I teach history at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. On February 14, 2018, my school experienced one of the worst mass school shootings in American history. People want to know what we saw, what I felt. I don't remember everything, but I do remember I went into crisis mode, mother mode. There was no emotion. I lined up the kids, I held up a sign so they could follow me through the hall, just like a fire drill. I heard shots from one direction. Luckily, we were already moving in the opposite direction.
我是歷史老師, 在瑪喬裡·斯通曼·道格拉斯中學教書。 2018 年 2 月 14 日, 我的學校發生了美國史上最嚴重的 大規模校園槍擊事件之一。 大家想知道我們看見了什麼, 我的感受。 我不記得每一件事, 但我確實記得我啟動了 我的危機模式, 母親模式。 我沒有情緒, 我要孩子們排好隊, 我舉著一個牌子, 讓他們跟著我穿越大廳, 就像消防演習一樣。 我聽到某個方向傳來槍聲。 很幸運地,我們正朝反方向移動。
We made it outside. We made it to safety. I called my mother. "I'm OK." I called my husband. "I'm OK." Then my daughter called, my voice cracked, and I knew I had to pull myself together. I sat alone in my thoughts, worried about my colleagues and students. We sat there, only understanding that somehow, Valentine's Day -- We sat there, only understanding that somehow, Valentine's Day had ended up with our babies dead, and we didn't know what to do next.
我們成功地逃到了外面。 我們成功到了安全的地方。 我打電話給我母親。 「我沒事。」 我打電話給我先生。 「我沒事。」 我女兒打電話來,我的聲音變啞了, 我知道我得振作起來。 我獨坐在那心裡想著、 擔心著我的同事和學生們。 我們坐在那裡,只知道 不知怎麼的,情人節── 我們坐在那裡,只知道 不知怎麼的,情人節的收場 竟是葬送了我們寶貝們的生命, 我們不知道接下來該怎麼辦。
It's been two months, and every day I still hear the echoes of the "pop, pop" sound of the gunfire. I remember the fearful faces of my students when we knew it wasn't a drill. Still, there's no constant emotion, except for flashes of pain, grief and anger triggered by the news, or an insensitive comment, or just silence.
已經兩個月了, 每天,我都還會聽到槍聲 「砰,砰」的回音。 我記得當我們知道那不是演習時, 學生臉上驚恐的表情。 仍然,我沒有持續性的情緒, 除了一陣陣的痛苦、悲慟和憤怒, 這些被新聞、 白目的評論、 或只是沉默而觸發閃現的情緒。
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School lost 17 precious lives on that horrible day. After, students asked us, the adults the hardest question: How can we stop the senseless violence? This was the most difficult question I've been asked. But it was not the first time I've been humbled by a student's question.
在那恐怖的一天,瑪喬裡· 斯通曼·道格拉斯中學 失去了 17 條寶貴的生命。 事後,學生問我們大人們 最困難的問題: 我們如何能阻止無謂的暴力? 這是我被問過最困難的問題。 但那並不是我第一次 無法招架學生的問題。
I've been teaching in the public schools for 33 years, so I know you have to admit what you don't know before you can share what you do know. In fact, there's a method to being an engaged student, teacher, citizen. First, listen closely to the person asking you a question. Second, admit your vulnerability. Admit what you don't know. Third, do your homework. Fourth, humbly share your knowledge.
我在公立學校已經教了 33 年, 所以我知道,你得要 先承認你不知道什麼, 然後你才能分享你所知道的。 事實上,有個方法可讓我們 成為一個積極參與的學生、 老師、公民。 首先,仔細傾聽問你問題的人。 第二,承認你的弱點。 承認你不知道什麼。 第三,做好你的功課。 第四,謙遜地分享你的知識。
I know all about this process. My students ask really thoughtful questions all the time. They're eager to learn, and sometimes they're eager to prove their smarts. And believe me, they know when I have no idea of the answer, so in those instances, I say to them, "That's a great question. Let me research that and get back to you."
我很清楚這個流程。 我的學生總是會問 很深思熟慮的問題。 他們很渴望學習, 有時,他們很渴望證明自己很聰明。 相信我,他們清楚知道 我是否無法給出答案, 當遇到這個情形時,我會對他們說: 「那是個好問題。 讓我研究一下再回覆你。」
So when my students asked, "How do we stop this senseless violence?" I listened, and then I admitted, "I don't know." And like I always do when I don't know the answer to one of my questions, I began doing my homework. And as a history teacher, I knew I needed to start with the Second Amendment and the NRA.
