蒙眼组装AR-15竞选参议员：步枪协会如何阻碍控枪？

bridged

专访 | 蒙眼组装AR-15竞选参议员：步枪协会如何阻碍控枪？
Original 2017-11-15 向杨 羊说




        本期专访，采访广告里的蒙面人。35岁的民主党人坎德（Jason Kander），在2016年挑战密苏里州在任共和党参议员布伦特（Roy Blunt）。这个32秒的竞选广告，一度帮助坎德扭转选情。这名35岁的前陆军上尉戴着眼罩，毫不费力地在32秒内完成AR-15攻击步枪的组装。同时，坎德在将近结束时解释，“以免恐怖主义得到这些武器”，他支持购枪的背景检查（Background check）。密苏里属于全美队枪支管制最宽松的州，没有人预料到坎德那样的民主党候选人会展示自己的枪技。




        我和坎德交流得知，以全国步枪协会（National Rifle Association）为代表的反对控枪的组织，常常通过打“文化牌”来攻击支持控枪的参选人。步枪协会不会简单粗暴地对攻击广告（attack ad）的受众说，那个参选人会夺走你们的枪支，因为这并不现实。而是非常有技巧地暗示：看！这位参选者对枪支文化根本一无所知，他和你们不是一路人！通过打文化牌疏离参选人和选民，切断双方的认同纽带，是个非常高明的手法。



        坎德最后，在希拉里败给特朗普18.5%的不利条件下，仅以2.8%的微弱差距，输给了深红州67岁的在任参议员布伦特。坎德的广告，一方面堪称经典，生动的介绍了自己的同时，也打了一张“反文化牌”，让反对控枪的布伦特无法招架；另一方面，也能看得出一种无奈。一个深红州支持控枪的民主党参选者，要跨越多少文化陷阱，做多少战略性让步，才能避开对手以及步枪协会挖的坑。



        在阅读专访前，不妨看看美国枪支问题的大数据。详细参见：向老师解析美利坚：枪支、种族与移民








专访文字


JASON KANDER

Interviewed 10/19/2017

Duration: 16:14

坎德 | 步枪协会如何阻碍控枪
来自羊说
00:00
16:08

    坎德和向杨



（灰色部分为寒暄，可略过）


YANG: How are you?

向杨：你好。


JASON: Very good, thanks.

杰森：你好。


YANG: I saw your friend coming. Did she give you this food?

向杨：我看你朋友刚才来过，她给你带的这些吃的？


JASON: You mean my wife? She's—yeah, she's around here somewhere. She went to grab some water, so she'll probably come back in a second. She's hanging out with me this evening.

杰森：你是说我爱人吗？她——是的，她在这附近，她去接点水，所以一会儿应该还要回来。今晚我们出去转转。


YANG: At yesterday's seminar, the lady sitting next to you—

向杨：昨天研讨会上坐在你旁边的那位女士——


JASON: That's my wife.

杰森：那是我爱人。


YANG: That's your wife! Oh, cool.

向杨：那是你爱人，哦，原来如此。


JASON: Yeah.

杰森：是的。


YANG: Fantastic.

向杨：很赞。


JASON: So she'll be sitting with us here, but she's working on some stuff. So where are you from?

杰森：所以她今天也要和我们一起呆在这里，不过她手头有些工作要忙。话说回来，你来自哪里呢？


YANG: Actually, I'm from China.

向杨：我其实是从中国来的。


JASON: Where in China are you from?

杰森：中国的哪里呢？


YANG: Southwest part of China. I've been living in Sichuan for eight years [JASON: Uh-huh.], but my hometown is in the middle [JASON: Cool.] part of China.

向杨：中国西南部。我在四川生活了8年。[杰森：哦。] 但我的家乡是在中国的中部地区。


JASON: Where's—so I did a trade mission where we went to Shanghai, Beijing, and a place called Hebei?

杰森：是哪里？我之前有个贸易访问，所以去了上海、北京还有一个地方，好像叫河北？


YANG: Hebei, yeah.

向杨：河北，对的。


JASON: I don't know if you're from anywhere near any of those places.

杰森：我不知道这几个地方里头有没有哪一个离你在中国住的地方比较近。


YANG: Yeah, I actually went to all of them.

向杨：是的，这几个地方我其实都去过。


JASON: Oh, okay, cool.

