Ainda a tragédia nos EUA...
Caros,
deixo-vos uma crónica que li no NY Times, da autoria de Nicholas Kristof e que nos dá uma perspectiva (interessante) sobre a dialéctica das armas nos Estados Unidos.
O texto está em inglês mas merece ser lido, para quem não domina a língua de Shakespeare peço desculpa por não o traduzir, mas não tenho tempo para o fazer.
O texto está em inglês mas merece ser lido, para quem não domina a língua de Shakespeare peço desculpa por não o traduzir, mas não tenho tempo para o fazer.
Ora, cá está ele:
Do We
Have the Courage to Stop This?
Publicado em 15
de Dezembro de 2012
Publicado no New York Times
In the harrowing aftermath of
the school shooting in Connecticut, one thought wells in my mind: Why can’t we
regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?
The fundamental
reason kids are dying in massacres like this one is not that we have lunatics
or criminals — all countries have them — but that we suffer from a political
failure to regulate guns.
Children ages 5 to
14 in America are 13 times as likely to be murdered with guns as children in
other industrialized countries, according to David Hemenway, a public health specialist
at Harvard who has written an excellent book on gun violence.
So let’s treat
firearms rationally as the center of a public health crisis that claims one
life every 20 minutes. The United States realistically isn’t going to ban guns,
but we can take steps to reduce the carnage.
American
schoolchildren are protected by building codes that govern stairways and
windows. School buses must meet safety standards, and the bus drivers have to
pass tests. Cafeteria food is regulated for safety. The only things we seem lax
about are the things most likely to kill.
The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration has five pages of regulations about ladders, while federal authorities
shrug at serious curbs on firearms. Ladders kill around 300 Americans a year,
and guns 30,000.
We even regulate
toy guns, by requiring orange tips — but lawmakers don’t have the gumption to
stand up to National Rifle Association extremists and regulate real guns as
carefully as we do toys. What do we make of the contrast between heroic
teachers who stand up to a gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t
stand up to the N.R.A.?
As one of my
Facebook followers wrote after I posted about the shooting, “It is more
difficult to adopt a pet than it is to buy a gun.”
Look, I grew up on
an Oregon farm where guns were a part of life; and my dad gave me a .22 rifle
for my 12th birthday. I understand: shooting is fun! But so is driving, and we
accept that we must wear seat belts, use headlights at night, and fill out forms
to buy a car. Why can’t we be equally adult about regulating guns?
And don’t say that
it won’t make a difference because crazies will always be able to get a gun.
We’re not going to eliminate gun deaths, any more than we have eliminated auto
accidents. But if we could reduce gun deaths by one-third, that would be 10,000
lives saved annually.
Likewise, don’t
bother with the argument that if more people carried guns, they would deter
shooters or interrupt them. Mass shooters typically kill themselves or are promptly
caught, so it’s hard to see what deterrence would be added by having more
people pack heat. There have been few if any cases in the United States in
which an ordinary citizen with a gun stopped a mass shooting.
The tragedy isn’t
one school shooting, it’s the unceasing toll across our country. More Americans
die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25
years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
So what can we do?
A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun
traffickers. Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines
so that a shooter can’t kill as many people without reloading.
We should impose a
universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make
serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require
that new handguns imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced
back to a particular gun.
“We’ve endured too
many of these tragedies in the past few years,” President Obama noted in a
tearful statement on television. He’s right, but the solution isn’t just to
mourn the victims — it’s to change our policies. Let’s see leadership on this
issue, not just moving speeches.
Other countries
offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized
the nation’s conservative prime
minister to ban
certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known,
led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe
storage of those remaining in public hands.
The law did not
end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private
hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass
shootings.
In the 18 years
before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14
years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped
by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control
Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.
Or we can look
north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day
waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers
should have the support of two people vouching for them.
For that matter,
we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns,
some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly.
But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”
Instead, we have
required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have
introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of
mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic
fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.
Some of you are alive today
because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the
same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our
failure.
Ontem, durante o programa de Pierce Morgan Tonight, era isso precisamente a que ele se referiu. Deu o exemplo da Inglaterra e da Austrália. Pierce perdeu as estribeiras quando o entrevistado comentou que “guns are fun”! Vale a pena ver.
ResponderEliminarTrezentos milhões de armas existem nos EU... 300 milhões!!!!
Catarina,
Eliminartambém acompanhei o "Meet the Press", no Domingo, na CNBC e vi que a preocupação dos convidados do programa era...acabar com a carnificina!
Os números são ASSUSTADORES!!!
Beijinho
Meu amigo, foi uma tragédia inqualificável, penso nos pais e nos familiares e o meu coração fica apertado.
EliminarTem que haver mudanças drásticas na política para evitar tais acontecimentos, o que penso que o presidente Obama já está a fazer.
Como posso não ter outra oportunidade, desejo-lhe um Feliz Natal na companhia da sua família. Muita paz e saúde|
beijinho
Who cares, my friend?
ResponderEliminarSinceramente, António, não percebi o seu comentário!
EliminarAté parece que regulate guns seria a solução, amigo! Eu pelo menos acho que não. Prefiro antes procurar saber o porquê de o Lanza ter feito o que fez. A sociedade é que pariu um monstro como ele. Apenas mais um entre tantos.
ResponderEliminarRicardo,
ResponderEliminarO lobby associado à venda e posse de armas, ligado à ala mais radical, mais rural e mais retrógrada da América, tem uma força assustadora.
E continua a agitar a bandeira da paranóia securitária para justificar o injustificável.
É deprimente ouvir os debates entre os defensores de uma total liberalização do sector e aqueles que o querem regular.
Votos de Um Santo Natal para si e família, Ricardo!!