經濟學人雜誌有一篇關於美國槍枝管制問題的文章，提到美國要實行「槍枝管制」已經太晚了，不太有機會能做了。雖然我希望這次丹佛電影院的槍擊事件是最後一次這種拿著自動武器亂開槍的案件，但是只要是美果不禁絕槍枝，幾乎可以肯定不久還會有類似事件發生。
丹佛電影院槍擊案與戲院裡正在放的蝙蝠俠電影「黑暗騎士：黎明昇起」有許多雷同處，根據目擊者表示，不少觀眾一開始還以為聽到的槍聲與煙霧彈是電影宣傳的特效，因此還繼續留在位子上看電影，直到發現真的有人朝觀眾開槍才驚惶失措的逃離戲院。
......... 這是二○○七年維吉尼亞理工學院校園槍擊案後，美國最嚴重的一起槍擊案。一九九九年，科羅拉多的科倫拜高中也曾發生兩名學生槍殺十二名學生與一名老師的重大槍擊案。該高中與今天槍擊案地點僅相隔三十二公里。
Terry Willey, 24, lights a candle for the families and all involved with the Aurora shootings during services at the Grant Avenue United Methodist Church in Aurora, Colo. on Sunday, July 22, 2012, two days after a shooting rampage at a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" Batman movie. (AP Photo/Barry Gutierrez)
歐巴馬健保法過關 美國民眾反應不一 2012年6月30日 09:51
美國聯邦最高法院裁定歐巴馬總統提出的健保法並未違憲，引發全美議論。根據蓋洛普今天公布的民調顯示，贊成和反對裁決的受訪者人數旗鼓相當。
看了這兩個新聞事件的報導之後，不禁會懷疑，為什麼擁有槍枝是一種權利，但是「全民健保」卻須釋憲來決定是否侵犯人民的權利？
這是我在濟學人雜誌上的回應。
Long ago, a Japanese exchange student was shot dead in the US. He mistakenly took "freeze" as "please", then walked in someone's yard. It's widely reported here in Taiwan, and I was a student then. Our English teacher explained what "freeze" means in the US, it's more than just putting anything in the refrigeration, and we were warned not to enter anyone's yard or house without invitation. You'd better to be rude than killed if you cannot tell freeze from please. The teacher reminded us if we go to the States.
This March, a young black man killed in Florida, which caused a row in the US made the world know one specific law concept in the US, "stand your ground". So, though not knowing the US law, we learned it's alright to kill someone with firearm as long as you "stand your ground" in the US.
I read this article in BBC Mundo in March telling about rather peculiar culture of being fear and self-defense in the US.
La cultura del miedo y la ley de defensa propia en EE.UU. by William MárquezDoesn't an English proverb says, "Better late than never"? Is it really too late to have gun control?
===============================================
Gun control
Too late
Jul 21st 2012, 0:48 by M.S.
PEOPLE'S ideas often don't make any sense when you try to hold them together in your head simultaneously, as Richard Rorty, Daniel Kahneman or Desiderius Erasmus will be happy to tell you. One of the areas in which people tend to have ideas that don't make sense, when you hold them together in your head simultaneously, is that of rights. For example, many Americans believe that our rights derive from God or from the very nature of being human. As Paul Ryan put it in a discussion of Obamacare this month, folks of his political persuasion don't believe that the people have the power to make up new rights; rights come from God and nature. These same Americans also generally believe that our rights are those delineated in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution, including a non-infringeable individual right to bear arms. And yet, clearly, people in most law-governed democracies other than the United States, countries like Britain, Canada, France, Israel, the Netherlands and Japan, do not have an individual right to bear arms. How, then, can the right to bear arms as enshrined in the constitution derive from God, or from the very nature of being human? Is this a special sort of right, one that can be created by the people via government if they so choose? If so, then what stops the people, through their government, from creating other sorts of new rights, like a right to education, or a right to health insurance?
