持枪权之三利
廖康
来美国以前我不懂,美国人为什么需要持枪的权利?每年因大意走火、一时激愤、持枪行凶而死伤那么多人。他们好像就不明白这个浅显的道理:枪虽然不杀人,是人杀人,可是因为有枪,杀人才这么容易。为什么一提到禁枪,简直比要阉割他们还难以接受?教论说文写作,禁枪是个非常有争议的题目。他们的作文、美国的电影,以及在美国的生活经验让我知道了持枪的理由:抗暴、自卫,还有维护尊严。
美国人持枪的权利是写入宪法的,其历史原因是反抗英国殖民主义统治。反对者会说,那是两百多年前的事了,现在已经没有暴政可反。况且,现在的政府,不再是拿杆长枪就可以反抗的,就算你有机关枪和大炮,也无法与现代化的军队抗衡。为抗暴而允许持枪,纯属自欺欺人。现行的法律禁止私人持有自动化武器。抗暴,开什么玩笑?如果真是为了让老百姓有能力反抗暴政,那就应该允许平民拥有和政府一样的武装:坦克、军舰、原子弹……到哪里为止?
反对者这类说词似乎很难辩驳。暴政有各种形式,如果暴君像拿破仑那样下令用大炮轰散抗议群众,拿把手枪或半自动步枪的确没有什么用处。然而,如果有人强令拆迁,钉子户手中若有枪,就用不着自焚了,也不会有多少工人胆敢冒着生命危险来强行拆房。毕竟,反抗暴政的方式多种多样,不仅仅是在大街上示威游行。在很多时候,一杆枪就足以对狗官构成威胁,令其止步。由于暴政并不总是以军队来协助实施的,持枪的权利在大多数情况下不仅是一种象征,也是一种行之有效的反抗暴政的方式。美国总统的保安不可谓不严密,但行刺总统的事情仍有发生,其他官员的保安就不必说了。
当年,秦始皇统一中国后,第一件事就是收缴天下的兵器。在冷兵器年代,他这种做法当然没有效果。当今,在不许持枪的国家,民不畏死,可就白白送死了。在允许持枪的国家,民不畏死,则足以和暴政官员拼个鱼死网破。美国先贤在修宪时,之所以允许其公民保留持枪的权利,就是为了反抗可能出现的暴政。虽然我没有在生活中见到过人民抗暴的事例,但是在美国电影中,这种事例俯拾皆是。比如:在《杀无赦》Unforgiven中,老农夫曼尼与禁枪的霸王警长的争斗。如果你嫌那个故事太古老了,那《神枪手》Shooter所展现的可是在现代社会可能发生的与腐败的参议员及上校的生死决战。应该说,很多这类电影都如实地反映了生活。更重要的事,它们表现了一种精神,表现了自由和正义的浩然之气。若没有枪,这种气就鼓不起来,掌权者就可以为所欲为,平民就只能任人宰割。然而,这并不意味着,为了抵抗暴政,就应该允许平民拥有任何一种武器。这种论调听上去有理,其实并不公平。如果是这样,人人都具有巨大的施暴能力,人类灭绝的一天也就不远了。而且,如果允许老百姓拥有重武器,那就偏向了富人。就像吹金喇叭表决一样,对穷人并不公平。
持枪的第二个重要作用是自卫。美国的现状是,民间有大量枪支;有些是合法的,有些是非法的。无论如何,这些枪支是不可能全部收缴上来的。就算政府能够收缴到合法的枪支,也收缴不了非法的枪支。如果不允许美国公民持枪,那奉公守法的公民就会面临极大的危险,尤其是入宅抢劫。美国人的主流——中产阶级——所住的房屋相隔较远,在一户人家里发生的事情,邻居可能毫无所知。如果不允许美国人持枪,那有枪的劫匪潜入人家,就可以为所欲为了。而现在,正因为允许持枪,罪犯不得不假设每家都有枪,因此不敢轻易闯入。美国人说,一个人的家就像城堡,意思是不容外人随意进入。但如果没有枪,拿什么保卫?菜刀?那还是城堡吗?最多也就是厨房。据统计,美国人每年用枪进行自卫达250万次,是用枪犯罪次数的四倍,每年至少救了2,575条人命。而在杀人案件中,每6,500起中,只有一起是用手枪作案的。可见持枪权的利大于弊多矣。我知道,这些数字是赞同持枪者统计出来的,恐怕有水分。但即便减低十倍,也足以说明问题了。
