美国枪支暴力问题
美国面临着严重的枪支暴力问题。与其他发达国家相比，美国的凶杀率极高。大多数死亡都与扣动扳机有关。显而易见的解决方案是禁止枪支。
Original English
America has a massive gun violence problem. Compared to other wealthy countries, the US murder rate is extremely high. And behind most of these deaths is the pull of the trigger. The obvious solution is then to ban guns.拥枪权利
我们有权拥有枪支。
Original English
>> we have the right to bear arms.“美国最武装的人”
我叫梅尔·伯恩斯坦，他们称我为“美国最武装的人”。我名下拥有超过4000件武器，超过200挺机枪，火焰喷射器，我拥有的所有东西都是合法的。
Original English
>> My name is Mel Bernstein and they call me the most armed man in America. I have over 4,000 weapons in my name, over 200 machine guns flamethrowing, and everything I have is legal.枪支禁令不太可能
是的，这不太可能发生。幸运的是，我有一些好消息。社会科学家最近进行了一系列广泛的实验，证实了美国枪支暴力实际上可以在不禁止枪支的情况下得到大幅度减少。看看来自宾夕法尼亚大学的这项引人注目的研究。他们尝试了一种几乎荒谬的简单方法。
Original English
>> Yeah, this is unlikely to happen. Luckily, I have some good news. Social scientists have recently conducted extensive experiments that confirm that US gun violence can actually be drastically reduced without banning guns. Take this remarkable study from the University of Pennsylvania. They tried something almost absurdly simple.费城空地清理实验
与费城合作，他们绘制了该市各个社区数万块空地。然后，他们随机选择了大约550块空地，并清理了它们，修剪草坪，清除垃圾，清理碎玻璃和针头。这些地方从废弃的荒地变成了可用的开放社区空间。这种简单的改变原来是一个游戏规则的改变者。
Original English
Working with the city of Philadelphia, they mapped tens of thousands of vacant lots scattered across its neighborhoods. Then they randomly selected around 550 lots and cleaned them up, trimming the grass, removing the trash, and clearing the broken bottles and needles. These spaces went from abandoned wastelands to usable open community space. This simple change turned out to be a gamecher.实验结果：犯罪率下降
仅仅一年后，经过修复的空地所在的社区经历了巨大的转变。人们报告说感觉更安全。犯罪率下降，甚至枪支暴力也下降了近30%。30%。没有额外的警力，没有没收枪支，没有将整个社区从贫困中解救出来，只是对物理环境进行了一点小小的改变。但是，为什么清理空地会降低某人扣动扳机的几率？为了回答这个问题，我们采访了芝加哥大学教授Yens Lewig，他是枪支暴力研究领域的领先研究人员。在他的书《不宽容的地方》中，他认为大多数人根本不了解暴力行为的本质。
Original English
After just one year, the neighborhood with restored lots experienced powerful shifts. People reported feeling safer. Crime dropped and even gun violence fell by nearly 30%. 30%. No extra policing, no gun confiscations, no lifting entire communities out of poverty, just a small change in the physical environment. But why would a clean lot lower the chance of someone pulling a trigger? To answer that question, we spoke with Chicago professor Yens Lewig, one of the leading researchers on gun violence. In his book, Unforgiving Places, he argues that most people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of violent behavior.暴力行为的本质
几十年以来，我们一直将暴力视为一种理性的成本效益决策。但对杀人动机的更深入分析表明，只有20%的杀人事件是人们为了特定目标而被杀害。例如，为报复而枪杀某人或试图抢劫他们的钱。相反，芝加哥大约80%的杀人事件并非源于这种经过深思熟虑的犯罪意图，而是源于争吵或争论而失控。换句话说，大多数枪击事件都发生在短时间内的情绪爆发中，是冲动、反应性决策的微小窗口。
Original English
For decades, we've treated violence as a rational costbenefit decision. But a deeper analysis of the motives for homicides reveal that only 20% of homicides are people being killed for a specific goal. Things like shooting someone for revenge or trying to take their wallet. In contrast, almost 80% of homicides in Chicago arise not from such moments of calculated criminal intent, but rather from fights or arguments that escalated beyond control. In other words, most shootings by far happen in short bursts of emotion, tiny windows of impulsive, reactive decisionmaking.枪支暴力与10分钟窗口
枪支暴力来自于这10分钟的窗口。从历史上看，我们花费了巨额资金试图改变人们在这些10分钟窗口中面临的激励措施。但这并没有奏效。美国今天的凶杀率与1900年几乎相同。
Original English
>> Gun violence comes from these 10-minute windows. We've historically spent enormous sums of money trying to change the incentives people face in those 10-minute windows. That has not worked. The murder rate in the United States today is almost exactly the same as it was in 1900.冲动决策的重要性
但是，正如我们所见，情况不必如此。事实证明，这种10分钟决策窗口的冲动性实际上是减少暴力的关键。也就是说，在不禁止枪支的情况下。但是，要确切地了解它是如何运作的，我们首先需要把显而易见的事情摆清楚。禁止枪支难道不是更容易吗？好吧，
