好英语网假如世上所有的枪支都消失，一切会如何？
On 24 March 2018, more than two million people took to the streets in the US to protest gun violence. What the solution to that problem looks like depends on who you ask. Some wish to repeal citizens’ rights to bear arms, while others want to arm even more people. Most Americans have opinions that fall somewhere in between.
2018年3月24日，美国两百多万人走上街头游行反对枪支暴力。关于枪支管理的解决方案，可能会千人千面，答案各不相同。有一部分人希望废除公民持枪权，另外一些人则认为应全民持枪。而大部分美国人的观点介于两者之间。
But what would happen if that debate was suddenly and irrevocably put to rest – because there were no guns at all? What if all firearms in the world suddenly disappeared with no way to get them back?
可是假设世上再也没有枪了，地球上所有的枪都瞬间消失且再也不可能复得，上述的一切争辩也就戛然而止了，世界将会如何？
Guns obviously cannot just magically vanish. But this thought experiment allows us to remove politics from the equation and rationally consider what we could gain – and lose – should we ever actually decide to have fewer guns around.
枪自然不可能变魔术般瞬间消失。但这种思维实验能让我们将政治因素的砝码从考量的天秤上拿掉，而更加理性地思考：如果枪支真的能够少一些，那人类将得到什么，又将失去什么。
The most obvious effect of such a disappearance is simple: no gun deaths. Approximately 500,000 people around the world are killed by guns each year. In terms of developed countries, the biggest losses are in the US, where citizens own 300 to 350 million guns in total. There, gun homicide rates are more than 25 times higher than the combined rate of other high-income nations.
枪消失后最显然的变化是枪击致死事件将不再发生。每年，大约有五十万人死于枪杀。在发达国家中，因枪致死人数最多的是美国。在美国，目前全国公民手里持有大约3到3.5亿把枪。美国枪杀案发生的比例比其他高收入各国的比例加总要高出二十五倍。
“About 100 people in this country die every day as a result of a gunshot,” says Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioural science at Duke University School of Medicine in North Carolina. “If you take away the guns, lots and lots of those lives will be saved.”
美国北卡莱罗纳州的杜克大学医学院（Duke University School of Medicine in North Carolina）精神与行为学教授斯万森（Jeffrey Swanson）说：“在美国，每天有百余人死于枪下。如果世上没有枪，这些人就不会死。”
Ranking at the top of that list would be lives otherwise lost to suicide. Around 60% of the 175,700 US firearm deaths from 2012 to 2016 were suicides, and half of the 44,000 Americans who killed themselves in 2015 used a gun.
因枪致死案件中比例最高的当属持枪自杀。2012年至2016年间发生在美国的十七万五千七百多起枪击死亡案件中有大约六成是自杀。美国2015年发生的四万四千多起自杀案例中有一半人使用了枪支。
More than 80% of attempted suicides with a gun end in death. “Unfortunately, the chances of survival are very low,” says criminologist and sociologist Tom Gabor, author of Confronting Gun Violence in America.
而其中使用枪支自杀的的人中有超过八成的人最终不治。“生还率非常低”，犯罪学家、社会学家加伯（Tom Gabor）这样说道。他著有《抗击美国枪支暴力》（Confronting Gun Violence in America）一书。
What’s more, most survivors of suicide attempts never go on to take their own life.
而绝大部分自杀生还者获救后不会再有自杀的念头。
“Some folks are determined to die and will find another way to do it. But others are impulsive one-timers who’d go on to have very happy and productive lives,” says Ted Miller, a principal research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. “That’s especially true of a lot of kids.”
美国太平洋研究与评估学院（Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation， PIRE）首席研究员米勒（Ted Miller）说：“有些人死意堅定，因此之后可能会选择其他方式来自我了断。但大部分人可能都是一时冲动，他们此后还是能够享受快乐而丰盛的生活。对很多未成年人来说，更是如此。”
Firearm bans
澳大利亚禁枪令
Australia provides compelling real-world evidence that fewer available guns correlates with a significant reduction in deaths – by suicide, and also by gun violence. In 1996, Martin Bryant opened fire on visitors at Port Arthur Historic Site in Tasmania, killing 35 people and injuring 23. For Australians, that tragedy marked a turning point. People of all political slants supported a ban against semi-automatic shotguns and rifles. In a matter of days, new legislation was enacted. The government purchased newly banned firearms at fair market value and then destroyed them, reducing Australia’s civilian gun stockpile by 30%.