我知道,很多华人虽然住在美国,还是没有枪,也从来没有碰到过需要用枪的时刻。我们爱好和平,痛恨暴力,希望远离枪支和一切与暴力有关的东西。我不知道这些善良的人们想过没有,我们之所以还没有遇到过暴徒入宅,正是因为美国允许平民持枪自卫。如果贼盗得知华人多半没枪,我们遭抢劫,被偷盗的机率就会大大增加。近年来,旧金山华人遭抢被盗的事例越来越多。连罪犯自己都说,在华人家作案危险小。很多人可能还记得92年罗德尼事件后洛杉矶暴乱时的一个镜头:一个韩国小个子手持半自动步枪,在自家店铺房顶上走来走去,耀武扬威,因而没有暴徒胆敢去那里抢劫。枪,使他成为保家护院的勇士。那,就是我们的榜样。
枪的另一个无形中的作用是维护尊严。这一点,很多人从来没有意识到。可是大家都觉得,虽然我们在美国是外族人,但是无故挨整,被人欺负的情况并不常见,或者说并不严重。这可不是因为美国人特别遵纪守法,因为整人、欺负人往往不是违法行为。别人要想整你、欺负你,有的是合法手段。美国中小学里那么普遍的霸凌现象也说明他们并非生来格外善良。恰恰相反,美国是多民族国家,人种差异比较大,在法制和道德观念建立起来之前,以强凌弱的事例比中国只多不少。然而,在成人社会,他们一般不会往死里整人,因为他们不仅具有法制和道德观念,他们还知道,把人欺负急了,人家会拿枪报复。无论你职位多高,无论你块儿头多大,手持一枪,人家就可以要你的命。
塞万提斯在《唐吉诃德》中感叹:火枪使骑士不再,任何一个低贱的盗贼都可以轻易地打死习练多年、高贵威武的骑士。但他没有看到,枪也使得人人平等了。与欺压平民的骑士阶层相比,个别流氓用枪犯罪是小恶。塞万提斯也没有看到,枪最终会给予弱者能力和尊严,人们不再依靠少数仗义行侠的善良骑士来保护了。在无数妇女、小个子男人用枪维护了自己的尊严之后,枪已经成为一个符号、一个象征,让有权势的官僚顾忌,让拳头大的凶汉颤抖。现在,枪在某种意义上,已经成为一种不战而屈人之兵,让强者有所收敛。这就是为什么有枪族中人数增长最快的群体是妇女。
当然,美国每年死在枪下的无辜很多。有的死于枪案,有的死于情杀,有的死于事故。每次发生这类不幸事件,都让人非常震惊,非常悲哀,非常遗憾。然而,美国人并不愚蠢,他们深知,这是代价。这是他们反抗暴政、正当防卫、维护尊严不得已而付出的代价。在美国人的思想意识深处,有一种对政府、对统治者根深蒂固的不信任。他们不仅在政体上建立了三权鼎立的制度,以避免独裁,而且还要把枪实实在在地拿在手上,以便随时反抗强权暴政和为非作歹的官员。他们也不完全依靠警察来保卫自家的安全。这个彪悍的民族更相信自己的能力,靠人不如靠自己,靠自己就得有枪。枪不仅在危急时刻给予人们自卫的能力,而且在日常生活中,无需其实体,仅依靠其象征意义和暗含的后果,就能够帮助弱者维护尊严。而且拥有枪支的代价要远远低于开车的代价——车祸。不仅如此,每年死于枪支走火的孩子也少于淹死或烧死的孩子。持枪权的利益不像拥有汽车的利益那么明显,但凡是生活在美国的人,无时无刻不在享受如上讨论的持枪权之三利。拥有枪支与其代价相比,值。
2010年5月2日
- Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
在大规模杀伤性武器存在的情况下,持枪反抗暴政没有现实可能性。 - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
stone wrote:
在大规模杀伤性武器存在的情况下,持枪反抗暴政没有现实可能性。
但无枪,就更可怕,随时可以被政府、警察欺负。 公民持枪是对抗暴政的“超限战”,如果连人肉炸弹都没有了,世界会更加倾斜。 - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
Bad example.
