|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C*******r
发帖数: 10345 | 1 痢脖肉媒体决不会放弃吃人血馒头的机会：
Silencing the Guns
By DREW WESTEN
When Gabrielle Giffords tendered her resignation from the House of
Representatives to Speaker John Boehner because she did not feel she could
continue to serve at her current level of disability, the entire House
erupted in a rare moment of bipartisan unity, supporting their brave
colleague who had survived a bullet through the brain at point-blank range.
That was not, however, the first bipartisan moment related to the attack on
Gabby Giffords, nor would it be the last. In 2004, Congress let the assault
weapons ban Bill Clinton had passed “sunset” despite overwhelming public
support. That law limited the number of rounds of ammunition a shooter could
fire before having to reload, and letting it die an untimely death allowed
a mentally ill young man in Tucson to purchase a handgun with a 33-round
magazine. Had the assault weapons ban remained in place, he may well have
been able to shoot the congresswoman, but he would not have been able to
empty his clip, killing 6 people and wounding 13 others, before being
tackled to the ground.
That moment was followed by another bipartisan moment, when President Obama
delivered a moving speech on Jan. 12 at the scene of the carnage in Tucson.
In it, the president called on the nation to mourn not only the shooting of
a beloved member of Congress but the lives of the people who died at the
hands of Giffords’ assailant, including a 9-year-old girl and a federal
judge. But on neither that national day of mourning nor on any day since has
the president or the members of Congress, who are either too frightened or
too corrupted by the National Rifle Association, honored Giffords or the
memory of those who died in that massacre in Tucson in the most appropriate
way: with a return to common sense, like reestablishing the assault weapons
ban that might have saved their lives. Later in January, Representative
Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Frank Lautenberg proposed legislation to outlaw
high-capacity magazines; it has gone nowhere.
The first President Bush, unlike his swaggering son (who advocated the
demise of a ban on assault weapons whose sole purpose is to hunt humans)
showed political courage by publicly quitting the N.R.A. in disgust in 1995
when it began advocating ideas like its contention that citizens need
military-style assault weapons to protect themselves against our own
government (members, for example, of the National Guard). In colorful but
paranoid language, it called law enforcement officers “jack-booted
government thugs,” prompting the elder Bush to condemn the group for its
disrespect for the law and those who defend it. Since then, it has
successfully advocated for increasingly radical laws. One of them, of course
, is Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which discourages de-escalation
of potential firefights in public with predictable results, like the
shooting death in Sanford, Fla., of Trayvon Martin.
Between the Giffords massacre and Martin’s death, we have seen more
shootings and more bipartisan moments. Around the anniversary of the Tucson
massacre that cut short the congressional career of an extraordinary woman
— a woman I had come to know personally and adore in her five years in
Congress — came two more mass killings. One occurred in Chardon High School
in a small town in Ohio, as a 17-year-old opened fire on students with a
Ruger .22-caliber semiautomatic with a capacity of 10 rounds. Fortunately
the alleged shooter, T.J. Lane, didn’t have access to a gun with more
firepower. About two weeks later, a man entered one of the nation’s
premiere medical centers, at the University of Pittsburgh, with two
semiautomatic handguns, and opened fire.
And in yet another show of bipartisanship, political leaders on both sides
of the aisle put on their silencers. If an assassination attempt on one of
their own did not move members of Congress to ask whether the N.R.A. has a
little too much sway in their chambers, a few dead and wounded teenagers,
medical patients, and their family members were not going to unlock their
safeties. Most have clearly made the risk assessment that they have more to
fear from the N.R.A. than they do from an occasional sniper. In the 2010
election cycle, the N.R.A. spent over $7 million in independent expenditure
campaigns for and against specific candidates, and it has a remarkable
record of success at taking out candidates and elected officials with the
misfortune of being caught in its crosshairs.
Over a million Americans have lost their lives to gunfire since that awful
spring of 1968 when both Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were
killed by assassins’ bullets. Last year alone guns killed or wounded
another 100,000 Americans; roughly 30,000 of them died. Had that occurred
elsewhere, we would call it genocide.We don’t know exactly how many have
been killed in the fighting in Libya, Egypt and Syria, but our elected
officials have had far less trouble calling for the ouster of Middle Eastern
leaders than the leadership of the N.R.A.