澳大利亚近年成功的枪支管制经验就有力地说明了：减少枪支数量能够大幅降低因自杀和枪支暴力所导致的死亡人数。1996年，澳大利亚杀人犯布莱恩特（Martin John Bryant）在塔斯曼尼亚州的旅游胜地亚瑟港历史遗址持枪乱射，杀害了35名游客，并致23人重伤。对澳大利亚国民而言，这场悲剧是一个转折点。当时不论持有何种政治立场的人都支持取缔半自动步枪、来福枪等。不日，新的枪支管理法律就开始执行。澳大利亚政府用合理的市价从民间回购该类枪械并予以销毁，此举有效地将澳大利亚民间枪械的数量减少了三成。
Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the Sydney School of Public Health, argues that the data shows that the impact of the gun legislation on deaths has been significant. That is the case true even if you take into account other possible explanations and pre-existing declines in suicide and homicide rates. “The result of that was the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia statistically reduced by more than 50%, and in the past 22 years has shown no sign of creeping up again,” he says.
悉尼公共卫生学院（Sydney School of Public Health）的客座副教授阿尔佩斯（Philip Alpers）认为，枪支管理相关法律更改后带来的效果是显著的，即或考虑到其他因素，并将惨案发生前自杀和他杀下降数字算计在内，这个结论也仍然是千真万确的。他说，“数据说明，之后澳大利亚因枪身故的风险降低了50%以上，而且自1995年以来的23年内，枪支死亡风险数字也没有任何上升的迹象。”
Suicide was a big part of that drop: up to 80% of gun suicides no longer happened. “Suicide went down and surprised the hell out of us,” Alpers says. “Even more so, we were delighted to discover that the displacement of lethal methods did not occur. In other words, there is no evidence that those intending to commit suicide or homicide simply moved on to another weapon.”
自杀人数的骤降是上述枪支死亡风险降低的首要原因，持枪自杀案件的数量降低了80%。阿尔佩斯补充说，“自杀率下降了，这令我们喜出望外。而且更值得高兴的是，我们没有发现取代枪支的其他致命方式出现，换句话说，没有资料表明那些原本企图用枪支自杀或杀人的人，选择了其他的杀人武器。”
It wasn’t just suicides. The rate of gun homicides in Australia was also slashed by more than half following the ban. And furthermore, while critics in the US often argue that murderers would just find another way to kill their victims, that didn’t happen in Australia. Instead, non-gun homicides remained roughly the same – meaning a drop in murders overall. “Murderers simply do not choose another weapon,” Alpers says.
从数据上看，禁令出台后，不仅仅是自杀率得以降低，澳大利亚的枪械杀人案件的数量也骤降至先前的二分之一不到。尽管有一些美国的评论家认为这些杀人凶手可能会选择其他的方式来杀害他人，但事实上在澳大利亚，情况并非如此。非枪械杀人案件的案发比例与之前比变化不大——这就意味着总体来说，杀人案发生的概率降低了。阿尔佩斯说：“说明这些凶手并没有选择其他武器。”
This likely especially applies to domestic abusers. A woman whose violent partner has access to a gun is five to eight times more likely to be killed. If guns disappeared, partners who lash out in a moment of anger are much less likely to inflict fatal damage – and are perhaps less likely to become violent at all. Though controversial, some research indicates that the mere presence of a gun makes men behave more aggressively, a phenomenon called “the weapons effect”.
类似情况特别适用于家庭暴力案。相较于无枪的施暴者，有枪的家庭施暴者的伴侣死亡概率要高出五至八倍。如果世上没有枪，那些施暴者在盛怒之下极少会造成伴侣的致命伤害，甚至可能没有那么暴力。尽管有争议性，但一些研究表明，现场有枪，施暴者就会变得更具攻击性。这种现象被称为“武器效应”。
Should guns disappear, the US – where 50 women are shot to death by partners each month – likely would experience a similar decline in death as Australia.
美国平均每月有50名女性因为家庭暴力丧生于枪下，如果世上没有枪，她们或许能幸免于难，美国的死亡率可能会像澳大利亚一样大幅下降。
The US is unexceptional in its overall level of most types of crime: it’s about average when compared to the UK, Western Europe, Japan and other developed nations.When it comes to homicides, however, the US rate is about four times higher. That’s because it’s much more likely a gun rather than another type of weapon will be used in an assault in the US, which increases the risk of death by a factor of seven.
