« 昨年(2015年) 観た映画。 | トップページ | 歴代 ボンド・カーを並べてみた。 »

2016年1月 9日 (土)


2015/12/5付け ‘The New York Times’の一面に ‘End the Gun Epidemic in America’  (米国における銃異常蔓延の終焉)と題する社説(Opnion Page by Editorial Board)が掲載されました。



It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.


All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

カリフォルニアにおける 先日の,何の罪もない人々の虐殺に対して,すべての良識ある人々は,悲しみと正義の憤りを感じている。

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.


It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.


Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.


But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

更に悪いことに,政治家は銃市場をつくることによって将来,殺人者になる可能性がある者をけしかけ,そして,有権者は これらの政治家が仕事を続けることを許している。
銃の拡散を止めることについて話すのを止めて しばらく経つ,かと言って,銃の数は減ってないし,武器と弾薬の産業は存続したままである。(下線部訳,自信なし。)

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.


Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

明確で効果的な方法で,これらの銃を特定することは可能であり,これらの武器の所有者は,同胞のために それらを放棄することが求められる。

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

我が国が,良識を 何とか保っていることを示すのに,大統領選挙期間ほど適した時期はないのではないか?



他方,ドナルド・トランプ氏は 「もっと多くの米国市民が銃を持てば,オレゴン州の大学で10月に発生したような銃乱射事件の犠牲者を減らすことができるかもしれない。銃を持つ人の数が増えれば防御力が上がるだろう。正しい人間が銃を持つことになるのだから。」 と述べたそうです。ほとんど西部劇の世界です。事件を起こしているのも米国市民です。
正しい人間が銃を持つのに比例して 正しくない人間も銃を持つことになります。

| |

« 昨年(2015年) 観た映画。 | トップページ | 歴代 ボンド・カーを並べてみた。 »






« 昨年(2015年) 観た映画。 | トップページ | 歴代 ボンド・カーを並べてみた。 »