Original English
>> But as we've seen, it does not have to be that way. As it turns out, the impulsive nature of this 10-minute window of decision-m is actually the key to reducing violence. That is, without banning guns. But to see exactly how this works, we first need to get the obvious out of the way. Wouldn't it just be much easier to ban guns? Well,美国枪支拥有量
根据小武器调查，美国是地球上枪支数量超过人口的唯一国家，估计每100名居民拥有120支枪。为了掌握这个数字的规模，请考虑名单上的下一个国家拥有每100人53支枪。那是也门，一个实际上处于内战多年的国家。在另一端，像韩国和日本这样的国家拥有接近于零的枪支拥有率。他们也有世界上最低的凶杀率之一。
Original English
according to the Small Arms Survey, the United States is the only country on Earth with more guns than people, with an estimated 120 firearms for every 100 residents. to grasp the magnitude of that figure. Consider that the next country in the list has 53 firearms per 100 people. And that's Yemen, a country that has literally been in a civil war for years. At the other end of the spectrum, countries like South Korea and Japan have gun ownership rates close to zero. And they also have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world.枪支数量与凶杀率的关系
研究表明这一点非常明确。不，这绝不是一个巨大的巧合。我所做以及其他人所做的研究表明，当一个地方拥有的枪支越多，凶杀率就越高。因此，更多枪支所有权可能具有的威慑犯罪的作用被枪支增加人际冲突致命性的影响所抵消。
Original English
Research on this is very clear. No, this is not a massive coincidence. The research that I've done and what other people have done show that um when a place has more guns on net, the murder rate goes up. So, whatever deterrent effect more gun ownership might have to prevent crime is outweighed by the effect of guns increasing the lethality of interpersonal conflict.枪支数量与凶杀率的简单关系
所以，乍一看，这似乎很简单。枪支越少，凶杀案就越少。这也符合我们对几乎80%的凶杀案是情绪爆发的结果的认识。如果你给争吵的情绪化的人们提供枪支，那么当然，其中一些枪支会被使用，将原本可能只是擦伤的伤害变成枪伤。
Original English
>> So, at first glance, it seems pretty straightforward. Fewer guns is fewer murders. This would also fit with our knowledge that almost 80% of murders are the consequence of emotional outbursts. If you give arguing emotional people guns, then of course some of these guns will be used, changing what could have been a black eye into a gun wound.枪支并非唯一因素
然而，仅仅枪支并不能说明全部故事。例如，瑞士的枪支拥有率高于墨西哥，但凶杀率却远低于墨西哥。所以，还必须有其他因素在起作用。
Original English
However, firearms alone do not tell the full story. Switzerland, for example, has a higher rate of gun ownership than Mexico, yet far lower homicide rates. So, something else must also be at play.枪支暴力 = 枪支 + 暴力
思考这个问题的方式是，枪支暴力等于枪支加上暴力。因此，枪支的可获得性很重要，但人们使用枪支伤害他人的意愿也很重要。
Original English
The way to think about this is like gun violence is equal to guns plus violence. So gun availability matters, but so does the willingness of people to use guns to hurt one another.减少枪支暴力的关键
这理解科学家们大幅度减少枪支暴力而不禁止枪支的关键。与其专注于夺走枪支，这在美国在政治上似乎是不可能的，他们专注于减少争吵或争论导致情绪化暴力爆发的机会。这最终就像是对这个问题的乐观的见解，因为它表明，如果这4亿支枪在可预见的未来都不会消失，那么还有其他事情我们可以担心公共政策。
Original English
>> This is the key to understanding how scientists drastically reduced gun violence without banning guns. Rather than focusing on taking away guns, which seems politically impossible in the US, they focused on reducing the chances a fight or argument would lead to an emotionally charged violent outburst. That's ultimately like a optimistic insight into the problem because what it suggests then is if the guns if the 400 million guns in the United States are not going anywhere anytime soon. There's something else that we can worry about with public policy in the meantime, which is how do we change the willingness of people to hurt one another with guns.Lovable 赞助