杰森：噢，是嘛，很棒。


YANG: Hebei is like the province that surrounds Beijing.

向杨：河北是围绕着北京的那个省。


JASON: Yeah.

杰森：是的。


YANG: It's heavily polluted. [LAUGHS] But I'm not sure when it will get better in the future, [JASON: Yeah.] but it's been part of the agenda in this Party Congress.

向杨：那里污染很严重，我也不确定多久会变好一点。[杰森：嗯。] 不过这次十九次党大会已经将治理污染提上了议程。


JASON: How'd you end up at the University of Chicago?

杰森：那你怎么来芝加哥大学了呢？


YANG: I was here like three years ago. I did my Master's here [JASON: Uh-huh.], and right now, I'm a second-year PhD in Sociology.

向杨：我大概是三年前来的。我在这读的硕士。[杰森：嗯。] 现在呢，我是社会学博士二年级。


JASON: In Sociology—cool. Are you here on a visa, or are you staying in the US? What's your plan?

杰森：社会学？很棒。你用的是签证吗？还是在美国居住？今后怎么打算的？


YANG: I'm right now on an F1 visa. I don't know—it takes a long time to get a [JASON: Uh-huh.] PhD in Sociology. [LAUGHS]

向杨：我现在用的是F1签证。之后我也还没想好，[杰森：嗯。] 拿到社会学博士学位需要花很长时间。[笑]


JASON: So are you hoping to stay, or are you planning to go back to China?

杰森：那你是想留在这里呢，还是打算回中国？


YANG: Both are fine.

向杨：都可以。


JASON: Both are fine?

杰森：都可以？


YANG: Both are fine.

向杨：是的。


JASON: They're very different things.

杰森：这两个选择很不一样


YANG: Yeah, it takes 14 hours to get from here to China [JASON: Yeah.], so. [LAUGHS]

向杨：是的，但目前只要花14个小时从这儿飞中国。[杰森：是的。] [笑]


JASON: It's just—it's good that you're in a place where you're like, eh, either one is fine. [YANG: Yeah.] They're two very different things.

杰森：你觉得两个选项都可以，这个状态真的不错。[向杨：嗯。] 毕竟两国有很多东西不一样。


YANG: Yeah, I live comfortably in Chicago. [JASON: Mhm.] I mean, I can brave through the winter. [LAUGHTER]

向杨：是的。我在芝加哥也挺安逸。[杰森：嗯。] 我现在都能挺过这里的冬天。


JASON: Where you're from in China, does it not get anywhere near as cold as it gets here?

杰森：你在中国呆的地方是哪儿来着？那里的天气会像这里一样冷吗？


YANG: In Sichuan, the weather was very benign.

向杨：在四川。那里的天气要温和的多。


JASON: Yeah? That's nice.

杰森：是嘛，那挺不错的。


YANG: It never gets cold. [LAUGHS]

向杨：那里一直就没怎么冷过。[笑]


JASON: Yeah, I couldn't bear Chicago weathers for—I couldn't do it, so. Okay, well, cool! So what do you want to—

杰森：嗯，我扛不住这里的寒冷，我做不到。所以，你真的很厉害。那你今天来是为了—


YANG: Actually, I'm just curious about [the] gun issue in the United States [JASON: Sure.], and actually, I used your gun control ad when I was giving a lecture in China.

向杨：其实我是对美国的枪支问题很感兴趣。[杰森：嗯。] 有一次我给中国的学生上课时还用到了你拍摄的那支枪支管控的广告。


JASON: Really? That's interesting.

杰森：是嘛！有意思。


YANG: I was curious—yeah—you know, to most Chinese, they're very curious about why Americans are so enthusiastic about owning a gun.

向杨：我对这个问题很感兴趣。很多中国人，他们也很想知道，为什么美国人对拥枪的热情这么高。


JASON: Can you own a gun in China?

杰森：你在中国能拥有一把枪吗？


YANG: No.

向杨：不能


JASON: The only way you'd ever get one is in the military, I'd assume? That's the only time you'd handle one.