从大多数犯罪类形的总体来看，美国并不独特，犯罪率与其他发达国家（如英国、西欧各国、日本等）出入不大。但唯独在凶杀罪方面，美国的犯罪率要高出四倍左右。这是因为在美国，凶杀案件中枪支是使用最多的凶杀武器，这无形之中就将受害人的死亡率提升了七倍。
“Think of two immature, angry, impulsive and intoxicated young men in the UK who come out of a pub and get into an argument,” Swanson says. “Someone’s going to get a black eye or bloody nose.”
斯万森教授说“如果在英国，两个心性不成熟、愤怒、冲动又酒醉的男性从酒吧出来，因争执发怒而扭打在一起，一般情况下可能会一个被打得鼻子青，一个被打得眼睛肿。”
“But in our country [the US],” he says, “it’s statistically more likely one of those men will have a hand gun, and you’re going to get a dead body.”
“但如果是在美国，从现有统计数据来看，至少其中一人可能有枪在手，那么结局可能是一具死尸倒地。”
That difference boils down to what experts refer to as the ‘weapons instrumentality effect’: the fact that the weapon used has an effect on the outcome, says Robert Spitzer, a political science professor at the State University of New York College at Cortland. “There’s no weapon more efficient at killing people than a gun.”
这种差异可以归结为专家所指出的“武器工具效应”( weapons instrumentality effect)，即使用武器会影响最终结果。纽约州立大学科特兰分校（State University of New York College at Cortland, SUNY Cortland）政治学教授斯皮策（Robert Spitzer）说：“没有任何武器比枪支更能有效地致人于死地。”
As in Australia, real-world evidence from the US also shows that fewer guns result in fewer deaths and injuries. A 2017 study revealed that firearm homicide rates are lower in US states with stricter gun laws, while a 2014 analysis of all inpatient minors admitted to hospitals for trauma linked tighter firearm control to greater safety for children.
与澳大利亚的情形相似，美国也有确实数据表明持有枪支越少，伤亡也越少。2017年的一项研究显示，枪支管理法律较严格的州，枪支杀人罪案的发生率也较低。2014年一项针对因创伤住院的未成年病人的分析也表明，枪支管控越严格，儿童的安全系数则越高。
Guns also make interactions with the police deadlier. While the probability of an arrest causing injuries is the same in the US, British Columbia and Western Australia, research shows that “almost no one dies during an arrest in Australia or Canada,” Miller says – even though police in all three countries carry guns.
枪支同样也会导致警民互动时发生死亡的概率升高。从数据上看，虽然美国与加拿大卑诗省和澳大利亚西澳地区两地的警察逮捕犯人致伤的比例相当，但据研究员米勒说，研究表明，“澳大利亚、美国与加拿大三国的警察都是持枪执法，但在澳大利亚、加拿大等地区，警察逮捕疑犯时一般无人丧生。”
In the US, however, nearly 1,000 citizens are annually killed by police. Of course, the reasons for officer-involved violence are complex and often involve racial bias against non-white citizens, including even among African-American police themselves. Still, many of those deaths would likely be prevented were guns not involved.
而在美国，每年有近1000人死于警察枪下。当然，警民间发生暴力冲突的原因很复杂，经常涉及对非白人公民的种族歧视等问题（甚至包括非洲裔警察自己内部的种族歧视）。但无论如何，如果没有枪，很多类似情况下的非正常死亡都是可以避免的。
“A lot of police brutality is really just because of police who themselves are in fear that they might get shot,” Miller says. “When police must guard against a gun during every stop, interactions become more lethal.”
米勒说：“很多警察之所以‘残暴’，其实是因为他们很担心自己被对方射杀。他们每次拦下嫌犯时，都要提防对方是否有枪，这也使得警民冲突会致命。”
No more guns would likewise mean safer conditions for police, Miller adds. More than half of the people killed by police in 2016 were armed, and many were exchanging fire with officers when they were shot.