But it’s not just money that prevents common-sense action on gun violence
in America. Millions of Americans hunt, and a third of all households in the
United States own a gun. Guns were part of the frontier culture that shaped
the American psyche, and hunting has passed from generation to generation
in much of America. As a son of the South, I could give an intruder a run
for his money (although, like most people, I would do better to rely first
on our security service and the loud alarm a break-in sets off), and I put
on my thickest Southern accent and tease my soon-to-be teenage daughter that
I’ll be out on the front porch “cleaning my shotgun” when her first date
arrives at the door.
In so many cases, it’s a failure of our leaders — Republicans, who prey on
the fears of their constituents and don’t even bother anymore to hide the
puppet strings pulled by large corporations, and Democrats, who too
frequently forget that humans are supposed to be vertebrates (and hence to
have a spine) — to speak to Americans’ ambivalence about guns. Over the
years in my capacity as a strategic messaging consultant, I’ve tested a
range of messages on guns, and the messages that resonate with hunters and
gun owners sound like this: “If you need an M-16 to hunt deer, you shouldn
’t be anywhere near a damned gun,” or “If you’re hunting with an AK-47,
you’re not bringing that meat home for dinner.” The first things
responsible hunters teach are never to point a gun anywhere but up or down
unless you mean to shoot, and where the safety is.
It’s no wonder that Democrats have backed off of even talking about guns
since Clinton signed the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban into law
nearly two decades ago. The last thing you want to be armed with as an
advocate of common sense are phrases like “gun control,” which makes a
government-wary public and law-abiding gun-owners uneasy — and susceptible
to tendentious “slippery slope” arguments about how “they want to take
away your guns.” In contrast, everyone but the lunatic fringe in America
supports gun safety laws — such as eliminating the gun-show loophole that
allows the sale of military-grade weapons without background checks, and has
led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans as well as Mexicans,
whose drug cartels find the loophole extremely helpful.
Democrats could steel their spines if they could find the point of
intersection between law-abiding gun owners and law-abiding citizens who may
or may not own a gun but want to keep their families safe. In national
testing, we’ve found that a simple, non-equivocating statement focusing on
that point of intersection — law-abiding — beats the toughest “they want
to take away your guns” message we can fire at it. It leads every
demographic group other than those who stockpile weapons to support common-
sense gun safety laws. Offered a message that speaks to their ambivalence,
people readily recognize that a 33-round clip makes it virtually impossible
to tackle a shooter until he has had time to kill 15 or 16 people. They
understand that allowing people to purchase military-style weapons at gun
shows without a background check renders gun safety laws meaningless. And
they find it incomprehensible that we have laws on the books that tie the
hands of law enforcement officials trying to track down where a gun was
bought and sold, and that we keep such sloppy records that criminals, people
with a history of commitment for care for serious mental illness, and
people with active restraining orders on them can slip by background checks
even where they’re required.
Beginning with a statement of principle both makes clear the speaker’s
intent and inoculates against all the slippery-slope arguments used by the N
.R.A. and the elected officials in its employ or fearful of its power: “My
view on guns reflects one simple principle: that our gun laws should
guarantee the rights and freedoms of all law-abiding Americans. That’s why
I stand with the majority who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens
to own guns to hunt or protect their families. And that’s why I stand with
the majority who believe they have the right to send their kids to school
and see them return home safely at night.” Versions of a message containing
that principle win by over a 2:1 margin with independents, and they win in
every region of the country, including in my own backyard, in the red clay
of Georgia.
This shouldn’t be an issue of left or right. Grocery stores in Tucson,
where Gabby Giffords was shot (and where my mother-in-law shops — she just
happened to be out of town that Saturday), are not hotbeds of “socialism.”
I don’t know the party affiliations of the fallen teenagers in Chardon or
the staff members, patients or families in Pittsburgh, but I suspect they
ranged across the political spectrum.
Guns don’t kill people. Silence does.