有枪并没有使韩国店不成为暴力打劫的目标。
liaokang wrote:很多人可能还记得92年罗德尼事件后洛杉矶暴乱时的一个镜头:一个韩国小个子手持半自动步枪,在自家店铺房顶上走来走去,耀武扬威,因而没有暴徒胆敢去那里抢劫。枪,使他成为保家护院的勇士。那,就是我们的榜样。
持枪权之三利
廖康
- posted on 05/03/2010
我知道很多韩国店那次遭劫,但那正是因为他们没枪或不敢用枪。若那人没有炫耀武力,他的店也会被抢。
SevenStar wrote:
Bad example.
有枪并没有使韩国店不成为暴力打劫的目标。
liaokang wrote:很多人可能还记得92年罗德尼事件后洛杉矶暴乱时的一个镜头:一个韩国小个子手持半自动步枪,在自家店铺房顶上走来走去,耀武扬威,因而没有暴徒胆敢去那里抢劫。枪,使他成为保家护院的勇士。那,就是我们的榜样。
持枪权之三利
廖康
- Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
Agree.
但是更有效的威胁应该是对老板。:-)
maya wrote:
但无枪,就更可怕,随时可以被政府、警察欺负。 公民持枪是对抗暴政的“超限战”,如果连人肉炸弹都没有了,世界会更加倾斜。 - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
:) :) :) life insurance premium needs to triple for bosses.
SevenStar wrote:
Agree.
但是更有效的威胁应该是对老板。:-)
- posted on 05/03/2010
持枪 won't help maintain liberty at all. The theory contrary to that is a myth. What helps maintain liberty is one's understanding of the cause-effect relationships among various factors and one's understanding of the existing human nature and its ramifications; and the action that results from those understandings. When 持枪 becomes the last resort, it is already much too late because persons' minds have been disarmed for too long. There is no use. Now it is already too late. Don't even risk it. Keep being a peaceful one. - posted on 05/03/2010
暴政有各种形式,如果暴君像拿破仑那样下令用大炮轰散抗议群众,拿把手枪或半自动步枪的确没有什么用处。然而,如果有人强令拆迁,钉子户手中若有枪,就用不着自焚了,也不会有多少工人胆敢冒着生命危险来强行拆房。毕竟,反抗暴政的方式多种多样,不仅仅是在大街上示威游行。在很多时候,一杆枪就足以对狗官构成威胁,令其止步。由于暴政并不总是以军队来协助实施的,持枪的权利在大多数情况下不仅是一种象征,也是一种行之有效的反抗暴政的方式。美国总统的保安不可谓不严密,但行刺总统的事情仍有发生,其他官员的保安就不必说了。在不许持枪的国家,民不畏死,就白白送死。在允许持枪的国家,民不畏死,则足以和暴政官员拼个鱼死网破。I shall provide some examples.
stone wrote:
在大规模杀伤性武器存在的情况下,持枪反抗暴政没有现实可能性。 - posted on 05/03/2010
Wrong-minded militias have been used by the persons who later became dictators. There are many examples. It is not the 枪 that matters. It is what is in the minds. Disarm the armed without physical fight. That is the best way. Disarm with the right ideas.
Even the oppressed in China don't need 枪. They need themselves and sufficient number of others to wake up from thousands years of stupor. It will take hundreds of years before their children's children to wake up. For example, if they still feel any "national" pride, they bound to keep being slaves; and they deserve that fate. - posted on 05/03/2010
That is not to say that 持枪权 should be violated.
持枪权 is an end, but not a useful means of keeping liberty. One must give it up before he can loses it. If he's already given it up and lost it, what can help him to regain it? His life.
What is the meaning of "liberty or death"? In these times, it might mean that after you've given it up and lost it and you want to regain it, you must be prepared to meet the consequence of your death. Hence, you'd better not to give it up or lose it; or if you already did that, you'd better no to try to regain it; or if you still try to regain it, you'd better prepare to die. - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
Many have chosen the middle one: give it up and do not try to regain it. They are walking-dead because they lost one part of the true nature of humans - free. - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
问个想象的问题。中国如果放开了枪支管制会怎样?