所以,當我的學生問: 「我們如何能阻止無謂的暴力?」 我傾聽, 接著,我承認: 「我不知道。」 我就做了平常我不知道 問題的答案時會做的事, 我開始做功課。 身為歷史老師, 我知道我得先從憲法第二修正案 和美國全國步槍協會開始著手。
In case it's been a while since you've been sitting in a history class, here is what the Second Amendment actually says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Meaning, the federal government could not infringe on the rights of citizens to participate in well-regulated militias. The Second Amendment was ratified 226 years ago. It was written in a time before the federal government's armed forces were among the most powerful in the world and when state militias were viewed as necessary to protect the states.
給已經很久沒有坐在 歷史課教室裡的人, 憲法第二修正案 說的是: 「紀律良好的民兵部隊 乃保障自由國家的安全所必需, 故人民持有和攜帶武器的權利 不得予以侵犯。」 意思是,聯邦政府無法 侵犯公民的權利, 公民有權去參與 紀律良好的民兵部隊。 憲法第二修正案是在 226 年前被批准的。 制訂它的時候,聯邦政府的武裝部隊 還不在世界最強大部隊之列, 那時國家的民兵部隊被視為是 保衛國家所必要的。
Fast-forward 80 years, to 1871. The American Civil War had ended a few years prior, but a couple of Union officers had witnessed some pretty shoddy marksmanship on the battlefield. So in an attempt to prepare their men for any future conflicts, they founded the National Rifle Association to promote rifle practice.
快轉 80 年到 1871 年。 美國內戰在前幾年結束了, 但有幾位北方聯邦的軍官 在戰場上目擊了 一些十分拙劣的槍法。 所以,為了要讓他們的手下 能為未來衝突做好準備, 他們成立了美國全國步槍協會 (以下簡稱 NRA) 來推動步槍射擊練習。
In short, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that our newly formed and fragile country had access to organized state militias. And the NRA's original mission was to ensure future soldiers had good aim.
簡言之,制訂憲法第二修正案的目的 是要確保我們新成立的脆弱國家 能夠使用有組織的國家民兵部隊。 而 NRA 原本的任務是要確保 未來士兵的槍法能更準確。
Someone could teach an entire course on how the next 150 years influenced the gun regulation conversations we're having in the United States and our interpretation of the Second Amendment. Almost every pivotal moment in our nation's history in one way or another influenced how we as a people manufacture, debate, regulate and feel about guns. A lot of change has occurred. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled for the first time the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Within the home.
我們可以花一整堂課的時間來談 接下來的 150 年如何 影響我們美國內部 槍枝規定的談話, 以及我們對憲法第二修正案的詮釋。 在我們國家歷史上, 幾乎每一個關鍵時刻, 都以某種方式 影響了我們這個民族 製造、辯論、規範槍枝, 以及對槍枝的感受。 很多改變發生了。 事實上,一直到 2008 年, 最高法庭才第一次裁決 憲法第二修正案要保護 個人持有槍枝的權利, 即使與民兵隊伍服勤無關, 以及該槍枝用於 傳統上合法目的的權利, 比如在家中的自我防衛。 在家中。
This change over time is striking to me, because it reminds us that the interpretation of the Second Amendment and cultural attitudes about guns have changed over time. Which gives me hope they could change again.
這種隨著時間而發生的 改變,讓我很震驚, 因為它提醒我們, 憲法第二修正案的詮釋 以及關於槍枝的文化態度 都已隨著時間改變了。 這讓我感到有希望, 它們還可能再改變。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
It's an incredibly complex and dynamic history lesson, but it's not the lesson I'm here to teach today, because we don't have time. I'm not talking about time, the time that I have here to stand and speak. I'm talking about the fact we don't have time to lose. According to the CDC, over the last five years, on average, each day 96 people are killed by guns in the United States, and if we don't figure out how to answer my students' question soon, one of us could be next.
這是一堂極複雜且動態的歷史課, 但我今天來這裡並不是要教這堂課, 因為我們沒有時間。 我並不是意指 我站在這裡演說的時間。 我的意思是,我們實際上 真的不能再浪費時間了。 根據美國疾病管制與預防中心的資訊, 在過去五年間, 在美國,平均每天有 96 人遭到槍殺, 如果我們不盡快去思考 要如何回答我學生提出的問題, 我們當中就有人會是下一個受害者。
So, if the question is, how do we stop this senseless violence, the best way I can think to answer is to look at multiple choice. You remember multiple-choice questions in high school, don't you? Let's start.
