Yet another school shooting. This one happened on Valentine’s Day in Parkland, Florida, an otherwise attractive suburb north of Ft. Lauderdale.

19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, who has since confessed, carried an AR-15 assault-style rifle into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, from which he had been previously expelled, and murdered 17 people—14 students and three staff members—injuring several dozen others.

Cruz had a history of strange behavior, including attacking squirrels and chickens. He had had disciplinary problems in school as well—hence the expulsion. He seems to have been affiliated with a Florida white supremacist group. Yet he was able to purchase his AR-15 legally without difficulty.

The use of AR-15s in massacres of this kindis commonin the last decade, yetThe Washington Postpredictsthere’s little chance of a legislative response in Washington.

我听到很多人对缺乏立法回应表示困惑。

One friend posted on Facebook: “When does this stop? When are both sides going to stop pointing fingers at each other and work together to make this sh-t stop?” Another posted: “I have no words to express what I feel as I continue to read story after story of the lack of unity and competence that enable this continued violence.”

两人表达的困惑不是对凶手本人，凶手的动机永远难以捉摸。相反，他们对华盛顿民选官员的行为表示困惑，这些官员有权限制人们合法获得AR-15等武器，但一再拒绝这么做。

And it’s the temptation to express bafflement at Washington—real or feigned—with which I take issue.

我提出这个问题的原因是，与凶手的动机不同，议员们阻止枪支管制的动机非常明显，令人沮丧。Republicans, many of whom consistently block sensible gun control measures, received $5.9 million in campaign contributions from the NRA in the2016 election cycle; Democrats, by way of contrast, received $106,000.

因此，阻止枪支立法的第一个动机是完全明确的:阻止它的政治家获得竞选捐款，帮助他们(再次)当选。现在，590万美元是一个很大的数目，但它实际上并不是一个特定选举周期的美国竞选捐款总额的很大一部分。所以还有另一种动态在起作用。任何拒绝配合全国步枪协会立法要求的共和党人，都有可能在下次初选中遭到报复，届时全国步枪协会既可以为初选对手提供大量资金，也可以支持他。考虑到共和党的基础倾向，这将意味着几乎所有在任者的初选厄运。这种隐含的主要威胁使全国步枪协会对参众两院共和党议员的影响力远远超过了590万美元的价值。

So there is nothing baffling about what causes legislators to block sensible gun legislation. We know who the legislators are: a large subset of Republicans. And we know their motives: greed and fear (greed to get campaign contributions, fear of getting ousted in a primary).

So why do many people, friends of mine included, act and maybe even feel baffled about the politicians? Are they just not aware of the monetary and political dynamics of the situation?

I doubt that. The dynamics of greed and fear in relation to the NRA are so well known that it’s unlikely that ignorance is the cause of the expressed bafflement. The two friends I just quoted are certainly well enough informed to know about them.

So whence the temptation to feel and act baffled?

Psychologically, I think it works like this. People have an understandable need to come together as a community with others when a violent tragedy occurs. We want to be able to see past our usual divisions and feel like we’re unified. The problem, however, is that bluntly acknowledging the political situation (as I just did) feels like it hinders the process of coming together. Probably you felt this reading the above paragraphs; they might have made you feel uneasy. And that’s because clearly stating the motives of politicians who block even minimal gun legislation (like outlawing or seriously restricting AR-15s and bump stocks) can seem offensive to a large percentage of the population who voted for those politicians. One might say, “How dare you point fingers at a time like this?”

So it’seasierand itfeels more unifyingto express bafflement, as if the politicians aren’t to be understood, than it is to identify to their motives clearly. After all, railing against politicians feels like railing against bad weather. Everyone can agree on it. Recall that the first friend I quoted used the phrase “both sides.”

所以这似乎是一种取舍。我们要么对华盛顿的政客们作为一个群体表达困惑，这似乎有利于(让我们诚实地说)暂时的团结，要么我们清楚地表明那些阻止进步的人的动机，这让人感觉有可能加剧政治裂痕。在这种背景下，很容易看出为什么表达困惑似乎很有吸引力。

But I think it’s the wrong response. If we were a small village in ancestral times responding to a grave and violent outside threat, then it would make sense to do whatever it takes to be unified as a group (avoid pointing fingers). We are not, however, such a small village. Political disagreement is a fact of life in a large democracy like ours in any case. So being governed by impulses that make sense in the small village context is likely to lead us astray.

我觉得还是诚实点比较好。对于一个精神错乱的19岁少年来说，购买一种用于大规模屠杀的有效武器是合法且容易的，原因是许多共和党政客都在全国步枪协会的控制之下，该协会从这种死亡武器的合法性中获得了经济上和意识形态上的利益。这不是令人困惑的;它是完全清楚。听到这些可能会激怒一些人。但政治变革往往始于让人们愤怒。此外，诚实更能纪念死者。它在未来拯救生命方面有更好的前景。