血雨腥风如同串联的一场?一切如往常,提枪买菜,讨价还价你一枪我一枪?人们都富了,不再有了银行?...
shudai wrote:
Many have chosen the middle one: give it up and do not try to regain it. They are walking-dead because they lost one part of the true nature of humans - free. - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
请shudai还是写中文吧。 - posted on 05/03/2010
这个问题连我们这个小论坛上都争论了不知多少遍了,老廖最近也开始猛炒冷饭了。我还依稀记得,上次老八还是谁非说持枪能吓唬政府,反抗暴政。被关中和我给大义凛然循循善诱地驳斥了。:)
持枪自卫,是站得住脚的。法律和正义并不再时刻都在每一个人的口袋里,拿出来一拨打就能击退恶行。如果有枪在手边,生死关头会更有希望一些。但是,持枪如果说能吓唬政府,那是不可能的。 结果只能适得其反。
持枪能维护个人尊严,那是有些过度牵强附会,把两个毫不相干的东西硬放在一起了。尊严是个复杂的概念,很难说在某种情况下你的尊严就受到了侵害。这里面没有一定之规。持枪报复其实是弱者心态。如果大家都有枪,也还公平一些,但未必能帮助尊严。 - posted on 05/03/2010
Self-defense and owning the means of self-defense are one of the most basic rights.
But on the other hand, if a people is not fit for liberty, their fate is naturally lack of liberty. If most the Chinese people are not fit for liberty, they have to live under the condition of lack of liberty. Are they fit for owning 枪支? I don't know. It is not a question that can be answered with reason alone. It is a question on data. I'm not capable of answering your question.
小凯 wrote:
问个想象的问题。中国如果放开了枪支管制会怎样?
血雨腥风如同串联的一场?一切如往常,提枪买菜,讨价还价你一枪我一枪?人们都富了,不再有了银行?...
shudai wrote:
Many have chosen the middle one: give it up and do not try to regain it. They are walking-dead because they lost one part of the true nature of humans - free. - posted on 05/03/2010
对不起。以前还真没注意你们的争论。希望能翻出来看看。
暴政有各种形式,如果暴君像拿破仑那样下令用大炮轰散抗议群众,拿把手枪或半自动步枪的确没有什么用处。然而,如果有人强令拆迁,钉子户手中若有枪,就用不着自焚了,也不会有多少工人胆敢冒着生命危险来强行拆房。毕竟,反抗暴政的方式多种多样,不仅仅是在大街上示威游行。在很多时候,一杆枪就足以对狗官构成威胁,令其止步。由于暴政并不总是以军队来协助实施的,持枪的权利在大多数情况下不仅是一种象征,也是一种行之有效的反抗暴政的方式。美国总统的保安不可谓不严密,但行刺总统的事情仍有发生,其他官员的保安就不必说了。在不许持枪的国家,民不畏死,就白白送死。在允许持枪的国家,民不畏死,则足以和暴政官员拼个鱼死网破。I'll provide some examples.
令胡冲 wrote:
这个问题连我们这个小论坛上都争论了不知多少遍了,老廖最近也开始猛炒冷饭了。我还依稀记得,上次老八还是谁非说持枪能吓唬政府,反抗暴政。被关中和我给大义凛然循循善诱地驳斥了。:)
持枪自卫,是站得住脚的。法律和正义并不再时刻都在每一个人的口袋里,拿出来一拨打就能击退恶行。如果有枪在手边,生死关头会更有希望一些。但是,持枪如果说能吓唬政府,那是不可能的。 结果只能适得其反。
持枪能维护个人尊严,那是有些过度牵强附会,把两个毫不相干的东西硬放在一起了。尊严是个复杂的概念,很难说在某种情况下你的尊严就受到了侵害。这里面没有一定之规。持贡ǜ雌涫凳侨跽咝奶H绻蠹叶加星梗不构揭恍幢啬馨镏鹧稀?/textarea> - posted on 05/03/2010
Many persons made the mistake of assuming that all the persons in the world prefer liberty to lack of liberty. Those many persons based their reasoning process in that wrong assumption. Their reasoning process may be absolutely correct. But their conclusions are still as true as their assumptions. Their theory is valuable on the condition that one day in the future their assumption becomes true.
The cruel reality is that their assumption is totally wrong. Most persons do not prefer liberty to lack of liberty. Under that condition, even if the rulers in China voluntarily adopt a liberal (in the classical sense) policy, the ruled will revolt and make another party rule them that will adopt an illiberal policy that they like because they do not prefer liberty to lack of liberty. That is not to excuse the current Chinese rulers. It is to accuse most Chinese people. How do I know? By observation. Of course, my observation may be totally wrong because I don't have enough data. - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
Liberty is a luxury that most persons cannot afford and most persons don't even want to have. When those persons talk about liberty, they are actually talking about other things. When liberty is really returned to them, they are scared to death and will revolt against it. That is a fundamental fact in the current condition of most human beings. Without that understanding, a person's theories about the current human societies are mostly wrong. - posted on 05/03/2010
I agree with you, in large or small part.
