Mark, I want to thank you for your introduction. I still remember the first time we met, the time we spent together, and the conversation we had about Daniel. And that changed me that day. And my hope, earnestly, has been that it would change the country. 马克，感谢你的介绍。我仍记得我们初次见面的情景，记得我们共度的时光，以及我们关于丹尼尔的那场交谈。那一天改变了我。而我由衷地希望，它也能改变这个国家。
Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. Too many. 五年前的这个星期，一位在任国会议员和其他18人在亚利桑那州图森市的一家超市遭到枪击。那不是我第一次不得不就大规模枪击事件向全国发表讲话，也不会是最后一次。胡德堡。宾厄姆顿。奥罗拉。奥克里克。纽敦。海军造船厂。圣巴巴拉。查尔斯顿。圣贝纳迪诺。太多了。
Audience Member: Too many. 观众：太多了。
Audience Member: Too many. 观众：太多了。
Audience Member: Too many. 观众：太多了。
President Obama: Thanks to a great medical team and the love of her husband, Mark, my dear friend and colleague, Gabby Giffords, survived. She’s here with us today, with her wonderful mom. 奥巴马总统：感谢一支出色的医疗团队，也感谢她丈夫马克——我的挚友与同事——的爱，加比·吉福兹活了下来。她今天和我们在一起，还有她可敬的母亲。
Thanks to a great medical team, her wonderful husband, Mark -- who, by the way, the last time I met with Mark -- this is just a small aside -- you may know Mark’s twin brother is in outer space. He came to the office, and I said, how often are you talking to him? And he says, well, I usually talk to him every day, but the call was coming in right before the meeting so I think I may have not answered his call -- which made me feel kind of bad. That’s a long-distance call. So I told him if his brother, Scott, is calling today, that he should take it. Turn the ringer on. 感谢出色的医疗团队，感谢她出色的丈夫马克——顺便说一句，上次我见到马克时——这只是个小插曲——你们可能知道马克的孪生兄弟正在外太空。他来办公室时，我问他，你多久跟他通一次话？他说，嗯，我通常每天都跟他说话，但那天电话正好在会议前打来，所以我可能没接——这让我有点过意不去。那可是通长途电话啊。所以我告诉他，如果他弟弟斯科特今天打电话来，他一定要接。把铃声打开。
I was there with Gabby when she was still in the hospital, and we didn’t think necessarily at that point that she was going to survive. And that visit right before a memorial -- about an hour later Gabby first opened her eyes. And I remember talking to mom about that. But I know the pain that she and her family have endured these past five years, and the rehabilitation and the work and the effort to recover from shattering injuries. 加比还在医院的时候我就陪在她身边，当时我们甚至觉得她不一定能挺过来。就在那场追思会前的一次探望——大约一小时后，加比第一次睁开了眼睛。我还记得跟她母亲谈起这件事的情景。但我知道，这五年来她和她的家人承受了怎样的痛苦，以及从重创中康复所需的复健、付出和努力。
And then I think of all the Americans who aren’t as fortunate. Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns -- 30,000. Suicides. Domestic violence. Gang shootouts. Accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children. Many have had to learn to live with a disability, or learned to live without the love of their life. 然后我想到了所有没有这么幸运的美国人。每一年，都有超过三万名美国人的生命被枪支夺走——三万人。自杀。家庭暴力。帮派枪战。意外事故。数十万美国人失去了兄弟姐妹，或是亲手埋葬了自己的孩子。许多人不得不学着与残疾共处，或是学着在失去挚爱之人的生活中继续前行。
A number of those people are here today. They can tell you some stories. In this room right here, there are a lot of stories. There’s a lot of heartache. There’s a lot of resilience, there’s a lot of strength, but there’s also a lot of pain. And this is just a small sample. 今天，他们中的一些人就在这里。他们可以向你讲述许多故事。就在这个房间里，有太多的故事。有太多的心痛。有太多的坚韧，太多的力量，但也有太多的痛苦。而这还只是很小的一部分。
The United States of America is not the only country on Earth with violent or dangerous people. We are not inherently more prone to violence. But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal. 美利坚合众国并不是地球上唯一一个有暴力或危险人物的国家。我们并非天生就更倾向于暴力。但我们是地球上唯一一个频繁爆发这种大规模暴力事件的发达国家。这种事不会发生在其他发达国家。根本不在一个量级上。而正如我之前所说，不知怎的，我们已经对此变得麻木，开始认为这是正常的。
And instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates -- despite the fact that there’s a general consensus in America about what needs to be done. That’s part of the reason why, on Thursday, I’m going to hold a town hall meeting in Virginia on gun violence. Because my goal here is to bring good people on both sides of this issue together for an open discussion. 非但没有去思考如何解决问题，这件事反而成了我们最两极分化、最具党派之争的议题之一——尽管美国人对于应该做什么有着普遍的共识。这也是为什么周四我将在弗吉尼亚州就枪支暴力问题举行一场市政厅会议。因为我的目标是把这个问题两边的善良人们聚在一起，进行一场开放的讨论。
I’m not on the ballot again. I’m not looking to score some points. I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives or without being disagreeable. We don’t need to be talking past one another. But we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it. In Dr. King’s words1, we need to feel the “fierce urgency of now.” Because people are dying. And the constant excuses for inaction no longer do, no longer suffice. 我不会再参加竞选了。我不是在捞取政治资本。我认为我们可以有分歧，同时不必质疑他人的动机，也不必态度恶劣。我们不需要各说各话。但我们必须对此有一种紧迫感。用金博士的话说，我们需要感受到"当下的迫切性"。因为人们正在死去。而那些无所作为的借口已经不再成立，不再站得住脚。
That’s why we’re here today. Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one. To prove that the vast majority of Americans, even if our voices aren’t always the loudest or most extreme, care enough about a little boy like Daniel to come together and take common-sense steps to save lives and protect more of our children. 这就是我们今天聚在这里的原因。不是为了辩论上一次大规模枪击事件，而是要采取行动，努力阻止下一次。要证明绝大多数美国人——即使我们的声音不总是最响亮或最极端的——足够关心像丹尼尔这样的小男孩，愿意团结起来，采取合乎常识的措施来拯救生命，保护更多的孩子。
Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start -- and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do -- I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around -- I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this -- I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment. 首先，我想在一开始就说得非常清楚——我已经一遍又一遍地说过，这也成了例行公事，整件事已经有了一套我必须完成的仪式——我信仰第二修正案。它白纸黑字地写在那里。它保障了持有和携带武器的权利。无论有多少次有人试图曲解我的话——我教过宪法学，我对这方面略知一二——我懂的。但我也相信，我们可以在符合第二修正案的前提下找到减少枪支暴力的方法。
I mean, think about it. We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society. 我的意思是，想一想吧。我们都信仰第一修正案，信仰言论自由的保障，但我们接受你不能在电影院里大喊"着火了"。我们明白，为了保护无辜的人，我们的自由需要受到一些约束。我们珍视隐私权，但我们接受在登机前必须通过金属探测仪。这不是因为人们喜欢这样做，而是因为我们明白，这是文明社会生活代价的一部分。
And what’s often ignored in this debate is that a majority of gun owners actually agree. A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting harm on a massive scale. 而在这场辩论中常常被忽视的一点是，大多数枪支拥有者实际上是赞同的。大多数枪支拥有者都同意，我们可以在尊重第二修正案的同时，防止不负责任、违法乱纪的人造成大规模伤害。
Today, background checks are required at gun stores. If a father wants to teach his daughter how to hunt, he can walk into a gun store, get a background check, purchase his weapon safely and responsibly. 如今，枪店要求进行背景调查。如果一位父亲想教女儿如何打猎，他可以走进一家枪店，通过背景调查，安全而负责任地购买武器。
This is not seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment. Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns. You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm. 这并不被视为对第二修正案的侵犯。与一些枪支权利支持者的说法相反，这并不是大规模没收枪支这一滑坡路上的第一步。与一些总统候选人的说法相反——显然，就在这次会议之前——这不是一个要夺走所有人枪支的阴谋。你通过背景调查，然后购买枪支。就这么简单。
The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked. A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records -- one out of 30 had a criminal record. 问题在于，一些枪支销售商一直在另一套规则下行事。一个暴力重罪犯可以在互联网上买到完全相同的武器，不需要背景调查，不需要任何询问。最近的一项研究发现，在某一个网站上，大约每30个想购买枪支的人中就有1人有犯罪记录——三十分之一有犯罪记录。
We’re talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes -- aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession. People with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily. And this was just one website within the span of a few months. 我们说的是那些被判犯有严重罪行的人——严重伤害、家庭暴力、抢劫、非法持有枪支。有着漫长犯罪史的人竟然能轻而易举地买到致命武器。而这还只是短短几个月内一个网站上的情况。
