Who Needs a Gun? By GARY GUTTING

From the New York Times

Even when a gun makes sense in principle as a means of self-defense, it may do more harm than good. 儘管擁槍自衛，在原則上算是說得通。但是槍枝所帶來的危害，還是弊多於利。 A gun is a tool, and we choose tools based on their function. The primary 主 要的 function of a gun is to kill or injure people or animals. In the case of people, the only reason I might have to shoot them — or threaten to do so — is that they are immediately threatening serious harm. So a first question about owning a gun is whether I’m likely to be in a position to 處於一個形式 need one to protect human life. A closely related question is whether, if I were 假 設語態 in such a position, the gun would be available and I would be able to use it effectively. Unless you live in or frequent 造訪(當動詞) dangerous neighborhoods or have family or friends likely to threaten you, it’s very unlikely that you’ll need a gun for self-defense 自衛. Further, counterbalancing 平衡/抵銷 any such need is the fact that guns are dangerous. If I have one loaded 上膛 and readily accessible 待命狀態/馬上可用 in an emergency, then there’s a non-negligible 不可忽視的 chance that it will lead to great harm. A gun at hand can easily push a family quarrel, a wave of depression or a child’s curiosity in a fatal direction.手握一支槍，很容易製造家庭成員之 間的爭吵，一連串的憂鬱沮喪，或是因為小孩子好奇而出現致命的結果。

Even when a gun makes sense in principle as a means of 方法/方式 self-defense, it may do more harm than good if I’m not trained to use it well 如果沒有受過專業訓練，懂得如何使用，將會弊多於利. I may panic and shoot a family member coming home late, fumble around 亂摸索/亂找一陣 and allow an unarmed burglar to take my gun, have a cleaning or loading accident. The N.R.A.美國步槍協會 rightly sets high standards 高標準 for gun safety. If those unable or unwilling to meet these standards gave up their guns, there might well be a lot fewer gun owners. Guns do have uses other than defense against attackers. There may, for example, still be a few people who actually need to hunt to feed their families. But most hunting now is recreational 娛樂性質的 and does not require keeping weapons at home. Hunters and their families would be much safer if the guns and ammunition 彈藥 were securely stored away 收好 from their homes and available only to those with licenses during the appropriate season. Target shooting 射靶心, likewise, does not require keeping guns at home. Finally, there’s the idea that citizens need guns so they can, if need be, oppose the force of a repressive government 對抗政府的鎮壓. Those who think there are current or likely future government actions in this country that would require armed resistance 武力抵抗 are living a paranoid fantasy 被害的幻想. The idea that armed American citizens could stand up to our military is beyond fantasy 比幻想還要離譜(意指根本不可能發生). Once we balance the potential harms and goods, most of us — including many current gun owners — don’t have a good reason to keep guns in their homes. This conclusion follows quite apart from whether we have a right to 有 權利去 own guns or what restrictions should be put on this right. Also, the conclusion derives from what makes sense for each of us as individuals and so doesn’t require support from contested interpretations of statistical data 統 計數字. I entirely realize that this line of thought 這樣的想法 will not convince the most impassioned 激情的/熱烈的 gun supporters, who see owning guns as fundamental to their way of life. But about 70 million Americans own guns and only about four million belong to the N.R.A., which must include a large number of the most impassioned. So there’s reason to think that many gun owners would be open to reconsidering the dangers their weapons pose. Also, almost 30 percent of gun owners don’t think that guns make a household safer,

and only 48 percent cite protection 表明是為了保護/捍衛 as their main reason for having a gun. It’s one thing to be horrified at gun violence. It’s something else to see it as a meaningful threat to your own existence. Our periodic shock at mass shootings 集體槍擊 and gang wars has little effect on 對…沒什麼效 our gun culture 擁槍自重文化 because most people don’t see guns as a particular threat to them. This is why opposition to gun violence has lacked the intense personal commitment 缺乏強烈的個人參與 of those who see guns as essential to their safety — or even their self-identity. We need to make it harder to buy guns, both for those with criminal intentions 犯罪意圖 and for law-abiding citizens 守法的民眾 who have no real need. But on the most basic level 就最…的層面/層次, much of our deadly violence 致死的暴力 occurs because we so often have guns readily available(槍枝)唾手可及. Their mere presence makes suicide, domestic violence and accidents more likely. The fewer people with guns at hand, the less gun violence. It’s easier to get people to see that they don’t want something than that they don’t have a right to it. 要人們去了解自己不需要什麼，比要他們 去了解自己沒有權利去擁有什麼來得容易 Focusing on the need rather than the right to own a gun, many may well conclude that for them a gun is more a danger than a protection. Those fewer guns will make for a safer country.

About the author 本文作者簡介 Gary Gutting is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and an editor of Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. He is the author of, most recently, “Thinking the Impossible: French Philosophy Since 1960″ and writes regularly for The Stone. He was recently interviewed in 3am magazine.