引用The Economist, America's tragedy
引用:
Cho Seung-hui does not stand for America's students, any more than Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did when they slaughtered 13 of their fellow high-school students at Columbine in 1999. Such disturbed people exist in every society. The difference, as everyone knows but no one in authority was saying this week, is that in America such individuals have easy access to weapons of terrible destructive power. Cho killed his victims with two guns, one of them a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol, a rapid-fire weapon that is available only to police in virtually every other country, but which can legally be bought over the counter in thousands of gun-shops in America. There are estimated to be some 240m guns in America, considerably more than there are adults, and around a third of them are handguns, easy to conceal and use. Had powerful guns not been available to him, the deranged Cho would have killed fewer people, and perhaps none at all.
美國的問題在槍枝太容易取得。
但立即實施管制又有執行面(太多槍枝在社會裡，人身安全)及政治面(eg. National Rifle Association (NRA))的困難。
就如本文所說的，"Cho" 只是一種每個社會都存在的人，
而且是以一定的機率存在(在流行病學裡每100人中有1-2人有精神障礙)。
台灣從沒發生過校園槍擊是因為沒有辦法拿張身分證和信用卡就買到槍(Cho 用$547在槍店刷卡買的，在網路上還可以用$379.99買把AK-47)。
理性的討論
希望不要因為Cho是亞洲人或在美國就引起太多偏見與歧視。
原文連結:
http://www.economist.com/opinion ... fm?story_id=9040170