So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check. That doesn’t make sense. Everybody should have to abide by the same rules. Most Americans and gun owners agree. And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary. 因此，我们创造了这样一个制度：危险分子可以按照另一套规则行事，而负责任的枪支拥有者却要以正当方式购买枪支并接受背景调查。这说不通。每个人都应该遵守同样的规则。大多数美国人和枪支拥有者都同意这一点。而这正是三年前我们试图改变的——当时26名美国人，其中包括20名儿童，在桑迪胡克小学惨遭杀害。
Two United States Senators -– Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, both gun owners, both strong defenders of our Second Amendment rights, both with “A” grades from the NRA –- that’s hard to get -- worked together in good faith, consulting with folks like our Vice President, who has been a champion on this for a long time, to write a common-sense compromise bill that would have required virtually everyone who buys a gun to get a background check. That was it. Pretty common-sense stuff. 两名美国参议员——西弗吉尼亚州民主党人乔·曼钦和宾夕法尼亚州共和党人帕特·图米——两人都是枪支拥有者，都是第二修正案权利的坚定捍卫者，都获得了全国步枪协会的"A"级评级——这可是很难得的——他们本着诚意共同努力，与我们的副总统等人磋商，后者长期以来一直是这一议题的推动者，共同起草了一项合乎常识的妥协法案，要求几乎每个购买枪支的人都接受背景调查。仅此而已。相当常识性的东西。
Ninety percent of Americans supported that idea. Ninety percent of Democrats in the Senate voted for that idea. But it failed because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted against that idea. 百分之九十的美国人支持这一想法。参议院中百分之九十的民主党议员投了赞成票。但它失败了，因为参议院中百分之九十的共和党议员投了反对票。
How did this become such a partisan issue? Republican President George W. Bush once said, “I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.” Senator John McCain introduced a bipartisan measure to address the gun show loophole, saying, “We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws.” 这怎么会变成一个如此党派化的问题？共和党总统乔治·W·布什曾说过："我相信在枪展上或任何地方都应进行背景调查，以确保枪支不会落入不该拥有它们的人手中。"参议员约翰·麦凯恩曾提出一项两党议案来解决枪展漏洞问题，他说："我们需要这项修正案，因为罪犯和恐怖分子已经并正在利用我们枪支安全法律中这个非常明显的漏洞。"
Even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. And by the way, most of its members still do. Most Republican voters still do. 就连全国步枪协会过去也支持扩大背景调查。顺便说一句，它的大多数成员现在仍然支持。大多数共和党选民仍然支持。
How did we get here? How did we get to the place where people think requiring a comprehensive background check means taking away people’s guns? 我们怎么会走到这一步？我们怎么会到了这样一种境地：人们认为要求全面的背景调查就意味着要夺走人们的枪支？
Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence. 每次出现这种情况，我们都会听到这样的借口：像背景调查这样的常识性改革可能并没能阻止上一次大屠杀，或是上上次，或是上上上次，那何必费心去尝试呢。我拒绝这种思维。我们知道我们无法阻止世界上每一次暴力行为，每一次恶行。但也许我们可以努力阻止一次恶行，一次暴力行为。
Some of you may recall, at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill -- with a knife -- a bunch of children in China. But most of them survived because he didn’t have access to a powerful weapon. We maybe can’t save everybody, but we could save some. Just as we don’t prevent all traffic accidents but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents. 你们中有些人可能还记得，就在桑迪胡克事件发生的同时，中国有一名精神失常的人持刀——用一把刀——试图杀害中国的一群孩子。但他们大多数都活了下来，因为他无法获得强大的武器。我们也许救不了每一个人，但我们可以救一些人。就像我们不能防止所有交通事故，但我们会采取措施努力减少交通事故一样。
As Ronald Reagan once said, if mandatory background checks could save more lives, “it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” The bill before Congress three years ago met that test. Unfortunately, too many senators failed theirs. 正如罗纳德·里根曾经说过的，如果强制性背景调查能够挽救更多生命，"那么将其定为国家法律是完全值得的。"三年前摆在国会面前的那项法案达到了这个标准。不幸的是，太多参议员没有达到他们的标准。
