美国网友：频频爆发的“美国大屠杀”，全赖开国元勋！_风闻

近日，在美版知乎“quora”上有美国网友提了这样一个问题：

为什么中国人享有更多的自由，比如每天晚上在街上自由行走，而美国人却没有？

美国网友的回答，相当有意思：

1、Yves Hermit

Because of the crime rate, to be specific.

具体来说，是因为犯罪率的缘故。

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，我想呼吁所有美国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.

中国的犯罪水平为22.1，排在第83位，不到美国的三分之一，美国的犯罪水平为55.84，排在第30位。

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

为什么？因为从立法到监控等方面的暴力预防措施。

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.

为了保持正确性，这个答案不涉及任何专业的刑法或行政建设方面的立法分析。但可以肯定的是，中国是一个执法相对严格的国家。下面的死刑数据可以验证这一点。

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.

在中国，嫌疑人一旦被定罪，将面临更严厉的法律和判决。而在美国，出于对罪犯的怜悯，更有可能只是将他们投入监狱了事，而不管他们犯下了多么血腥的罪行。

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

有一个独特的现象是：美国监狱经常因为牢房不足而提前释放囚犯。

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.

来自《世界监狱简报》——一个提供全球监狱系统信息的在线数据库——的统计数据显示，美国关押了200多万名囚犯，比排名第二的中国多出了近50万。

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——格莱美奖得主蕾哈娜——而臭名昭著的歌手克里斯?布朗在2014年6月因为监狱人满为患而被提前释放。

3、Rudi Pan

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

河南省某小城镇的沿街监控

monitor at the entry of a common apartment

一幢普通公寓入口处的监视器

monitors in villages

村庄里所安装的监视器

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.

最后我要说的是，自由不仅包括拥有枪支的权利或罪犯重新做人的权利，而且还包括了人们在大街上安全活动而不会被突然射杀的权利。

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.

中国没有多样化的人口。这也意味着它的政府能够利用这些手段来管理人口。即使中国的法律在美国得以实施，也不会起到什么作用，因为美国人会起而反抗。

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.

我就住在美国。我总是在晚上出去散步，我不怕犯罪活动。我住在底特律的郊区，这是一个名声很不好的城市，我不会在晚上去城里的任何一个社区散步。(夜生活和“旅游区”相对安全。)所以，这取决于你去到了哪里。如果你用常识思考一下，就会知道犯罪和夜间出去闲逛不是一个真正的问题。

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.

我也在中国呆过六个星期。当我在那里的时候，我非常享受身体上的安全感。然而，我不确定如果我住在那里，我会有什么感受。摄像头、警察和安全人员的无处不在可能会让我毛骨悚然。

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.

就像你说的，只要你不是大多数人所担心的麻烦所在，你在中国就绝对没问题。我对美国有更多的怀疑，即使你采取了适当的措施，在那里，任何人都持枪是一个大问题。

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.

事实是美国有着最高的暴力事件发生率(在各种层级上)：(1)世界上最高枪支所有率；(2)它的经济不平等状况制造出了有着将近4000万贫困人口的贫困地区；(3)种族主义仍然存在，美国历史上的大多数大规模枪击事件的攻击者都是白人。

These are the facts.

这些都是事实。

“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?”

“现在，如果你生活在一个比中国文化暴力多一点的文化里，特别是如果你不小心的话，你可能就会在街上遇到一个想要抢劫或谋杀你的人。在这种情况下，到底持枪是更好的选择，还是政府说你永远不能持枪更好？”

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.

我想我们都同意这样一点，即无论在内政还是在外交事务上，美国都比中国暴力得多。在中国，被持枪者袭击的可能性很低，政府禁止公众购买和使用枪支，自60年代以来它就一直被禁止。当然也有例外(比如一些民族出于文化目的使用枪支)，尽管这些例外情况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.

事实上，在禁止枪支的国家，如英国、新加坡、中国、日本、澳大利亚和新西兰，枪支暴力事件都明显减少了。这是这些国家的社会相比于过去所取得的进步，因为他们有法律和社会责任可以遵守。在澳大利亚，我们上一次的大规模枪击事件还发生在1996年，当时有35人丧生。

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，我们又发生了一起重大的枪击事件，那名疯狂的种族主义疯狂者用的是在1997年偷来的枪，它导致了4人丧生。考虑到澳大利亚曾经拥有过显赫的枪支文化，它在减少枪支暴力方面已经做得非常好了，但枪支仍然没有被彻底清除。仍然有人参与非法枪支交易，让罪犯有可能得到枪支。最好的行动当然是彻底清除枪支。

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.

在美国，今年已经发生了12起大规模枪击事件，超过50人死亡，100多人受伤。去年则是最糟糕的一年。

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.

由于枪支的普遍持有，人们很可能会卷入涉及威胁、攻击和死亡的枪支事件当中。这是事实，这是因为美国社会缺乏进步，他们无法超脱出持有武器的心态。所以问题不是在这种情况下你是否需要有枪，问题是为什么每个人都需要枪？教室里的学生应该拥有一些武器来保护自己免受欺凌吗？当然不是，他们是不成熟的未成年人，还没有发展出理性和负责任的能力。

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.”