杰森：我猜你只能在军队里服役的时候得到一把枪，对吧？那个时候你才能拥有枪。


YANG: Yeah. So, just days ago, my father gave me a phone call, saying my grandmother was very concerned about me because she heard all the news about the Las Vegas [JASON: Yeah.] mass shooting, [JASON: Right.] and it's going on so long and so repeatedly. [JASON: Mhm.] So you had that nice gun ad [JASON: Mhm.] which I found very smart—

向杨：没错。几天前，我父亲给我打了个电话，说我的奶奶很担心我，因为她听说了拉斯维加斯的那场[杰森：嗯。] 大规模枪击事件。[杰森：是的。] 而且这种事情反复发生。[杰森：嗯。] 你那支枪支管控的广告拍得很赞。[杰森：嗯。] 我觉得非常高明。

（注：美国当地时间10月1日晚间，内华达州拉斯维加斯发生一起美国历史上伤亡最惨重的枪击案，警方确认事件已造成59人丧生、527人受伤。64岁的枪手史蒂芬·帕多克在警察进入他酒店房间之前开枪自杀）



JASON: Thanks.

杰森：谢谢。


YANG: —telling a story about you but also gave me a sense of how you should navigate the dark waters of gun culture in the United States. [JASON: Mhm.] In order to bridge the cultural gap, you have to make a lot of strategic concessions [JASON: Mhm.] before you try to make your argument.

向杨：不仅讲述了一个有关你的故事，而且让人了解了在美国枪支文化的背景下，应该如何巧妙地去谈，水真的很深！[杰森：嗯。] 为了跨越这一文化鸿沟，你得做很多战略性的让步，[杰森：嗯。] 然后才能有效阐述论点。

[Wife, DIANA KANDER, enters]

[妻子黛安娜进门]


JASON: This is Alan.

杰森：这是艾伦。


DIANA: Hi!

戴安娜：你好！


YANG: Hi, how are you?


向杨：你好。


JASON: Alan is a sociologist—

杰森：艾伦是一位社会学家—


YANG: I was sitting next to you yesterday—

向杨：我昨天坐在你旁边—


DIANA: Oh yeah?

黛安娜：哦？


JASON: —a Sociology PhD student who is from China and used the gun ad in a lecture in China.

杰森：他是中国来的，在读社会学博士，在一堂中国的课上用了我的那个枪支管控广告。


DIANA: That's cool!

黛安娜：很棒！


JASON: Which is interesting. Sorry, I'm—go ahead.

杰森：真的有很意思，不好意思，你继续。


YANG: So the first question—to many untrained eyes of Chinese, there appears to be a conservative fetish for the Second Amendment. Whenever I heard about [the] gun debates, conservatives would often invoke the Second Amendment, James Madison, or the tyranny of government. [JASON: Mhm.] You know—the tyranny of government sounds a little bit weird, because whenever it comes to national security, it's not the firearms you own in a farmhouse, it's about the [JASON: Mhm.] Minuteman in the missile silo [JASON: Mhm.], for example, in North Dakota... [JASON: Mhm.] So whenever they make this argument, it sounds as if they gain something automatically [JASON: Mhm.], like the ring of gospel truth. [JASON: Mhm.] So from your vantage point—so first of all, what's your rating from the NRA?

向杨：在很多未见识过枪支文化的中国人看来，保守派人士对宪法第二修正案有类似偶像崇拜。（注：美国宪法第二修正案为美国权利法案的一部份，于1791年12月15日被批准。本修正案保障人民有备有及佩带武器之权利）我每次听到有关枪支问题的辩论时，保守派人士都会引用宪法第二修正案，引用詹姆士·麦迪逊啊（注：美国国父之一，第四任总统，被誉为“美国宪法之父”，在美国宪法和权利法案的起草中发挥了重要作用），政府的暴政啊之类的。[杰森：嗯。] 政府的暴政，现在听上去有点奇怪，因为涉及国家安全时，比拼的不是农舍里有多少支枪，[杰森：嗯。] 而是导弹发射井里有多少“义勇兵飞弹”，比如那些设立在北达科他州的发射井。所以每次他们这样争论时，听起来就像是他们自然而然地站到了真理的一边。[杰森：嗯。] 哦，先问一下美国步枪协会给你的评分是？（注：National Rifle Association of America, NRA，总部设于美国弗吉尼亚州的，是美国最大的枪械拥有者组织和强大的利益集团。虽然NRA是非党派性、非营利性的组织，但是它积极参加美国政治活动，在美国政治中具有巨大的影响力。NRA认为，拥有枪支的权利是受美国宪法第二修正案保护的民权，这构成了它的政治活动的理论基础。因此NRA是美国反对枪支限制的主要力量）


JASON: F.