但在我们深入研究真正有效的减少暴力实验之前，让我们谈谈科学家们越来越多地使用的开创性工具，以开发他们自己的应用程序和网站。感谢我们的赞助商Lovable。例如，我的同事Alejandro最近开始使用Lovable来构建一个应用程序，用于此视频。现在，他没有任何编码背景，但他能够在几秒钟内为这个视频构建一个超级炫酷的数据仪表板。而且他向我展示了这实际上非常容易制作。为了创建这个炫酷的仪表板，他只是对AI说：“我想要一个简单的策略数据仪表板，用户可以在其中比较各个国家/地区的暴力统计数据。”在一两分钟的等待之后，他得到了这个很棒的软件，他可以在屏幕上直接进行视觉上的改进，调整颜色、组件、间距、布局，而无需接触任何代码。”然后，我问他我们是否也可以将其制作成一个交互式地图。老实说，我的脑海中充满了可能性。Lovable的好处是，像Alejandro这样的非编码人员可以通过提示来完成所有操作，而像我这样的编码人员可以手动调整代码。最后，我们也可以作为一个团队一起工作。老实说，我们已经习惯了人工智能的力量，这太奇怪了，因为想想吧。如果五年前有人告诉我有一个像Lovable这样的应用程序，可以让99%的人即使不编码也能构建现成的工具，或者像我这样的编码人员可以工作得更快。我不知道我会相信的。所以，是的，Lovable给我留下了深刻的印象，我强烈建议你也尝试一下。它是免费试用的。数百万人已经在使用了它，Lovable现在是地球上增长最快的初创公司之一。所以，请访问lovable.dev开始构建，并使用我的代码money macro 20YT获得20%的折扣。话虽如此，让我们回到真正减少枪支暴力的方法。让我们从那些实际上没有起作用的政策开始，以及为什么。
Original English
>> But before we dive into the violence reducing experiments that actually work, let's talk about some of the groundbreaking tools that scientists are increasingly using to develop their own apps and websites. Thanks to our sponsor, Lovable. For example, my colleague Alejandro recently started experimenting with Lovable to build an app for this video. Now, he has no background in coding and yet he was able to build this super fancy data dashboard for this video in seconds. And he showed me that this was actually super easy to make. To create this fancy dashboard, he just talked to the AI by saying, "I want a simple policy data dashboard where users can compare violence statistics across countries. And after one or two minutes of waiting, he got this cool software that he can refine visually directly on the screen, adjusting colors, components, spacing, layout without touching any code." Then I asked him if we could also make this into an interactive map. And honestly, my mind was blown thinking about the possibilities. What's great about Lovable is that non-coders like Alejandro can do everything through prompting while coders like myself can adjust the code manually. Finally, we can also work together as a team. Honestly, it's so weird how quickly we have gotten used to the power of AI because think about it. If five years back someone told me there was an app like Lovable that could enable 99% of people who don't code to actually build production ready tools or coders like me to work so much faster. I don't know I would have believed it. So yeah, Lovable really impressed me and I highly recommend you try it out as well. It's free to try. Millions of people are already using it and Lovable is officially one of the fastest growing startups on the planet right now. So go to lovable dev to start building today and use my code money macro 20YT for 20% off. With that said, let's get back to what actually reduces gun violence without banning guns. Let's start with the policies that have actually not worked and why.暴力行为的两种解释
大多数美国人认为，暴力行为是由于以下两种不同的解释造成的。所以，一种观点是暴力是由于道德败坏的人，他们不害怕刑事司法系统。因此，你得出结论，正如你所指出的，防止枪支暴力的唯一方法是威胁人们更大的刑事司法惩罚。大多数不相信这种传统智慧的美国人相信另一种传统智慧，即暴力是由于经济绝望造成的。只是人们会不惜一切代价来养活自己和家人。因此，你能做的唯一事情就是让犯罪的替代方案更有吸引力。嗯，所以人们做出不同的选择。这是更好的工作前景，更慷慨的社会政策等等。
Original English
>> Most Americans think that violent behavior is due to one of two different explanations. So one sort of view is that violence is due to morally bad people who are just not afraid of the criminal justice system. And so that leads you to conclude, as you point out, that the only way to prevent gun violence is to threaten people with bigger criminal justice sticks. Most Americans who don't believe in that conventional wisdom believe in a different conventional wisdom, which is that violence is due to economic desperation. It's just people who will do whatever it takes to feed themselves and their families. And so the only thing that you can do to prevent gun violence is to make the alternatives to crime more lucrative. Um so people make a different choice. That's more that's better job prospects, more generous social policies and things like that.胡萝卜与大棒
所以，根据传统智慧，为了减少暴力，你需要“胡萝卜”——补贴工作、食品券、现金转移、住房券——或者“大棒”。更严厉的惩罚、更多的逮捕、更大的监狱。然而，正如我们所见，大多数暴力并非理性。
Original English