It reminds me of men having their long braid(some people call it pigtail) chopped around a century ago.
People had a fear toward liberty. I suppose, liberty can rule itself. I love liberty. Liberty makes everyone happy and brings true harmony.
shudai wrote:
, even if the rulers in China voluntarily adopt a liberal (in the classical sense) policy, the ruled will revolt and make another party rule them that will adopt an illiberal policy that they like because they do not prefer liberty to lack of liberty. That is not to excuse the current Chinese rulers. It is to accuse most Chinese people. How do I know? By observation. Of course, my observation may be totally wrong because I don't have enough data. - posted on 05/03/2010
There are always persons who seek every opportunity to take advantage of the current condition of human beings. That is natural and is hardly to be blamed. The most persons in human societies provided that opportunity to those opportunity seekers. It is through that kind of mutuality that the status quo in the societies all over the world came about. It is not as some persons imagined. There exists a mutuality between the oppressors and the oppressed. Everything is around an equilibrium. That equilibrium is caused by that mutuality. There is no escape from that except that most persons undergo gradual changes in their mind. That change is not automatic. That change is caused by some sound ideas. Sound ideas come from the minds of some intellectual elites. - posted on 05/03/2010
What was the intent of the Second Amendment?
The intent of these amendments was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try to take away the freedoms which many of them had so recently fought for. Senator William Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry; "Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty…" (p. 76).
"To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
o The fastest growing group of gun owners is women, according to Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns.
o Firearms are used defensively roughly 2.5 million times per year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun (Targeting Guns).
o The accidental firearm death rate is at it's lowest point since records were started nearly 100 years ago according to Injury Facts 2000 from the national Safety Council.
o Motor-vehicle accidents, drowning, suffocation, and fires each kill more children under the age of fifteen than do firearms.
o Less than one handgun in 6,500 is ever used in a homicide.
- Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
It is totally a myth that holding arms protects a citizen from the government's usurping liberty from him. It is his correct political action that is capable of protecting him. An armed State worshiper is just as bad as an unarmed one to the liberty of the other members of the society. And an armed State worshiper can always be called upon by the State to suppress the innocent ones who love and try to defend their liberty. - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
After they seal the borders, after they restrict you from moving your capital to other countries, after they ask you to show your passport at anytime, what use will your 枪 have? It is a myth. - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/03/2010
懒得说什么,等我有空贴个照片。
有会老瓦说起枪的事,就照了张照片。压箱子底到现在。- that's my take on the gun issue. - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/04/2010
你要是真相信被抢是因为没枪或不敢用枪,咱没什么话需要再说。
liaokang wrote:
我知道很多韩国店那次遭劫,但那正是因为他们没枪或不敢用枪。若那人没有炫耀武力,他的店也会被抢。
- posted on 05/04/2010
My take: (not in particular order)
0) Educate yourself before you go buy one.
1) It wouldn't matter if somebody debated the hell out of the pros and cons of gun rights. Each to his/her own.
2) Stop the second amendment debate already, especially on the historical reasons which may no longer apply today. It's pointless. Bearing firearms is a constitutional right. Period.
3) Gun ban would only take the guns from the good, law-abiding people. Get over that naivety.
4) Target shooting is fun.
5) A good gun is a fine piece of art/ craftmanship.
6) If you can't handle it then it's better off to stay away from it. Gun ownership carries huge inherent responsibility.
7) Know when, and how. (repeat three times and make sure you fully understand it).
- Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/04/2010
这两把枪,看着很帅。
枪是个很暴力的东西,要锁好,它的存在,有时反而让人产生危机感。
但是,很多时候,没有枪又不行。光被别人打,自己倒在血泊里,太不公平了。再怎么被小鲁同志纪念,死了还是死了。
moab wrote:
懒得说什么,等我有空贴个照片。
有会老瓦说起枪的事,就照了张照片。压箱子底到现在。- that's my take on the gun issue. - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/10/2010
枪对弱者的权益的确是一种保障,虽然面对强大的势力,这种保障显得确弱,但总比什么保障都没有强. - Re: 持枪权之三利posted on 05/21/2010
姚宇要是有枪就好了。
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation