的问题，仅此而已。
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.
逐步来，就像英国做的那样。我们可以首先改变年龄限制，将其设为投票年龄以上。然后禁止某些功能，比如凸轮托和高容量弹匣。接着开始让像Dick's这样的运动用品店停止出售所谓的“突击步枪”等。从这里开始，一步步地禁止它们，直到只剩下手枪可以用于练习射击。然后说你们真的也不需要那些，因为一直以来的目的都是禁枪...等等，我想说的是“让社会更安全”。
对于那些不想这样做的人，他们意识到这不是一个枪支问题，而是一个国家价值观问题，我说这样：不要让步！一寸都不要！我们已经让出了足够的空间！媒体将这些人塑造成超级巨星，这正是他们想要的。这是一个关于我们的媒体和国家价值观的问题，仅此而已。
Gregory Norton
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?
据我了解，日本江户幕府时期（1603年至1867年）是唯一一次消除枪支的例子。那是人类历史上最暴力和专制的社会之一，完全隔绝了与外界的联系。禁止任何货物进入，国内制造业也受到严格控制。即便如此，消除枪支还需要100年时间。我认为，消除一个社会的枪支只有一个办法：尽可能控制一切和每个人，压迫和剥削下层阶级（实际上是奴役他们），并将这个社会与外界隔绝。听起来是个绝妙的想法，不是吗？
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?
据我了解，日本江户幕府时期（1603年至1867年）是唯一一次消除枪支的例子。那是人类历史上最暴力和专制的社会之一，完全隔绝了与外界的联系。禁止任何货物进入，国内制造业也受到严格控制。即便如此，消除枪支还需要100年时间。我认为，消除一个社会的枪支只有一个办法：尽可能控制一切和每个人，压迫和剥削下层阶级（实际上是奴役他们），并将这个社会与外界隔绝。听起来是个绝妙的想法，不是吗？
David Adam Suddit
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.
据估计，美国有大约4亿支枪，由大约8000万名合法枪支持有者拥有。
美国有大约7600万只狗，由约4800万名狗主人拥有。这只是作为比较而言。
想要摆脱狗的成功率会更高；但你为什么要这样做呢？
我知道很多没有养狗的人认为它们很讨厌，很吵闹，有潜在的危险。但是，4800万人不会容忍任何人试图赶走他们的狗。同样，8000万名枪支持有者也不会容忍你试图摆脱他们的枪支。
找一个新的政治爱好吧。为什么不倡导减少跌倒的数量？在美国，跌倒导致的死亡人数是被枪击谋杀的两倍以上。大多数死亡人数是儿童和老年人。有一份报告称，每年大约有80万人因跌倒住院治疗。你可以把时间和精力用在有用的事情上。
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.
据估计，美国有大约4亿支枪，由大约8000万名合法枪支持有者拥有。
美国有大约7600万只狗，由约4800万名狗主人拥有。这只是作为比较而言。
想要摆脱狗的成功率会更高；但你为什么要这样做呢？
我知道很多没有养狗的人认为它们很讨厌，很吵闹，有潜在的危险。但是，4800万人不会容忍任何人试图赶走他们的狗。同样，8000万名枪支持有者也不会容忍你试图摆脱他们的枪支。
找一个新的政治爱好吧。为什么不倡导减少跌倒的数量？在美国，跌倒导致的死亡人数是被枪击谋杀的两倍以上。大多数死亡人数是儿童和老年人。有一份报告称，每年大约有80万人因跌倒住院治疗。你可以把时间和精力用在有用的事情上。
Brent Weems
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.
这个问题问错了。让我向您提出另外一个问题。为什么您会想这样做？我可以向您保证，99%的合法枪支持有者没有伤害任何人的意图。1%的可能需要应对执法部门和其余的合法携带者。许多合法拥有枪支的人是大多数罪犯在犯罪时生命安全最担心的原因之一。不要害怕合法的枪支持有者。要害怕那些非法获得枪支的人。如果您注意到所有枪击事件的主要发生地点都是意料之外的，那是因为肇事者尽一切可能维持惊喜元素。为什么？因为他们知道警察或携枪者有可能阻止他们的计划。
此外，如果我们要从合法公民手中夺走枪支，那么会为其他国家入侵美国打开大门。当然，我们有自己的军队，但您真的认为这是其他国家不会来这里的主要原因吗？不是。那是钱的问题。但除此之外，他们也知道我们除了军队之外拥有太多的枪支，他们不仅仅是在与军队作战。
此外，如果您从合法公民手中拿走枪支，您只会留下非法犯罪分子手中的枪支。您无法消灭犯罪领域中的枪支。如果有一种方式威胁和平，总有人会拥有它。不幸的是，这就是现实。总是有人想伤害别人。即使您不想拥有枪支，也不要放弃自我保护的权利。
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.
这个问题问错了。让我向您提出另外一个问题。为什么您会想这样做？我可以向您保证，99%的合法枪支持有者没有伤害任何人的意图。1%的可能需要应对执法部门和其余的合法携带者。许多合法拥有枪支的人是大多数罪犯在犯罪时生命安全最担心的原因之一。不要害怕合法的枪支持有者。要害怕那些非法获得枪支的人。如果您注意到所有枪击事件的主要发生地点都是意料之外的，那是因为肇事者尽一切可能维持惊喜元素。为什么？因为他们知道警察或携枪者有可能阻止他们的计划。
此外，如果我们要从合法公民手中夺走枪支，那么会为其他国家入侵美国打开大门。当然，我们有自己的军队，但您真的认为这是其他国家不会来这里的主要原因吗？不是。那是钱的问题。但除此之外，他们也知道我们除了军队之外拥有太多的枪支，他们不仅仅是在与军队作战。
此外，如果您从合法公民手中拿走枪支，您只会留下非法犯罪分子手中的枪支。您无法消灭犯罪领域中的枪支。如果有一种方式威胁和平，总有人会拥有它。不幸的是，这就是现实。总是有人想伤害别人。即使您不想拥有枪支，也不要放弃自我保护的权利。
很赞 2
收藏