杰森：不及格，F。


YANG: F, okay, that's good. No pressure. [LAUGHS] So from your vantage point of getting an F from the NRA, what arguments from gun rights advocacy groups have you found actually very persuasive?

向杨：F，好的，这就没压力了。[笑] 那么，在你从步枪协会获得F评分的角度来看，那些支持拥枪权利的人，他们的哪些论点让你觉得的确是非常有说服力的？




JASON: From a gun rights advocacy group?

杰森：从支持拥枪权利集团的角度？


YANG: Yeah, what arguments do you find actually persuasive?

向杨：是的，你觉得哪些论点其实很有说服力？


JASON: Well, there's really only one dominant gun rights advocacy group in the United States in the conversation right now [YANG: Yeah.], and it's the NRA. [YANG: Yeah.] And I don't find them persuasive as far as the NRA leadership [goes], because I don't find them credible, and [YANG: Yeah.] the thing that most Americans are not talking about—and I've been trying to persuade people to talk about it in this debate—is that the leadership of the NRA is bankrolled by the big gun companies. [YANG: Mhm.] And what that means is, is that the NRA's leadership—the reason why there is a gulf, you know, a division between the NRA's leadership and the membership, is because the membership believes in the right to own a gun. And by the way, most members of the NRA believe that there should be limitations on that. The majority of them think we should have background checks that are universal. But the leadership of the NRA's responsibility is to preserve the right to sell as many guns as possible. [YANG: Mhm.]

杰森：嗯，当前美国的枪支问题对话中，的确有一个占主导地位的、支持拥枪权的组织，[向杨：嗯。] 就是“美国全国步枪协会”。我觉得这个组织的领导层并没有任何说服力。我不觉得他们可以信赖，[向杨：嗯。] 很多美国人都没谈及的一点——我一直在试着说服人们在枪支问题上谈论这一点——就是步枪协会的领导层都得到了大型枪支公司的资金支持。[向杨：嗯。] 这就意味着，步枪协会的领导层——之所以有这样一个观念差异，就是步枪协会领导层和协会会员之间的分歧，是因为会员坚信拥枪是合法权益。而且，其实大多数协会成员都认为拥枪权也应该受到一定限制。他们中绝大多数都认为必须对枪支持有者进行全面的背景调查。而步枪协会的领导层，他们的责任在于保证卖出尽可能多的枪支的权利。[向杨：嗯。]



And nobody ever talks about that. [YANG: Mhm.] When you are running for office in America, and you get a questionnaire from the NRA [YANG: Mhm.], you would think that it would be all about gun ownership. [YANG: Mhm.] It's not. Most of the questions are about the rights of federally licensed gun manufacturers to sell guns. [YANG: Mhm.] So it's just a big business special interest, is all it is. [YANG: Mhm.] The reason that the NRA is now pushing for the legalization of silencers [YANG: Mhm.] is not because of hearing protection [YANG: Mhm.]—although that's what they claim. When I was in the army, we protected our hearing with earplugs, right. [YANG: Mhm.] It's that they make silencers, and they would like to be able to sell them, and they'd like to be able to sell more of them. The reason that they don't want there to be universal background checks [YANG: Mhm.] is because if there were universal background checks, fewer guns might be trading hands in the private marketplace, which means fewer people would then turn around and buy new guns. They sell guns. The reason that they want reciprocity with concealed carry [YANG: Mhm.]—meaning if you have a concealed carry permit in one state, it's good in every other state—is because it means more people would be buying pistols, and they sell pistols. So that's why I don't find them credible, because a lot of the stuff they're pushing for [YANG: Mhm.] is just about selling a product. And, you know, that's why the leadership has no credibility.

没人谈论过这一点。[向杨：嗯。] 当你参加美国公务员竞选时，你会收到步枪协会发给你的调查问卷。你要是以为调查问卷就是问你些关于拥枪的问题，[向杨：嗯。] 那你就错了。很多问题其实都和联邦授权的枪支生产商的售卖枪支权利有关。所以这其实是一笔大买卖的利益问题，全部都是利益问题。步枪协会目前在推动消音器合法化，[向杨：嗯。] 这么做不是因为为了保护耳朵听力，[向杨：嗯。] 但是他们嘴上这么说。我在军队的时候，我们会戴上耳塞来保护听力，对吧。而步枪协会的这一举措，其实是因为他们在生产消音器，他们想卖这些消音器，而且想多卖一些。[向杨：嗯。] 他们之所以不希望看到全面展开的背景调查，是因为那样一来，私人市场上可交易的枪支就少了，也就意味着会买新枪的人就少了，而他们是卖枪的。他们之所以想用利益换取公共场所的隐蔽持武许可，（注： 指以隐蔽的方式在公众场合携带武器，例如手枪）。[向杨：嗯。] 就是说你如果有了这个许可，你就可以在其他各州做同样的事，是因为这样一来更多的人会买手枪，而他们是卖手枪的。所以我信不过他们。他们所推动的很多事务，都是为了销售枪支。因此，协会领导层毫无可信度。