Drew Westen is a professor of psychology at Emory University and the author
of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the
Nation.” | C*******r
发帖数: 10345 | 2 highlight，痢脖肉认为，大家都是疯子：
In contrast, everyone but the lunatic fringe in America supports gun safety
laws — such as eliminating the gun-show loophole that allows the sale of
military-grade weapons without background checks, and has led to the deaths
of tens of thousands of Americans as well as Mexicans, whose drug cartels
find the loophole extremely helpful. | b****r
发帖数: 1395 | 3 我还是那句话，我不支持gun ban，但是我不会给不同意我观点
的人贴标签。在你看来liberal是在吃人血馒头，那就debate
为什么他们的想法不会让社会更安全，present更有说服力的论
据。贴再多的标签也无助于证明自己的观点。 | H******S
发帖数: 6011 | 4 政治斗争就是吃人血馒头，无论哪方都是。我通常对两方都心存怀疑，看来我是个短命
的人。 | C*******r
发帖数: 10345 | 5 俺再说一遍，痢脖肉的根本目的和辩论的原因根本就不是公共安全问题。公共安全是幌
子，剥夺权利是目的。所以和痢脖肉辩论公共安全是徒劳的。辩论公共安全已经几十年
了，什么样的数据都有了，文章有成千上万片。反攻击武器法行使了十年，效果怎么样
有数据。可是痢脖肉在辩论（上面那篇NYT的文章就是例子）中什么时候引用数据，什么时
候哪怕是稍微改变观点？这就是因为痢脖肉的根本目的不是强化公共安全。
痢脖肉的政治哲学是由一整套的。痢脖肉有痢脖肉理想的社会形态。关于枪支的立法只
是其中一部分，把它割裂开来看，就会落到痢脖肉的圈套里去。俺一向是提醒大家注意
背后的图谋。你认为没有背后图谋，那时你的观点。俺认为这样的观点不是幼稚的，就
是别有用心的。其他版友应该了解到还有其他的观点，应该把枪法放到大的政治背景下
讨论。
【在 b****r 的大作中提到】
: 我还是那句话，我不支持gun ban，但是我不会给不同意我观点
: 的人贴标签。在你看来liberal是在吃人血馒头，那就debate
: 为什么他们的想法不会让社会更安全，present更有说服力的论
: 据。贴再多的标签也无助于证明自己的观点。
| k**********i
发帖数: 8706 | 6 这个说的很对
如果全美所有州都立法ban assault weapon，那没有问题（其实也有问题,assault weapon到底是啥）
事实上这不可能,同理“痢脖肉理想的社会形态”也不会实现
这和“好人买不到枪，所以坏人也买不到枪”的逻辑漏洞一样
"因为芝加哥好人买不到枪，所以不会有德州的坏人来犯罪"
no offense to Texas.
痢脖肉有痢脖肉理想的社会形态。关于枪支的立法只是其中一部分，把它割裂开来看，
就会落到痢脖肉的圈套里去。
【在 C*******r 的大作中提到】
: 俺再说一遍，痢脖肉的根本目的和辩论的原因根本就不是公共安全问题。公共安全是幌
: 子，剥夺权利是目的。所以和痢脖肉辩论公共安全是徒劳的。辩论公共安全已经几十年
: 了，什么样的数据都有了，文章有成千上万片。反攻击武器法行使了十年，效果怎么样
: 有数据。可是痢脖肉在辩论（上面那篇NYT的文章就是例子）中什么时候引用数据，什么时
: 候哪怕是稍微改变观点？这就是因为痢脖肉的根本目的不是强化公共安全。
: 痢脖肉的政治哲学是由一整套的。痢脖肉有痢脖肉理想的社会形态。关于枪支的立法只
: 是其中一部分，把它割裂开来看，就会落到痢脖肉的圈套里去。俺一向是提醒大家注意
: 背后的图谋。你认为没有背后图谋，那时你的观点。俺认为这样的观点不是幼稚的，就
: 是别有用心的。其他版友应该了解到还有其他的观点，应该把枪法放到大的政治背景下
: 讨论。
| b****r
发帖数: 1395 | 7
weapon到底是啥）
这点完全同意
【在 k**********i 的大作中提到】
: 这个说的很对
: 如果全美所有州都立法ban assault weapon，那没有问题（其实也有问题,assault weapon到底是啥）
: 事实上这不可能,同理“痢脖肉理想的社会形态”也不会实现
: 这和“好人买不到枪，所以坏人也买不到枪”的逻辑漏洞一样
: "因为芝加哥好人买不到枪，所以不会有德州的坏人来犯罪"
: no offense to Texas.