In fact, we know that background checks make a difference. After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40 percent -- 40 percent. Meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average. One study found, unsurprisingly, that criminals in Missouri now have easier access to guns. 事实上，我们知道背景调查是有效的。康涅狄格州通过了一项要求背景调查和枪支安全课程的法律后，枪支死亡率下降了百分之四十——百分之四十。与此同时，密苏里州废除了要求全面背景调查和购买许可的法律，此后枪支死亡率上升到比全国平均水平高出近百分之五十。一项研究发现，毫不奇怪，密苏里州的罪犯现在更容易获得枪支。
And the evidence tells us that in states that require background checks, law-abiding Americans don’t find it any harder to purchase guns whatsoever. Their guns have not been confiscated. Their rights have not been infringed. 证据告诉我们，在要求背景调查的州，守法的美国人购买枪支丝毫没有变得更困难。他们的枪支没有被没收。他们的权利没有受到侵犯。
And that’s just the information we have access to. With more research, we could further improve gun safety. Just as with more research, we’ve reduced traffic fatalities enormously over the last 30 years. We do research when cars, food, medicine, even toys harm people so that we make them safer. And you know what -- research, science -- those are good things. They work. They do. 而这还只是我们能够获取到的信息。如果有更多研究，我们可以进一步提高枪支安全。正如通过更多研究，我们在过去30年里大幅降低了交通事故死亡率一样。当汽车、食品、药品甚至玩具伤害到人们时，我们会做研究，让它们变得更安全。而你知道吗——研究、科学——这些都是好东西。它们是有效的。真的有效。
But think about this. When it comes to an inherently deadly weapon -- nobody argues that guns are potentially deadly -- weapons that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, Congress actually voted to make it harder for public health experts to conduct research into gun violence; made it harder to collect data and facts and develop strategies to reduce gun violence. Even after San Bernardino, they’ve refused to make it harder for terror suspects who can’t get on a plane to buy semi-automatic weapons. That’s not right. That can’t be right. 但想想看。当涉及一种本身就致命的武器时——没有人会否认枪支具有潜在的致命性——这种每年夺去数万美国人生命的武器，国会却投票让公共卫生专家更难开展枪支暴力研究；更难收集数据和事实，更难制定减少枪支暴力的策略。就连在圣贝纳迪诺事件之后，他们也拒绝让那些连飞机都不能上的恐怖嫌疑人更难买到半自动武器。这是不对的。这绝对不对。
So the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom. 所以枪支游说团体现在也许挟持了国会，但他们不能挟持美国。我们不必把这种屠杀当作自由的代价来接受。
Now, I want to be clear. Congress still needs to act. The folks in this room will not rest until Congress does. Because once Congress gets on board with common-sense gun safety measures we can reduce gun violence a whole lot more. But we also can’t wait. Until we have a Congress that’s in line with the majority of Americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives -– actions that protect our rights and our kids. 现在，我想说明一点。国会仍然需要采取行动。这个房间里的人们在国会行动之前不会停歇。因为一旦国会认同合乎常识的枪支安全措施，我们就能更多地减少枪支暴力。但我们也不能等待。在我们拥有一个与大多数美国人意愿一致的国会之前，在我的法律权限范围内，我们可以采取一些行动来帮助减少枪支暴力、挽救更多生命——这些行动既能保护我们的权利，也能保护我们的孩子。
After Sandy Hook, Joe and I worked together with our teams and we put forward a whole series of executive actions to try to tighten up the existing rules and systems that we had in place. But today, we want to take it a step further. So let me outline what we’re going to be doing. 桑迪胡克事件之后，我和乔与我们的团队共同努力，提出了一系列行政措施，试图收紧我们现有的规则和制度。但今天，我们想更进一步。那么让我来概述一下我们将要做的事情。
Number one, anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions. It doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it over the Internet or at a gun show. It’s not where you do it, but what you do. 第一，任何从事枪支销售业务的人都必须获得执照并进行背景调查，否则将面临刑事起诉。无论你是在互联网上销售还是在枪展上销售，都一样。重要的不是你在哪里做，而是你做了什么。
We’re also expanding background checks to cover violent criminals who try to buy some of the most dangerous firearms by hiding behind trusts and corporations and various cutouts. 我们还在扩大背景调查的范围，覆盖那些试图通过信托、公司和各种幌子来购买一些最危险枪支的暴力罪犯。
We’re also taking steps to make the background check system more efficient. Under the guidance of Jim Comey and the FBI, our Deputy Director Tom Brandon at ATF, we’re going to hire more folks to process applications faster, and we’re going to bring an outdated background check system into the 21st century. 我们还在采取措施提高背景调查系统的效率。在吉姆·科米和联邦调查局的指导下，在烟酒火器与爆炸物管理局副局长汤姆·布兰登的领导下，我们将雇用更多人员来加快申请处理，我们将把一个过时的背景调查系统带入二十一世纪。
And these steps will actually lead to a smoother process for law-abiding gun owners, a smoother process for responsible gun dealers, a stronger process for protecting the people from -- the public from dangerous people. So that’s number one. 而这些措施实际上将为守法的枪支拥有者带来更顺畅的流程，为负责任的枪支经销商带来更顺畅的流程，为保护公众免受危险分子侵害带来更有力的程序。这就是第一项措施。
Number two, we’re going to do everything we can to ensure the smart and effective enforcement of gun safety laws that are already on the books, which means we’re going to add 200 more ATF agents and investigators. We’re going to require firearms dealers to report more lost or stolen guns on a timely basis. We’re working with advocates to protect victims of domestic abuse from gun violence, where too often -- where too often, people are not getting the protection that they need. 第二，我们将尽一切努力确保对已有枪支安全法律的明智和有效执行，这意味着我们将新增200名烟酒火器与爆炸物管理局特工和调查人员。我们将要求枪支经销商更及时地报告更多丢失或被盗的枪支。我们正与倡导者合作，保护家庭暴力受害者免受枪支暴力侵害——在这方面，太多时候——太多时候，人们没有得到他们需要的保护。
Number three, we’re going to do more to help those suffering from mental illness get the help that they need. High-profile mass shootings tend to shine a light on those few mentally unstable people who inflict harm on others. But the truth is, is that nearly two in three gun deaths are from suicides. So a lot of our work is to prevent people from hurting themselves. 第三，我们将做更多工作来帮助那些患有精神疾病的人获得他们所需的帮助。备受关注的大规模枪击事件往往让少数伤害他人的精神不稳定者进入公众视野。但事实是，近三分之二的枪支死亡来自自杀。所以我们的大量工作是要防止人们伤害自己。
That’s why we made sure that the Affordable Care Act -- also known as Obamacare -- that law made sure that treatment for mental health was covered the same as treatment for any other illness. And that’s why we’re going to invest $500 million to expand access to treatment across the country. 这就是为什么我们确保了《平价医疗法案》——也就是奥巴马医改——确保了心理健康治疗与其他任何疾病的治疗享有同等保障。这就是为什么我们将投资五亿美元，在全国范围内扩大治疗的可及性。
It’s also why we’re going to ensure that federal mental health records are submitted to the background check system, and remove barriers that prevent states from reporting relevant information. If we can continue to de-stigmatize mental health issues, get folks proper care, and fill gaps in the background check system, then we can spare more families the pain of losing a loved one to suicide. 这也是为什么我们将确保联邦心理健康记录被提交到背景调查系统，并消除阻碍各州报告相关信息的障碍。如果我们能继续消除心理健康问题的污名化，让人们得到适当的护理，并填补背景调查系统中的空白，那么我们就能让更多家庭免于失去亲人至自杀的痛苦。
And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here’s your chance to support these efforts. Put your money where your mouth is. 而对于那些在国会中常常急于将大规模枪击归咎于精神疾病以逃避在枪支问题上采取行动的人来说，现在就是你们支持这些努力的机会。拿出实际行动来。
Number four, we’re going to boost gun safety technology. Today, many gun injuries and deaths are the result of legal guns that were stolen or misused or discharged accidentally. In 2013 alone, more than 500 people lost their lives to gun accidents –- and that includes 30 children younger than five years old. In the greatest, most technologically advanced nation on Earth, there is no reason for this. 第四，我们将推动枪支安全技术的发展。如今，许多枪支伤亡是合法枪支被盗、被误用或意外走火造成的。仅在2013年，就有500多人死于枪支事故——其中包括30名五岁以下的儿童。在地球上最伟大、技术最先进的国家，这是没有道理的。