YANG: Yeah, I heard about [how] the NRA has over 5 million memberships, and many of them have been very aggressive. [JASON: Mhm.] They would bother to make phone calls to the congressional offices, donate more money than [JASON: Mhm.] the other side of this debate. And also they—

向杨：是的，我听说美国步枪协会已经有500多万会员了，他们中不少都非常激进。[杰森：嗯。] 他们甚至会不辞辛苦地给国会的各个办公室打电话，捐钱，捐得比反对拥枪的人多多了。他们还——


JASON: A lot of the money that goes to politicians from the NRA doesn't come just from the members. [YANG: Mhm.] It comes from really big donations to the NRA's political action committees from really big gun companies.

杰森：许多最后进了政客腰包的步枪协会的钱并不仅仅来自会员。[向杨：嗯。] 那些捐给步枪协会政治行动委员会的一笔笔巨款，都来自大型枪支公司。


YANG: What I mean by "persuasive argument" are more like rebuttals to some—

向杨：我说的“有说服力的论点”更像是反驳一些—


JASON: Oh, sure. Oh, you mean—

杰森：噢，没错，你是说—


YANG: —arguments from the gun control side.

向杨：反驳那些控抢派的论点。


JASON: So I thought you mean, is there anything the gun rights groups—I thought you said— that they believe I agree with. Okay.

杰森：所以我想你的意思是，拥枪派有没有说过什么他们觉得我会认同的话，对吧。


YANG: Yeah, I think these debates are really muddy. Sometimes, you know, they don't have to be proactively championing something, they just give some rebuttals to some arguments from the gun control side.

向杨：是的。我觉得大家争来争去说的东西都混到一起了。有时候，他们都不用先发制人地占领什么理论高地，他们就是直接反驳一些控枪派的论点。


JASON: So you're saying, what should my side of the argument be saying?

杰森：所以你是说，我所站的这一边该说点什么？


YANG: Yeah.

向杨：是的。


JASON: You're asking, right?

杰森：你是在提问，对吧？


YANG: I mean, maybe, I should say, what kind of rebuttal you find actually quite persuasive? Because I'm concerned about the discourse about gun issues in the United State. Part of the reason is from the historical point of view. I know NRA used to be quite neutral [JASON: Mhm.], but it became more politicized since the 1970s. [JASON: Mhm.] And, you know, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, but it only lasted for 10 years and expired. And after that, all the efforts to legislate gun control bills failed. [JASON: Yeah.] And also the landmark Supreme Court decision in 2008. [JASON: DC v. Heller.] What I want to know is, why liberals keep losing the gun control debates?

向杨：我是说，或许我该这么说，你觉得有没有哪种反驳其实相当有道理？因为我担忧美国枪支问题的这场辩论所用的话语。一部分的担忧来自历史，因为步枪协会以前还是个比较中立的利益集团[杰森：嗯。] ，但从上世纪七十年代开始，步枪协会就拥枪一事变得更政治化了。你也知道，1994年的《联邦突击武器禁令》，但这一禁令只维持了10年就失效了。（注：“联邦禁止武器禁令”（AWB） ，官方全称为“公共安全和娱乐武器使用保护法”是1994年“暴力犯罪控制和执法法”的一部分，该法案是美国联邦法律，其中包括禁止制造民用某些半自动枪支以及一些大容量的弹夹）在那之后，所有试图将枪支管控合法化的法案都以失败告终。[杰森：嗯。] 还有最高法院2008年那次里程碑式的判决。（注：2008年6月26日，美国联邦最高法院以5比4的微弱优势，为“哥伦比亚区诉赫勒案”（District of Columbia v. Heller）做出了以下判决：1、第二修正案保护的是个人持有和携带武器的权利，此权利与民兵服役无关；个人有权为了传统合法的目的，如在家中自卫，使用武器。2、象其他多数权利一样，第二修正案的权利不是绝对的。3、哥伦比亚特区的手枪禁令以及要求在枪械上装配板机扣的法律侵犯了第二修正案）[杰森：哥伦比亚区诉赫勒] 我想知道的是，为什么自由派在枪支管控的辩论中节节败退呢？