米勒补充说道，如果公民不能持枪，警察会感觉安全系数更高。2016年的数据表明，超过一半被警察击毙的人都持有枪械，他们中很多是因为跟警察交火才会中枪丧生。
Deadly mass attacks by domestic terrorists also would decline. A 2017 study of more than 2,800 attacks in the US, Canada, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand revealed that guns are by far the most lethal way to kill as many people as possible – even more than explosives or vehicular strikes. Guns were used in just 10% of attacks but accounted for 55% of deaths. In the US, terrorists also prefer guns: out of 16 lethal terrorism-associated attacks since 9/11, all but two involved firearms.
如果世上没有枪，境内恐怖分子大规模袭击数量也会减少。据2017年的一项研究，在美国、加拿大、西欧地区、澳大利亚和纽西兰等国家和地区发生的超过2800多起的恐怖袭击中，枪支是所有袭击案中致死人数最多的武器，甚至高于炸弹袭击、利用车辆袭击等方式。在这些恐怖袭击中，仅有一成袭击是使用枪支，但却导致了五成以上（55%）的遇难者死亡。在美国，恐怖分子更偏好使用枪支：自2001年911事件以来发生的16起造成人命伤亡的恐怖袭击中，仅两宗未使用枪支。
“Even building basic stuff like a pipe bomb is hard,” says Risa Brooks, a professor of political science at Marquette University in Wisconsin. “By making it more difficult to get access to a lethal weapon, you’re making it harder for terrorists to engage in violence.”
美国威斯康星州马凯特大学（Marquette University in Wisconsin）的政治学教授布鲁克斯（Risa Brooks）说“即便是制作最简单的管式炸弹也有一定的技术难度。如果难以获得致命性武器，恐怖分子也就难以发动暴力恐怖袭击。”
Improbable peace
和平看似渺茫
History shows that violence is ingrained in human nature, however, and guns are by no means a prerequisite for conflict. “Think of the Rwandan genocide,” says David Yamane, a professor of sociology at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. “There was tremendous violence, much without firearms.”
历史表明，暴力是根植在人性中的。不过枪并不是冲突爆发的先决条件。北卡罗来纳州维克森林大学（Wake Forest University in North Carolina）的社会学教授亚马内（David Yamane）说：“想想卢旺达大屠杀事件，尽管枪支用得不多，暴力与杀戮却无穷无尽。”
Even when we take the thought experiment to its extreme and imagine all guns disappearing off the face of the Earth, war and civil strife would continue. But rather than revert to more primitive weaponry like spears, swords or bows and arrows, modern nations would likely shift to other forms of killing, including explosives, tanks, missiles and chemical and biological weapons. (Nuclear war, however, would likely remain unappealing given its extreme destructiveness, Gabor says.)
倘若我们做一场更极端的思维实验，想像世界上所有的枪都消失掉，战争与内乱依然不会停歇。现代国家可能并不会退回古代使用长矛、大刀和弓箭等原始武器，却可能会转而使用其他的杀戮工具，如炸弹、坦克、生化武器等。（社会学家加伯认为，因为核武器的巨大杀伤力，可能大部分国家还是不会选择使用。）
Nations also may invent new types of weapons to fill gaps left by guns, Brooks adds, with the wealthiest, most powerful states likely being the quickest to innovate the most effective new means of killing. So while warfare between states would change, “you wouldn’t necessarily change the balance of power,” Brooks says.
布鲁克斯教授说，世界各国也许仍旧会不断研制新型武器来替代枪支，那些国力最强大国库最殷实的国家可能以最快的速度研发出最高效的新型杀戮武器。“虽然国家间的战争形式会发生改变，但是国家力量间的相互钳制的局面是不会改变的。”
The same probably would not hold true for non-state actors. In places like Somalia, Sudan and Libya, where firearms are readily available, a sudden disappearance of those weapons would reduce the capacity for militias to emerge and operate. “One thing that defines non-state actors is lack of capital-intensive equipment,” she says. “They need stuff that’s easy to get, easy to transport and easy to store and hide.”
而对非国家行为者（non-state actors）来说，情形却会不同。在索马里、苏丹和利比亚等地，各种力量都是使用枪械作为武器。但是如果没了枪，这些军事力量将难以为继。布鲁克斯教授还说道：“原因之一是这些非国家行为者缺乏资本密集型设备，因此他们主要依靠枪这种易获取、易运输、易存储，也易藏匿的武器。”
A decline in various militias’ power may sound like a good thing. But in some cases, counter-militias are composed of fighters resisting violent, repressive governments, Brooks says.
她说，各方民间军事力量的衰微听起来似乎是件好事，但也并非都是好事，有一些民间军事力量是自由战士组织起来反抗暴力、强权的政府。
Natural world
对自然世界的影响
Should guns disappear, there also would be mixed results for animals. On the one hand, the poaching and trophy hunting of endangered species would decline greatly. On the other, control of problem animals – whether rabid raccoons, stampeding elephants, venomous snakes or charging polar bears – would become more difficult.
枪支的消失也将给动物世界带来一些复杂的变化。一方面，偷猎和战利品狩猎濒危动物的情况会大大减少；另一方面，控制问题动物，比如患狂犬病的浣熊、横冲直撞的大象、毒蛇或是攻击人的北极熊等等，就会非常的麻烦。
“There are plenty of legitimate reasons for firearm ownership, especially in a country like Australia that’s agricultural and has a similar frontier history to the US,” Alpers says. “On farms, they’re a standard tool of the trade.”
阿尔佩斯教授说，“公民持枪有充足的合理性，对于澳大利亚这样一个农业国家尤为如此。澳大利亚也有一个与美国相似的开发边疆的历史。在农场，枪是农牧业的标准职业工具。”
Guns are also integral for invasive species management, he continues. Thousands of cats, pigs, goats, possums and other harmful non-native species are shot each year to try to preserve delicate ecosystems, especially on islands. Doing away with guns would make that already-steep uphill battle all the more difficult – and less humane. Mercy killings of injured livestock and other animals likewise would be made more brutal without guns. “If you’ve got a big, sick animal, a hatchet is no substitution for a quick death with a firearm,” Alpers says.
阿尔佩斯教授同时说道，枪械也是入侵动物管理的重要组成部分。每年，要枪杀成千上万只猫、猪、羊、负鼠和其他非本地物种的动物，以保护当地脆弱的生态系统。这对于一些相对封闭的岛屿来说尤其重要。但废除枪支就会使得这场原本就艰巨的挑战更加艰难，而且更不人道。如果世上没有枪，对受伤牲畜及其他动物执行安乐死的手段也会更加残忍。他解释说，“如果有一头体积巨大的受伤动物要被执行安乐死，用枪则动物迅速死亡，没有痛苦，但是用斧头就非常残暴，它并不是好的替代品。”
Money matters
经济得失也很重要
Guns are made for killing, but their influence extends to additional facets of life and society, all of which would change.
枪是用来杀戮的工具，但它的影响渗透了生活与社会的方方面面。如果没有了枪，可能一切都会不一样。
In terms of the economy, the US stands the most to lose if guns disappeared. The Firearms Industry Trade Association calculates that the firearms industry accounts for $20 billion (£15 billion) in direct contributions, plus another $30 billion (£20 billion) in other contributions. For the US economy, though, losing $50 billion (£35 billion) “wouldn’t even be a blip on the screen,” Spitzer says. “It’s not zero, but it’s just not very big compared to the economy as a whole.”
从经济角度来说，美国可能会因为枪支的消失而蒙受最多的经济损失。据美国枪支贸易协会（The Firearms Industry Trade Association）估算，美国枪械交易行业直接贡献的交易额超过200亿美金（约150亿英镑），其他间接贡献也超过了300亿美金（约200亿英镑）。斯皮策教授说，对于美国总体经济来说，损失500亿美金（约350亿英镑），“可能连大萤幕上的一个小光点都称不上。虽说不是完全没有影响，但对于整个国家经济而言，这确实算不上什么。”
In fact, there would likely be a modest net economic gain if guns disappeared. Gun death and injury-related expenses add up to direct losses of around $10.7 billion (£7 billion) per year, and more than $200 billion (£140 billion) when other factors are taken into account. “In the US, if you look at all the financial costs of gun violence, it’s not just direct medical costs and rehabilitation for people who are shot, but costs to the justice system and lost income of victims, and even quality of life costs,” Gabor says.
实际上，如果世上没有枪，经济反而可能会有一些净收益。因枪致死与枪伤等关联费用每年带来的直接损失大约是107亿美金（约70亿英镑），而其他连带损失加总起来超过2000亿美金（1400亿英镑）。加伯说：“以美国为例，计算枪支暴力所带来的经济损失可不仅仅包括直接的医疗费用、枪伤患者的康复费用，也包括司法系统的运作成本、受害者的经济收入损失以及生活品质损失等相关费用。”
Indeed, while the overall impacts to the economy would be negligible, Miller points out that the less tangible gains would be significant. For one, many people would feel safer. “We’d see new generations that were not traumatised by the sound of gunfire that they could hear from their bedroom,” he says. “That could make a huge difference in the mental health of our children.”