“美国的枪支问题非常复杂。然而，我相信要开始理解它，你必须记住两件事。首先，“如果枪支是非法的，那么就只有不法之徒才会拥有枪支”。在美国，几乎每一项枪支法都会给那些永远不会用枪来伤害任何人的人带来了麻烦，而且根本无法防止枪支落入罪犯之手。其次，犯罪活动最猖獗的城市(芝加哥、底特律、洛杉矶)都有非常严格的枪支法律。然而罪犯无视了这些法律，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.

我认为之前提到的那些国家证明了真正的枪支管制法律是有效的，在这些国家，枪支暴力已经显著减少，大规模枪击事件多年来几乎从未发生过(新西兰除外，该国枪支管制法律宽松，但现在的情况已经不是如此了)。你有责任证明为什么这些国家应该拥有更多的枪支。

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.

美国的枪支管制法律太弱了，它无法管控得住这种高枪支拥有率、低问责的文化，这是那些继续让这些法律变得软弱的人的责任，比如枪支游说者和全国步枪协会。每年都有孩子拿着半自动步枪杀害他们的同学和无辜的孩子，这是很不正常的情况，即使是对你们来说。

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?

我觉得带枪对我自己而言会更安全，我并不在乎其他人，我把自己的生命放在了别人的生命之上。在美国，持有枪支是一种权利，所以当中国取消了这一权利之后，他们就会取消更多的权利。你想住在中国吗？

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.

持有枪支在美国是一种权利，但在其他任何国家都不是，包括中国。因此，没有权利被“剥夺”。你的这种说法就是一种文化沙文主义，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…

还有，人们在人权侵犯方面忘记了什么？这是一个可以准确描述阿布格莱布监狱和关塔那摩监狱等等地方的词汇…

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.

据我所知，枪和刀是两种东西。一千多年前，我们的祖先就已经用刀互相残杀了，而枪是最近才出现的武器。为什么？显然，用枪杀人要有效得多。

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.

我想问你一个问题：如果你碰到了一个疯子，你希望他用的是什么武器？还记得阿拉斯加的大规模枪击事件吗？那个人用的是机枪。在4分钟内，大约有60人被杀死了。

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”

每个社会都有一些疯子。枪支放大了他们的破坏力。如果我必须给他们武器的话，那就不会是枪。“现在如果两边都有枪，他们有同等的力量，于是他们就有同等的获胜机会”

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.

天呐。我不敢相信你写出了这些话。也许社会对你而言就是一个舞台。所以每个人都应该有“平等的获胜机会”。你的观点缺乏数据和逻辑的支持。我们已经在美国看到了太多涉及枪支的屠杀事件了。

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.

你需要用一点逻辑来思考这个问题，人可以杀人，也会去杀人，而且社会上总是存在着弱者。我知道这样的措辞听起来不太好，但这是我们能做的最好的事情了。事实上，枪支并不是什么新奇的东西。

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.

当然，它们使用起来很简单，所以是很好的防御工具，但如果我有时间获得训练，并想要真正杀死某人，我可能会想出10种更好的方法来做到这一点。(比如用车辆进行攻击等，然后你要做什么，禁止使用汽车吗？)另一方面，枪支在很多情况下都是被合法使用的，请看看枪击者的数量，再拿它和枪支的数量进行比较。

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

其他的东西也能被拿来杀人，看看有多少人死于酒后驾车，但你不能禁止汽车，因为那是非常愚蠢的事情，拥有汽车的人通常都很安全。但是禁止某些事情对我们来说是不可行的，这不是政府应该做的事情，这是保姆的职责。

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.

拿起武器的权利不是为了获得安全感，而是为了防止一个专制的政府的出现，这是你应该知道的。

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，我当然知道。中国人从来不惮于去推翻专制的政府。在托马斯.潘恩知道钢笔是什么之前，他们就已经这么干过几十次了。如果说现在的政府没有被推翻有什么原因的话，那并不是因为人们没有枪。

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?

但那又怎样？用你的半自动步枪来对付坦克、导弹和飞机吗？200年前，所有这些东西都不存在。200年前，你们持有枪支。200年后，你还是持有枪支。但是那些潜在的专制政府已经在武器方面遥遥领先了。请告诉我，面对当今的专制政府，一把刀和一把枪有什么区别？

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.

“这是为了防止一个专制的政府的出现”……没错，我要用我的枪去对付国税局。当军队开着坦克向我进攻时，我要用我的枪把他们挡住。这是对宪法的一种过时的补充，它来自于美国的开国元勋们不合逻辑的偏执，他们认为英国人会拿着步枪攻击他们。具有讽刺意味的是，对付专制政府的最好武器不是枪、刀或剑。

毫不讳言，对于美国网友“Eliot”的观点，老铁相当认同：

面对当今的专制政府，一把刀和一把枪有什么区别？

是的，正如网友“Dominic”所说的那样：

这是对宪法的一种过时的补充，它来自于美国的开国元勋们不合逻辑的偏执。

道理很简单，如果造成了如今美国人权灾难的“枪支泛滥”是美国政府为了防止专制政府产生的话，那么他们就不应该设置许可范围。

所以，美国公民应该拥有的难道仅仅只是半自动步枪吗？

为了民主，美国人民应该被准许拥有勃朗宁M2H B 0.50英寸机枪！

为了民主，美国人民应该被准许拥有M1A2“艾布拉姆斯”坦克！

为了民主，美国人民应该被准许拥有AH-64“阿帕奇”武装直升机！

为了民主，美国人民应该被准许拥有俄亥俄级战略核潜艇、福特级航母、民兵、潘兴和侏儒战略核导弹！