Gun Control and Civil Liberty

Published in Sin Chew
(Malaysia ) on 25 January 2011
by 陸秀琴 Lu Xiu Qing (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by NG AI FERN . Edited by Jessica Boesl.
After the shooting incident of Arizona Congresswoman Giffords earlier this month, when she was shot through her head and almost lost her life, two more shooting incidents happened in Washington state and Michigan state, respectively claiming three lives and injuring six people. Other than the two perpetrators in both incidents, another innocent civilian was killed.

A series of vicious shootings has again brought up the debate on gun control — a long-forgotten issue in American society.

The opposition calls on the government to regulate gun ownership to prevent innocent people from being killed in similar incidents. The supporters, on the other hand, quote deteriorating public orders and argue that members of the public need guns more than ever in order to defend themselves.

The United States is the world’s first and only country in which all the people are armed. In an old book about U.S. guns history, published in 1975, it says: “The gun is a symbol of order and protectionism.” Hence, guns to Americans are not merely a tool, but also a civil right. This is why the controversy over gun control has never stopped for the past 200 years.

In fact, other than civil liberties, gun control involves a huge interest group that manipulates from behind. And that is why the hot issue of gun control will, in the end, be sidelined each time. Chicago had passed a law to ban guns, but it was ultimately overturned and abolished by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

Because of this, the incidents and shootings keep recurring, claiming the lives of innocent people. According to the statistics, the number of Americans shot to death from 1979 to 1997 has exceeded the total number of soldiers who have died in overseas wars since U.S. independence. The figure clearly shows the impact of gun shots on social stability in the U.S.

Of course, those who support or are against gun control have their own reasons and arguments. However, with the increased occurrence of gun shootings, shouldn’t Americans put aside their prejudices and re-examine the whole situation? Is civil liberty more important, or personal security?


陸秀琴‧禁鎗與公民自由
繼美國亞利桑那州女眾議員吉福茲本月初遭鎗擊,導致頭部中彈、性命垂危後,美國華盛頓州和米歇根州日前分別又再傳出鎗響,釀成3死6傷的慘劇;除了兩宗案件的兇手外,死者還包括一名無辜民眾。
一連串的惡性鎗擊事件再度激起美國社會對鎗支管制的辯論,也讓這個沉寂多時的課題再次浮上台面。反對派紛紛藉此呼吁政府廢除合法擁鎗,避免再有無辜民眾平白送命;但支持者卻以治安敗壞為由,堅稱民眾比以前更需要鎗支來自衛。
美國是全球首個、也是唯一一個全民持鎗的國家。早在1975年出版的《美國鎗史》一書便寫道:“鎗支是秩序的象徵和保守主義的圖騰”,可見鎗支對於美國人來說,不只是一種工具,也代表了公民權利。這也是為何有關鎗支管制的爭議200多年來都未曾停止。
鎗支管制除了涉及公民自由外,其實背後還有龐大的利益集團暗中操縱,因此每每炒得沸騰的“禁鎗”課題,最後往往都會被淡化,至到淡出公眾視線為止。芝加哥市此前通過的禁鎗令,最終也因為被最高法院裁定違憲而被廢除。
正因為如此,民眾只能在一次次鎗擊事件中輪迴,無奈地看著無辜的人命被奪走。統計顯示,在1979至1997年期間,美國國內死於鎗枝的人,已超過美國獨立以來所有死於海外戰爭的士兵人數;這項數據對社會穩定的影響顯而易見。
無可否認,鎗支管制的支持與反對者都各有其理由充份的論述。但隨著鎗擊案的發生越來越頻密,美國民眾是否也應該放下成見,重新審視公民自由與人身安全,究竟孰重孰輕?

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Donald Trump’s Failure

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

El Salvador: The Game of Chess between the US and Venezuela Continues

Poland: Marek Kutarba: Donald Trump Makes Promises to Karol Nawrocki. But Did He Run Them by Putin?

Sri Lanka: Qatar under Attack: Is US Still a Reliable Ally?

Topics

Sri Lanka: Qatar under Attack: Is US Still a Reliable Ally?

Taiwan: Trump’s Talk of Legality Is a Joke

Austria: The US Courts Are the Last Bastion of Resistance

       

Poland: Marek Kutarba: Donald Trump Makes Promises to Karol Nawrocki. But Did He Run Them by Putin?

El Salvador: The Game of Chess between the US and Venezuela Continues

Austria: Donald Is Disappointed in Vladimir

Austria: If This Is Madness, There is a Method to It

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

Related Articles

Malaysia: A Fresh Look at the US

Malaysia: Does the Fed’s Interest Rate Cut Mean the US Has Lost and China Has Won?

Malaysia: A New Cold War in a Changing World

Malaysia: More Nations Emulating South Africa

Malaysia: Western Double Standards