We need to develop new technologies that make guns safer. If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns? If there’s an app that can help us find a missing tablet -- which happens to me often the older I get -- if we can do it for your iPad, there’s no reason we can’t do it with a stolen gun. If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure that they can’t pull a trigger on a gun. Right? 我们需要开发让枪支更安全的新技术。如果我们能做到没有正确的指纹就解不开手机，那为什么不能对枪支做同样的事呢？如果有一款应用能帮我们找到丢失的平板电脑——我年纪越大，这种事就越常发生在我身上——如果我们能对你的iPad做到这一点，那就没有理由对被盗的枪支做不到。如果孩子打不开一瓶阿司匹林，那我们就应该确保他们扣不动枪支的扳机。对吗？
So we’re going to advance research. We’re going to work with the private sector to update firearms technology. 所以我们将推进研究。我们将与私营部门合作，更新枪支技术。
And some gun retailers are already stepping up by refusing to finalize a purchase without a complete background check, or by refraining from selling semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines. And I hope that more retailers and more manufacturers join them -- because they should care as much as anybody about a product that now kills almost as many Americans as car accidents. 一些枪支零售商已经在行动起来，他们拒绝在没有完整背景调查的情况下完成交易，或者拒绝销售半自动武器和大容量弹匣。我希望更多的零售商和制造商加入他们的行列——因为对于一种现在造成的美国人死亡人数几乎与交通事故相当的产品，他们应该和任何人一样关心。
I make this point because none of us can do this alone. I think Mark made that point earlier. All of us should be able to work together to find a balance that declares the rest of our rights are also important -- Second Amendment rights are important, but there are other rights that we care about as well. And we have to be able to balance them. Because our right to worship freely and safely –- that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina. And that was denied Jews in Kansas City. And that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill, and Sikhs in Oak Creek. They had rights, too. 我提出这一点，是因为我们谁也无法独自完成这件事。我想马克之前也表达了这一观点。我们所有人都应该能够共同努力，找到一种平衡，宣告我们的其他权利也同样重要——第二修正案权利很重要，但我们也关心其他权利。我们必须能够平衡它们。因为我们自由而安全地做礼拜的权利——南卡罗来纳州查尔斯顿的基督徒被剥夺了这项权利。堪萨斯城的犹太人被剥夺了这项权利。教堂山的穆斯林被剥夺了这项权利，奥克里克的锡克教徒也被剥夺了这项权利。他们也有权利。
Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown. First-graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun. 我们和平集会的权利——奥罗拉和拉斐特的电影观众被剥夺了这项权利。我们不可剥夺的生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利——布莱克斯堡和圣巴巴拉的大学生被剥夺了这些权利，哥伦拜恩的高中生被剥夺了这些权利，纽敦的一年级学生被剥夺了这些权利。一年级学生啊。还有每一个从未想过自己的亲人会被子弹从我们的生命中夺走的家庭。
Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad. And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day. 每次想到那些孩子我都感到愤怒。顺便说一句，这种事每天都在芝加哥的街头发生。
So all of us need to demand a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies. All of us need to stand up and protect its citizens. All of us need to demand governors and legislatures and businesses do their part to make our communities safer. We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time this happens and feel like your views are not being properly represented to join with us to demand something better. 所以我们所有人都需要要求一个有足够勇气站出来反对枪支游说团体谎言的国会。我们所有人都需要站出来，保护公民。我们所有人都需要要求州长、立法机构和企业尽到自己的一份力量，让我们的社区更安全。我们需要绝大多数负责任的枪支拥有者——每次发生这种事他们都和我们一样悲痛，并且感到自己的观点没有得到恰当代表——与我们站在一起，要求更好的改变。
And we need voters who want safer gun laws, and who are disappointed in leaders who stand in their way, to remember come election time. 我们还需要那些希望制定更安全的枪支法律、对阻挠他们的领导人感到失望的选民，在选举时记住这一点。