Take this essay by Cliff Stearns, the Republican congressman and (to be reductionist) gun-rights advocate. "Not only is the right to be armed a Constitutional right, it is also a fundamental natural right," Mr Stearns writes. And then, in the very next paragraph: "Once again we can trace the right to be armed to legal and political events in 17th century English history, this time pertaining to hunting and gaming laws." How does a fundamental natural right lie sleeping throughout the first 6,000 years of recorded history, only to wake to full flower due to conflicts over gaming laws in Regency Restoration England? And what of the benighted 95% of humanity who still do not enjoy the fruits of this natural right, including, rather confusingly, the actual English who supposedly roused it from its primeval slumber?
Perhaps American supporters of gun rights would say that in fact people in every country do have a natural right to bear arms, but their enjoyment of that natural right is denied them by oppressive governments in countries like Britain, France, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands and Japan. Meanwhile, the so-called "right" to health insurance enjoyed by citizens of those countries is presumably only a fake right which they do not in fact possess. This just doesn't seem to be a satisfactory explanation. Is the problem that we use the word "right" in two ways, meaning in one sense an inalienable moral consideration which we believe all humans possess regardless of the context of government in which they live, and in another sense an enforceable claim within a country's legal system which commands government and other persons to guarantee certain kinds of treatment to every citizen? Which kind of right would the right to health insurance be? Which kind is the right to bear arms?
The right to bear arms isn't the only right that faces this paradox. They all do, really. In the mid-1980s, the idea that people have a right to have consensual sex with partners of any gender, in whatever position they like, was pronounced "facetious" by the Supreme Court; 25 years later it feels like an obvious, natural outgrowth of the Bill of Rights. If rights evolve this way through the dialectics of culture and history, just how "natural" can they be?
Such are the idle thoughts that occur in the aftermath of America's latest episode of horrifying, meaningless mass slaughter. At least, such are the idle thoughts that occur to me. A large segment of the American public these days apparently finds it offensive, not just misguided but actually offensive, to talk about gun control after these sorts of atrocities occur. As economist Justin Wolfers tweeted this morning: "Let's not talk about gun control. It's too early, right? It's always too early. Except when it's too late."
Mr Wolfers is right: the "too early" construction is ridiculous. He's also right that it's too late. It is too late for gun control in America. It's never going to happen. There are too many guns out there, and an individual right to bear arms is now entrenched in constitutional law. Gun control in America is as quaint a proposition, at this point, as marijuana prohibition, with two important differences: first, that the government is still for some reason pursuing the absurd project of marijuana prohibition; and second, that guns are actually a significant threat to public health. In this sense, gun control is on a long list of things that could have saved many people's lives and made the world a better place, but for which it is now probably too late: a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, EU action to avert economic catastrophe, stopping global warming. So this is just what one of America's many faces is going to be: a bitterly divided, hatefully cynical country where insane people have easy access to semi-automatic weapons, and occasionally use them to commit senseless atrocities. We will continue to see more and more of this sort of thing, and there's nothing we can realistically do about it.
==========< learn English >=================
pertain vi.
1. 從屬, 附屬 We own the house and the land pertaining to it. 我們擁有這所房子和附屬的土地。
2. 有關, 關於 This lesson pertains to marine animals. 這一課講海洋動物。
3. 適合, 相配 Her conduct hardly pertains to a lady. 她的行為與女士身分不太相符。
benighted adj. 1. 陷入黑暗的 2. 愚昧的
primeval adj. 初期的; 太古的; 原始的
slumber
n. 【書】睡眠; 微睡[P1][S1] 靜止狀態, 休止[U][S1]
vi. 【書】睡眠; 微睡; 靜止, 不活躍
vt. 用睡眠打發; 用睡眠消除[(+away)]
inalienable adj. 1. 不能讓與的 2.不能奪取的
facetious adj. 滑稽的; 好開玩笑的
dialectic adj. 辯證的
quaint adj. 古雅的; 奇特而有趣的
文章定位：