JASON: We're not. We're not losing the gun control debate. [YANG: Mhm.] We've won the gun control debate. The majority of American people agree with us, which should not be mistaken for winning votes in Congress. [YANG: Mhm.] Congress has a Republican majority because of gerrymandering, and because of gerrymandering, that Republican majority is overwhelmingly gerrymandering into representing districts that are very far right. [YANG: Mhm.] The majority of the American people agree with the Democrats on gun control. The majority of Congress doesn't, and that's because they're paid not to. Campaign contributions and everything else and they can lose primaries—I mean, too many members of Congress are more worried about losing a primary than they are a general election. If the districts were set up in a such a way that the general election was the highest chance for them to lose [YANG: Mhm.], gun control would have passed years ago.

杰森：我们没有。我们并没有在枪支管控的辩论中节节败退。[向杨：嗯。] 我们已经赢了这场辩论。大部分美国人都认同我们，这个不能和国会里赢得投票混为一谈。[向杨：嗯。] 国会里共和党占大多数，是因为他们搞杰利蝾螈，（注：美国的政治术语，指以不公平的选区划分方法操纵选举，致使投票结果有利于某一方）而借着这种做法，共和党大多数都代表了那些极右的选区。大多数美国人在控枪问题上认同民主党。但国会的大多数却不是这样，原因是他们收了钱，要反对控枪。没了金主，就没有竞选资金，什么也没了，初选也会输掉。我是说，国会里有太多人担心输掉初选远超过他们担心输掉大选。如果选区划分当时设计成共和党输掉大选的几率最高的话，[向杨：嗯。] 控枪法案在很多年前就可以通过了。



YANG: From the tactical point of view, it's important to talk about mass shootings, [JASON: Mhm.] the reason why we should have gun control. But from the strategic point of view, using mass shooting to define gun debate would stand in the way of saving lives, because from what I've learned about gun-related deaths [JASON: Mhm.], over 60 percent is about suicide [JASON: Right.] and they usually use handguns instead of those automatic rifles. [JASON: Mhm] And even in mass shootings, most of them are still using handguns instead of those military rifles. [JASON: Right.] I don't know what strategy Democrats are using in this discourse. Is it making a strategic mistake by focusing on mass shooting? What is the debate in the suicide part?

向杨：从战术的角度来看， 以大规模枪击事件作为管控枪支的理由，是很重要的一个环节。[杰森：嗯。] 但是从战略的角度来看，拿大规模枪击事件来给枪支管控之辩定调，又会妨碍对生命的拯救。因为就我所了解的枪支造成的死亡情况而言，[杰森：嗯。] 超过60%的死亡是自杀。[杰森：是的。] 死者通常使用的是手枪，而非自动步枪。[杰森：嗯。] 甚至在大规模枪击事件中，很多凶徒用的也是手枪，而不是那些军事步枪。[杰森：没错。] 我不知道民主党在这场对话中使用的是什么策略。聚焦于大规模枪击事件，算不算是犯了一个战略上的错误呢？关于自杀的辩论又是什么呢？



JASON: Well, it's hard not to talk about mass shootings when it's such a cultural event and so tragic, right? [YANG: Mhm.] But yeah, look, I think we have to talk about the fact that gun death is so prevalent in the country. I think it's a reason for background checks, I think it's a reason for saying that somebody who's gonna carry should have actual training. You know, it's all those things. It's why you talk about gun safety. [YANG: Mhm.] But again, like your question—you're looking at it in terms of a strategically convincing people sort of question.

杰森：嗯，大规模枪击事件是如此重大的社会事件，涉及文化冲突，这一幕幕悲剧，要避开它不谈，这很难做到。[向杨：嗯。] 但是，我认为我们必须谈及这一事实，就是枪支造成的死亡事件在这个国家太普遍了。我觉得这为背景调查提供了理由，为持枪者应该接受训练提供了理由。就是所有类似的这些。所以你才讨论枪支安全。[向杨：嗯。] 但是，就和你的问题一样，你看待它的角度是战略性地让人们信服。



YANG: You're focusing on the margin of the legal regime, but [the] handgun is something the Democrats wouldn't touch—it's too radical.