所以,如果問題是: 我們如何能阻止無謂的暴力? 我能想出最好的回答方式, 就是去探討不同的選項。 各位還記得高中時做的選擇題吧? 我們開始吧。
Choice A: this will end when we hold gun manufacturers responsible for the deadliness of their products. It might surprise you to learn that we've actually thought about this before. Between 1998 and 2000, 30 counties and cities sued gun manufacturers, saying they should make their products safer and do a better job of tracking where their products are sold. In response, manufacturers argued that they had no direct liability for how their products were used. They said the stores who sold the guns and the owners who bought them were responsible should anything bad happen. In response to this and many other lawsuits, the NRA lobbied for the passage of the PLCAA, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA passed with bipartisan support in 2005 and entrusts gun manufacturers to design guns safely, stores to sell those guns responsibly and someone to own and use the gun responsibly. And so when 17 students and faculty die at my school, no one in this chain will assume responsibility.
選項 A:如果我們要求 槍枝製造商為它們的產品 所造成的致命結果負責, 這情況就會終止。 各位如果知道我們以前的確想過 這個點子,可能會覺得很驚訝。 在 1998 年到 2000 年間, 有 30 個郡和城市控告槍枝製造商, 認為它們應該要讓產品更安全, 對售出產品的流向做出更好的管控。 製造商的回應是主張 它們對產品應如何被使用, 沒有直接負責的義務。 它們說,銷售槍枝的店家 以及購買槍枝的持有人 要為任何發生的悲劇負責。 美國全國步槍協會對此 以及許多其他訴訟的回應, 是去遊說通過 PLCAA, 即合法槍械買賣保護法。 在 2005 年,PLCAA 在兩黨的支持下通過了, 它相信槍枝製造商 會用安全的方式來設計槍枝, 店家會具責任感地銷售槍枝 且槍枝的持有和使用人 會秉持著負責的態度。 所以,當我的學校有 17 名 學生和教職員喪命時, 在這條連鎖鏈中, 沒有人會承擔起責任。
Let's take a look at another option, Choice B: this will end when we hold ourselves accountable and regulate the estimated 300 million guns available in America. Yes, voting is one of the best ways to take personal responsibility for gun violence. Making sure that our lawmakers are willing to pass commonsense gun reform is one of the most effective ways to get those 300 million guns under control. And also, gun owners can take personal initiative. If you own a gun, ask yourself: Do I have an extra gun I don't need? Could it fall into the wrong hands? Have I attended the latest training? Perhaps as a gun owner, you should also ask whether you have been taking care of your mental health? When it comes to gun violence, the mental health argument falls flat if we don't acknowledge our own personal vulnerabilities to mental illness. One in six Americans will struggle with mental illness. If we own a gun, we should be rigorously engaged in the upkeep of our emotional well-being so we don't pull a trigger in times of illness. Otherwise, we should seriously ask ourselves whether we really have the time and attention to own a gun. Perhaps for some of us it's time to lay down our arms.
我們再來看另一個選項。 選項 B: 這情況將會終止, 只要我們能自己負責 並管制在美國市面流通的 約三億把槍枝。 是的,為槍枝暴力負起個人責任, 投票是最好的方式之一。 確保我們的立法者 願意通過常識性的槍枝改革, 就是管制三億把槍枝 最有效的方式之一。 此外,槍枝持有者能具自主決斷力, 如果你持有一把槍, 問問你自己: 我是否有多一把不必要的槍? 有沒有可能落入非法使用者手中? 我有沒有去參加最近的訓練? 也許,身為槍枝持有者, 你也應該要問 你有沒有好好照顧你的心理健康? 談到槍枝暴力時, 如果我們不承認自己 在面對心理疾病時的脆弱, 那麼心理健康論點 就會徹底失敗。 六個美國人中就有一個 為心理疾病所苦。 如果我們持有槍枝, 我們應該要嚴格做到 維護我們的情緒健康, 這樣我們才不會 在發病的時候扣下扳機。 否則,我們應該認真問問自己, 我們是否真的有足夠的時間 和心力去持有一把槍? 也許,對我們一些人而言, 該是卸下武裝的時候了。
Then we have Choice C: this will end when we do a better job of taking care of each other. Many social issues affect why people buy and use guns. Sixty-two percent of US gun fatalities between 2012 and 2016 were suicides, yet we call people maniacs and psychos, shaming them. We are creating barriers for people that need help. Why are we embarrassing each other? Let's make it easier, not harder, for people to access better mental health care. What else? Sexism, racism and poverty affect gun ownership and gun-related fatalities. On average, it's estimated that 50 women were fatally shot each month between 2010 and 2014 due to domestic violence, and women are still dying in their homes. Let's empower women and give our young boys a chance to learn how to work out their conflicts and emotions with words, not weapons. And the "Washington Post" reported that last year, nearly 1,000 people were fatally wounded by on-duty police officers. Talk to Black Lives Matter and the police union about that. We need to tackle this.