I mean, some of this is just simple math. Yes, the gun lobby is loud and it is organized in defense of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, any time. Well, you know what, the rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate. We have to be just as organized in defense of our kids. This is not that complicated. The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections. And if you make it hard for them to win an election if they block those laws, they’ll change course, I promise you. 我的意思是，这其中有些只是简单的算术。是的，枪支游说团体声音响亮，组织严密，致力于让任何人、在任何时候都能毫不费力地获得枪支。那么你知道吗，我们其他人，我们也必须同样充满热情。我们必须同样严密地组织起来，捍卫我们的孩子。这并没有那么复杂。国会阻挠法律通过是因为他们想赢得选举。而如果你让他们因为阻挠这些法律而难以赢得选举，他们就会改变立场，我向你保证。
And, yes, it will be hard, and it won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen during this Congress. It won’t happen during my presidency. But a lot of things don’t happen overnight. A woman’s right to vote didn’t happen overnight. The liberation of African Americans didn’t happen overnight. LGBT rights -- that was decades’ worth of work. So just because it’s hard, that’s no excuse not to try. 而且，是的，这会很艰难，不会一蹴而就。这不会在本届国会期间实现。这不会在我的总统任期内实现。但很多事情都不是一蹴而就的。女性的投票权不是一蹴而就的。非裔美国人的解放不是一蹴而就的。LGBT权利——那是数十年努力的结果。所以仅仅因为它很难，不能成为不去尝试的借口。
And if you have any doubt as to why you should feel that “fierce urgency of now,” think about what happened three weeks ago. Zaevion Dobson was a sophomore at Fulton High School in Knoxville, Tennessee. He played football; beloved by his classmates and his teachers. His own mayor called him one of their city’s success stories. The week before Christmas, he headed to a friend’s house to play video games. He wasn’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. He hadn’t made a bad decision. He was exactly where any other kid would be. Your kid. My kids. 如果你对为什么应该感受到那种"当下的迫切性"有任何疑虑，想想三周前发生的事吧。扎维翁·多布森是田纳西州诺克斯维尔市富尔顿高中的高二学生。他打橄榄球；深受同学和老师的喜爱。就连市长都称他是这座城市的成功典范之一。圣诞节前一周，他去一个朋友家玩电子游戏。他不是在错误的时间出现在了错误的地点。他没有做出错误的决定。他就在任何其他孩子都会在的地方。你的孩子会在的地方。我的孩子会在的地方。
And then gunmen started firing. And Zaevion -- who was in high school, hadn’t even gotten started in life -- dove on top of three girls to shield them from the bullets. And he was shot in the head. And the girls were spared. He gave his life to save theirs –- an act of heroism a lot bigger than anything we should ever expect from a 15-year-old. “Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends.” 然后枪手开始射击。而扎维翁——他还在上高中，人生甚至还没真正开始——扑到三个女孩身上，用身体挡住子弹。他头部中枪。而女孩们安然无恙。他献出了自己的生命来拯救她们——这是一种英雄主义行为，其伟大程度远超我们对一个15岁少年应有的任何期待。"人之大爱，莫过于为友舍命。"
We are not asked to do what Zaevion Dobson did. We’re not asked to have shoulders that big; a heart that strong; reactions that quick. I’m not asking people to have that same level of courage, or sacrifice, or love. But if we love our kids and care about their prospects, and if we love this country and care about its future, then we can find the courage to vote. We can find the courage to get mobilized and organized. We can find the courage to cut through all the noise and do what a sensible country would do. 我们没有被要求去做扎维翁·多布森所做的事。我们没有被要求拥有那样宽阔的肩膀；那样坚强的心；那样敏捷的反应。我不是在要求人们拥有同样的勇气、牺牲或爱。但如果我们爱我们的孩子，关心他们的未来，如果我们爱这个国家，关心它的未来，那么我们就能找到投票的勇气。我们就能找到动员和组织起来的勇气。我们就能找到冲破一切噪音、做一个明智国家会做的事的勇气。
That’s what we’re doing today. And tomorrow, we should do more. And we should do more the day after that. And if we do, we’ll leave behind a nation that’s stronger than the one we inherited and worthy of the sacrifice of a young man like Zaevion. 这就是我们今天正在做的。而明天，我们应该做得更多。后天我们应该做得更多。如果我们这样做，我们将留下一个比我们继承的更强大的国家，一个无愧于扎维翁这样的年轻人所做出的牺牲的国家。
Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. Thank you. God bless America. 非常感谢大家。上帝保佑你们。谢谢。上帝保佑美国。