:
: 痢脖肉有痢脖肉理想的社会形态。关于枪支的立法只是其中一部分，把它割裂开来看，
: 就会落到痢脖肉的圈套里去。
| C*******d
发帖数: 15836 | 8 建议立波肉2B们下一步考虑禁饼干，因为它竟然差点把美国总统噎死。
还有就是禁医院，因为医院的医疗事故死的人比枪击死的人高无数被。
还有就是禁学校，因为竟然有老师和学生发生性关系。
干，这群2B的智力，实在是无与伦比了。 | b****r
发帖数: 1395 | 9
什么时
纠正一点，不是我认为没有背后图谋，而是我认为背后图谋不改变一件事情
的事实。与其去花精力debate背后的图谋不如debate事情的真相。也许你
已经觉得很多东西已经很清楚了，数据很充分了，但其是否本身有缺陷？多
花精力完善论据，少花时间去贴标签。
【在 C*******r 的大作中提到】
: 俺再说一遍，痢脖肉的根本目的和辩论的原因根本就不是公共安全问题。公共安全是幌
: 子，剥夺权利是目的。所以和痢脖肉辩论公共安全是徒劳的。辩论公共安全已经几十年
: 了，什么样的数据都有了，文章有成千上万片。反攻击武器法行使了十年，效果怎么样
: 有数据。可是痢脖肉在辩论（上面那篇NYT的文章就是例子）中什么时候引用数据，什么时
: 候哪怕是稍微改变观点？这就是因为痢脖肉的根本目的不是强化公共安全。
: 痢脖肉的政治哲学是由一整套的。痢脖肉有痢脖肉理想的社会形态。关于枪支的立法只
: 是其中一部分，把它割裂开来看，就会落到痢脖肉的圈套里去。俺一向是提醒大家注意
: 背后的图谋。你认为没有背后图谋，那时你的观点。俺认为这样的观点不是幼稚的，就
: 是别有用心的。其他版友应该了解到还有其他的观点，应该把枪法放到大的政治背景下
: 讨论。
| H*******g
发帖数: 6997 | 10 ASSAULT WEAPON...那菜刀肯定算是！所有的尖锐物品，包括筷子都算是潜在的攻击性
武器。。。 | | | b*****e
发帖数: 5133 | 11 偶的理解是消音器不管制就很容易silencing the guns，呵呵。
写这种漏洞很多的东西人不是仰着脸给拥枪的人揍嘛。 | c**********d
发帖数: 2428 | 12 你也不妨去看看痢脖肉们是给拥枪大众贴的什么标签。痢脖肉们可曾自省他们的理论有
什么缺陷？如果对方根本就不听你的论据，也不愿意去思考，你的这种建议又有什么意
义？政委这算是很客气的了。
【在 b****r 的大作中提到】
:
: 什么时
: 纠正一点，不是我认为没有背后图谋，而是我认为背后图谋不改变一件事情
: 的事实。与其去花精力debate背后的图谋不如debate事情的真相。也许你
: 已经觉得很多东西已经很清楚了，数据很充分了，但其是否本身有缺陷？多
: 花精力完善论据，少花时间去贴标签。
| C*******r
发帖数: 10345 | 13 "lunatic fringe"，处于社会边缘的精神病, 呵呵痢脖肉上面原文里贴的标签。俺早说
了，根本就不缺乏assault weapon根本是无效的证据。痢脖肉从没给出这种禁令有效的
证据，还不是整天找机会再搞禁令？
【在 c**********d 的大作中提到】
: 你也不妨去看看痢脖肉们是给拥枪大众贴的什么标签。痢脖肉们可曾自省他们的理论有
: 什么缺陷？如果对方根本就不听你的论据，也不愿意去思考，你的这种建议又有什么意
: 义？政委这算是很客气的了。
| j***n
发帖数: 3786 | 14 在当今的美国政治下，weapon ban已经玩不转了吧。 | x*7
发帖数: 11281 | 15 liberal想给NRA member或者说拥枪的
都妖魔化，所以才好博得大众的支持
我一度对这些不是很敏感，直到一次
去爬山，同行的都没有带帽子，我找出车里所有的
帽子，最后自己戴了个NRA标志的，照相时
同行的女生说，NRA的成员，应该摆出一个恶狠狠的
姿势，我当时噎住了...
见过我的人都知道，我和恶狠狠毛关系没有，都tmd
哪儿跟哪儿啊？
这就是痢脖肉他们的标签
【在 C*******r 的大作中提到】
: "lunatic fringe"，处于社会边缘的精神病, 呵呵痢脖肉上面原文里贴的标签。俺早说
: 了，根本就不缺乏assault weapon根本是无效的证据。痢脖肉从没给出这种禁令有效的
: 证据，还不是整天找机会再搞禁令？
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