接著,我們還有選項 C: 當我們能把彼此照顧得更好時, 這情況就會終止。 有許多社會議題會影響到 大家為什麼要購買和使用槍枝。 2012 年到 2016 年間, 62% 的槍枝死亡事故都是自殺, 但,我們卻說別人是瘋子、 神經病並引以為恥。 我們對於需要協助的人, 築起了高牆。 我們為什麼要為難彼此呢? 要讓大家更容易、而非更困難地 去獲取更好的心理健康照護。 還有什麼?性別偏見、種族歧視和 貧窮,都會影響到擁槍者的屬性 以及相關的槍擊死亡事故。 在 2010 年到 2014 年, 平均來說,估計每個月 有 50 位女性受到致命槍擊, 原因都是家庭暴力, 女性仍然會在她們的家中喪命。 我們賦權給女性吧, 也給我們的年輕男孩一個機會 去學習如何用語言文字,而非槍枝, 來處理他們的衝突和情緒。 根據華盛頓郵報報導, 去年有接近一千人 受到執勤警察的致命傷害。 跟「黑人的命也是命」及 警察公會談談這件事。 我們得要處理這個問題。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
At the end of the day, perhaps people won't feel the need to buy and use a gun when they all equally feel safe, healthy, respected and cared for.
到頭來, 也許大家將覺得不再需要 購買和使用槍枝, 當他們都能彼此感受到安全、 健康、受尊重和被照顧。
All right, discussion time is over. It's now time to answer the question. How do we stop this senseless violence? Is it Choice A, Choice B, Choice C? Now, I know what you're all thinking. You remember that multiple-choice questions almost never end with just three possibilities. There's always that fourth, Choice D: all of the above. Maybe that's the answer here. Or maybe "all of the above" is too easy, and this is not an easy problem. It requires deep analytical thinking by all of us. So instead, I'm asking you to do your homework, write your own Choice D using supporting detail. And if you're not sure where to start, look to my students as role models. They are armed with incredible communication skills and a sense of citizenship that I find so inspiring.
好,討論時間結束。 該是回答問題的時候了。 我們如何能阻止無謂的暴力? 是選項 A 嗎? 選項 B? 選項 C? 我知道各位在想什麼。 你們記得,選擇題幾乎 從來都不是只有三個可能性。 總是會有第四個選項 D:以上皆是。 也許那就是這題的答案。 或許「以上皆是」太簡單了, 而這個問題並不是個簡單的問題。 它需要我們所有人 都做深入的分析性思考。 所以,我要請各位去做你們的功課, 用可佐證的細節, 寫下你們自己的選項 D。 如果你們不知道從何開始, 把我的學生當作典範。 他們具有很棒的溝通技能, 還有公民意識, 我覺得非常鼓舞人心。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
These are public school kids engaged in the issue of gun regulation, and their endeavor has moved our hearts. And they shouldn't have to do this on their own. They're asking you, they're asking all of us, to get involved. This isn't a spectator sport.
這些是公立學校的孩子 在參與槍枝管制的議題, 他們的努力感動了我們。 他們不應該獨自做這件事的。 他們在邀請各位, 他們邀請我們所有的人, 一起參與, 這並不是吸引大量觀眾的體育運動。
So what's the right answer? I don't know. Listen, I'm no gun control expert. I teach the humanities. To be human is to learn, and to be part of a civilization is to share your knowledge. This kind of honest, brave and sincere engagement is what I ask of my students, what I expect of myself as a teacher and what I demand of you now. Every one of you needs to do your homework. And then what? Humbly share your knowledge with each other. Please teach your family, teach your community, your city council, your state legislature. Teach Congress a lesson.
所以,正確的答案是什麼? 我不知道。聽著, 我不是槍枝控制專家。 我教人文科學。 做人就是要學習, 要成為文明的一部分, 就是要分享你的知識。 這種誠實、勇敢和真誠的投入, 是我希望我學生做到的, 我期望我這個老師能做到的, 以及我現在請求各位做到的。 在座每個人都需要做自己的功課。 接下來呢? 謙遜地分享彼此的知識。 請教導你的家人, 教導你的社區、 你的市議會、你的州立法機關。 教導國會一堂課。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Thank you. Thank you.
謝謝。謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)