米勒指出，对经济的整体影响的确可以忽略不计，更重要的是那些隐形收益。一方面，人们会感觉更安全。“下一代人将不会因为听到从自家后院里传来的枪声而产生心理创伤。这对下一代青少年的身心健康非常有益。”
Americans of all ages are increasingly terrified of being attacked in a public place, Gabor adds, whether at school, a movie theatre, a nightclub or on the street. Even if such events are relatively rare, “this onslaught of mass shootings tears at the social fabric,” he says. “People’s sense of security and trust in each other is eroded, causing profound social and psychological effects.”
加伯说：“现今所有美国人都担心会在公众场合遭遇袭击。他们极其害怕在学校、电影院、夜店或是大街上被莫名射杀。虽然这类的事件并不频繁发生，但这种大规模枪杀案件撕裂了社会。人们的安全感和对彼此的信任感减少，造成了非常严重的社会与心理问题。”
2018年3月24日华盛顿街头参与“为我们的生命游行”（“March for Our Lives”）大规模示威活动中的示威者。
Many would be able to breathe easier with guns no longer in the picture, but some gun owners would experience the opposite effect and feel more vulnerable without their weapons. “There are people in the defensive gun world who arm themselves against others – whether that’s larger people, people with knives or others with guns – to equalise the situation,” Yamane says. Removing guns “would definitely leave people who are potential victims of violence unable to defend themselves against stronger, more forceful attackers,” he says.
如果世上没有枪，上图中游行的很多人可能会觉得松一口气。但一些枪支持有者可能并不这样认为，他们反而会更紧张，觉得没有武器就没有安全感。亚马内说：“有一些人持有防御型枪械是为了武装自己以防范他人——即比自己块头大的人、有刀的人或持枪的人，以平衡局面。倘若没有了枪，那些暴力的潜在受害者就无法依靠自身来抵御比他们更强壮更有力的攻击者。”
Whether guns actually help people stay safe and defend themselves is a controversial subject. But the limited research available on this topic tends to indicate that guns have the opposite effect. A 1993 study of 1,860 homicides found that the presence of guns in a home significantly increases the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance, for example. A 2014 meta-study likewise found that access to firearms is associated with homicide and completed suicide attempts.
枪械是否真的能够抵御外界危险并保证自身的安全，是一个极具争议性的话题。但与这个话题相关为数不多的研究表明，有枪支其实是会起反作用。1994年，一项针对1860例凶杀案的研究发现，有枪的家庭中发生被家庭成员或者亲近的熟人杀害案件的概率反而更高。2014年的一项综合分析同样表明，枪与凶杀及自杀已遂有显著关联性。
So while some gun owners may lose a sense of security if guns disappeared, “the data show that’s a false sense of security,” Miller says.
米勒说：“如果没了枪，有一部分持枪者可能会感觉没有安全感。但实际上这是一种‘伪安全感’。”
Gun culture also would be something that many firearm owners would miss. But Miller points out that recreational hunters could shift from rifles to other means of killing, such as bows and arrows. The same goes for those who visit shooting ranges for fun, or who collect guns as a hobby – they simply could find a replacement activity. Though for someone for whom guns are a passion, that is unlikely to be much comfort.
如果世上没有枪了，一些枪支爱好者可能会怀念“枪文化”。但是米勒指出一些狩猎爱好者可以尝试其他的狩猎方式，如弓箭等。而一些喜欢在射击场以射击运动为消遣的人或是枪支收藏爱好者也能够找一些替代性的娱乐活动。虽说对一些人而言，枪是爱好，但其实称不上是什么了不得的乐趣。
“They’d get a bit of loss of enjoyment because they wanted to buy a gun more than they wanted to buy a television set or whatever,” Miller says. “But on the other hand, a lot of people would still be alive. And I think that outweighs loss of enjoyment.”
米勒说：“对他们来说，也许比起买一台新电视机或其他什么东西，买一支新枪能得到的乐趣会稍微多一点点。但少一些枪的话，可能很多人会活下来。我觉得这么看枪带来的乐趣也就不足为道了。”