向杨：你聚焦的是在现行法律体系的边缘上修补，但限制手枪是民主党不会碰触的地方，会显得太激进了。


JASON: Well, we do argue that even handguns should require a background check. [YANG: Mhm.] And so—and there are people who have used pistols to commit mass shootings and other murders who should not have one—they would not pass a background check.

杰森：我们的确也争论过，说手枪也需要背景调查。[向杨：嗯。] 拿手枪进行大规模枪击的人还有那些凶手都不应该允许有枪，他们也不会通过背景调查。


YANG: Would that affect suicide rates if you checked—

向杨：如果进行背景调查的话，会影响自杀率吗？


JASON: Not necessarily. So I mean, I think it's a good question. There probably is a blind spot in it. But, you know, there are things that would—like, for instance, you know, trigger locks, you know, "safe guns," or whatever they call it—not "safe guns."

杰森：不一定。我是说，我认为这是个好问题。可能这里面存在一个盲点。但是，有的事情会，比如，扳机锁，“安全枪械”，或者他们叫的那个什么，不是“安全枪械”。


YANG: Smart?

向杨：智能？


JASON: Smart guns, thank you. And, you know, all that kind of stuff—at least then, you know, if you are—you're not gonna use someone else's gun to do it, you know, that kind of thing. [YANG: Mhm.] So I don't think you can 100 percent prevent suicide through gun violence. You know, you can prevent people committing suicide through a gun that's not their own possibly—you can do that kind of a thing. [YANG: Mhm.] But yeah, but it's absolutely something that should be addressed. Guns are really numerous, and when guns are readily available, and suicide's sometimes an impulsive decision, yeah, it absolutely affects it. A lot of people would argue that that's why a gun registry makes sense. [YANG: Mhm.] I think you're making a good point. There's a blind spot there that exists.

杰森：智能枪械。谢谢提醒。所有这些东西，如果你不去用别人的枪，做些不好的事，[向杨：嗯。] 我认为很难百分百阻止用枪支暴力的方式自杀。你可以阻止一个人不用别人的枪自杀，这是有可能的，可以做这种事。[向杨：嗯。] 这的确是应该应对的问题。枪支真的泛滥成灾，而当获取枪支变得非常容易时，就很容易让人们在冲动的时候选择自杀。所以控制手枪肯定会影响自杀率。这也是为什么很多人说注册枪支是有道理的。[向杨：嗯。] 我认为你的这个想法很好。这里的确有一个盲点。



YANG: Is the blind spot driven more by fear from politicians, or it's just not popular?

向杨：这个盲点更多的是由政客们的担忧造成的呢，还是说仅仅因为通过控枪来减少自杀成功率不受欢迎？


JASON: I think it's driven more by the fact that while suicide is an enormous problem, I think it's driven more by the fact that the problem feels so overwhelming right now that people are focusing on the stuff where they think we can force Congress to do something. [YANG: Mhm.] And forcing Congress to do something about how readily available pistols are to people who are mentally ill [YANG: Mhm.], that's on the other side of forcing them to do something about universal background checks, assault weapons, that kind of stuff. So I think it's probably more—there's an old expression—"how do you eat an elephant one bite at a time?" [YANG: Mhm.] You know, so you start at one end, so you're not immediately gonna start talking about the middle of the elephant, right. So I think it's probably more of that. It's probably a sense that I think a lot of Democrats have—look, we're never gonna get there if we can't get this [YANG: Mhm.], you know, so let's focus on this first and then, you know. Whether that's right or wrong, I think—

杰森：我觉得，虽然自杀是一个很严重的问题，但事实是，人们觉得这个问题太难处理了，所以会转而聚焦在他们觉得可以促使国会做点什么的问题上。[向杨：嗯。] 促使国会去解决一下有精神疾病的人很容易就获得枪支的问题，这个和促使国会去解决一下全面背景调查啊、禁止一些武器啊还有类似的事，是冲突的。我想有更多的——有句老话说：你怎么能一口吃掉一头大象呢？[向杨：嗯。] 要从一头开始，你不能直接跳到中间，对吧？所以我想，可能很多民主党都有这种感觉：如果我们做不到这点，就永远走不到那一边。[向杨：嗯。] 所以先集中这一点，然后再做别的。不管对错与否，我觉得——


YANG: Sometimes the arguments from the margin would play in the hands of the NRA. For example, they would say banning assault weapons wouldn't prevent terrorism—think about Paris. They have very harsh gun control laws [JASON: Sure.] but they still have a lot of terrorist attacks.

向杨：有时候，来自修补边缘的论点会被步枪协会拿来做文章。比如，他们会说，禁止武器后就没法阻止恐怖主义了——想想巴黎。巴黎的枪支管控很严格，[杰森：是的。] 但他们还是遭遇了很多恐袭。


JASON: But again, you gotta remember, don't fall under the trap of thinking that because America hasn't passed a law [YANG: Mhm.], we have failed to convince people. There's an old Upton Sinclair quote—"It's very difficult to make a man understand something he's paid not to understand." [YANG: Yeah.] Members of Congress who represent heavily gerrymandered districts and depend on the NRA to get re-elected—I don't know what their true belief is. I know what they're saying in order to get re-elected. But the vast majority of the American people think that the average person does not need an assault weapon, thinks that there should be universal background checks, thinks that, you know, gun owners—I'm a gun owner—but gun owners are actually a minority in this country—not by a lot, but it's like 40-something percent of people and again, which means close to 60 percent of Americans don't own one. [YANG: Mhm.] So we have won the argument, it's just now we gotta force Congress to actually do what the American people want them to do. Sometimes it's not enough just to win the argument. [YANG: Mhm.] I'm not so sure it's a problem with the argument.

杰森：但是，得记住，不能掉入思维的陷阱，认为因为美国没有通过一条法律的话，就是我们没有取信于美国人民。厄普顿·辛克莱（Upton Sinclair）有句话说得好：很难让一个人去理解一件他拒绝理解的事，因为他被收买了。（注：厄普顿·辛克莱，美国作家，写作了一百多本不同领域的书籍，普利策小说奖获得者）[向杨：是的。] 国会里那些代表某些利益地区的议员以及仰仗着步枪协会来再次获选的人，我是不知道他们对控枪真正相信什么。我知道他们说那些话都是为了能再次获选。但是绝大多数美国人都认为，普通人并不需要武器，认为应该进行全面的背景调查，认为枪支拥有者——我是一名枪支拥有者——在这个国家实际上是少数，而不是多数。但实际上有大概40%的人拥有枪支，但是，也意味着60%左右的人并没有枪支。[向杨：嗯。] 所以我们其实更有道理，只是我们现在需要促使国会作出实际行动，做美国人希望他们做的事。有时候只打赢嘴战是不够的。[向杨：嗯。] 我不认为论点上有什么问题。


YANG: So which one do you think plays the most important part in blocking this legislation—money from all these interest groups, electoral base, or this singular focus on the gun issue—

向杨：那么你认为哪个因素在阻碍立法的进程中起到了最主要的作用：这些利益集团的钱、选民、还是拥枪被聚焦成了单一议题？


JASON: The biggest reason why it hasn't passed is because of the way districts are drawn in the country. The way districts are drawn and the way primaries are run—people—Republican politicians feel like they have to only represent a small segment of the population. That's the biggest roadblock. If we fix that, we fix this and a bunch of other issues.

杰森：控枪法案没有通过，最大的原因在于选区的划分。选区的划分还有初选运作的方式。共和党政客觉得，他们只要代表一小部分人就可以了。这是最大的障碍。我们能修正这一点，就能修正枪支问题，以及很多其他问题。



YANG: Thank you.

向杨：谢谢。


DIANA: Here you go. It was nice to meet you.

黛安娜：要走了啊，见到你很高兴。


YANG: It was nice meeting you.

向杨：我也是。


JASON: Have a good one!

杰森：祝你度过美好的一天。


YANG: Great. I think I might be the first one using your ad in China.

向杨：好的。我觉得我可能是第一个在中国使用你那支广告的人。


JASON: That's cool to hear!

杰森：听上去很酷。


YANG: That could be.

向杨：应该是的。


JASON: Thanks very much.

杰森：谢谢你。


YANG: Bye-bye.

向杨：再会。




特别鸣谢Leon的英翻中以及字幕制作

向杨的微博：向杨Alan

微信公众号：xy88chicago