>> So according to conventional wisdom, to reduce violence, you either need the carrot subsidized jobs, food stamps, cash transfers, housing vouchers, or the stick. Harsher penalties, more arrests, bigger prisons. However, as we've seen, most violence by far is not rational.两种方法都无法解决根本问题
这两种方法都针对理性暴力。人们因为贫穷而暴力抢劫某人。邪恶的人选择谋杀某人。但关键是，它们不能解决源于情绪化争吵而失控的暴力。换句话说，大多数枪击事件都发生在短时间内的情绪爆发中，是冲动、反应性决策的微小窗口。
Original English
Both the carrot and the stick approach target rational violence. People choosing to violently rob someone for money because they're poor. Evil people choosing to murder someone. But crucially, they do not address violence emerging from emotionally charged arguments gone wrong type of situations. With this knowledge in mind, it's not surprising that policies aiming to reduce poverty do not substantially reduce violent behavior.减少贫困并不能减少暴力
例如，在德克萨斯州和佐治亚州进行的一项大型实验，随机给了一组离开监狱的人一笔可观的收入，而另一组则没有。结果，两组中最终回到监狱的人数大致相同。同样，一项又一项研究，对食品券、补贴工作或住房券进行实验，发现了一个一致的模式。这些项目确实减少了贫困，这很好，它们也减少了财产犯罪，例如盗窃，但它们对枪支暴力几乎没有影响。所以，“胡萝卜”并没有真正起作用。但是，“大棒”呢？好吧，
Original English
For example, a large experiment in Texas and Georgia randomly gave one group of people leaving prison a substantial income while withholding it from another, and roughly the same number of individuals in both groups ended up back in jail the following year. Similarly, study after study after study that experimented with food stamps, subsidized jobs or housing vouchers has found a consistent pattern. These programs do reduce poverty, which is great, and they do reduce property crime, which is also great, robbing, but they tend to have very little effect on violence. So, the carrot doesn't really work. But what about the stick? Well,监禁与暴力
有证据表明，增加监禁率确实可以减少暴力犯罪。但是，鉴于大多数暴力是情绪爆发的结果，这又是怎么回事呢？好吧，监禁人们确实在一定程度上起作用，仅仅是因为它将一些有非常暴力意图的邪恶的人和一些最容易情绪爆发的人从社会中移除。然而，你监禁的人越多，社会成本就越高，因为你必须为监狱付费，并且你减少了经济中的潜在工人。此外，
Original English
>> there is some evidence that increasing the incarceration rate does reduce violent crime. >> But how can this be given that most violence is the consequence of emotional outbursts? Well, locking up people does work to an extent simply because it removes both some evil people with very violent intentions and some of them people that are most prone to emotional outbursts from society. However, the more people you lock up, the higher the costs are to society, both because you have to pay for prisons and because you have fewer potential workers in the economy. On top of that,美国高监禁率的局限性
在美国的背景下，还不清楚我们还有多少余地。我们拥有世界上最高的监禁率之一。嗯，同时，正如我们刚才所说，我们的凶杀率也是任何富裕国家中最高的。
Original English
>> in the US context, it's it's not clear how much further we have room to go, right? We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Um, and at the same time, as we just said, the highest murder rate of any rich country in the world.“大棒”的局限性
所以，是的，“大棒”有时可以减少暴力，但它会付出很高的社会成本。与此同时，“胡萝卜”可以有效地减少贫困和降低盗窃等财产犯罪，但它们对枪支暴力影响有限。这些方法之所以未能奏效，仅仅是因为贫困和邪恶意图会导致抢劫或报复类型的暴力。但是，正如我们所见，这并不是美国暴力行为的主要原因。要获得更多证据，只需看看芝加哥社区的比较。虽然在富裕地区枪击事件非常罕见，但在同样贫困的社区中，暴力程度差异很大。一些社区非常暴力，而另一些社区则少得多。如果贫困或道德败坏是全部故事，我们就不会在相似的社区中看到如此巨大的差异。显然还有其他事情在发生。
Original English
>> So, yes, the stick can sometimes reduce violence, but it does so at a very high social cost. Meanwhile, the carrot is effective for reducing poverty and lowering property crime like burglaries, but they have a very limited impact on gun violence. And the reason these approaches have fallen short is simply that both poverty and evil intent would lead to robberies or revenge types of violence. But as we've seen, that's not what is the leading cause of violence in the US. For more evidence, just look at this comparison of Chicago neighborhoods. It's true that shootings are extremely rare in wealthy areas, but among equally poor neighborhoods, the level of violence varies dramatically. Some neighborhoods are extremely violent while others are far less so. If poverty or bad morals were the whole story, we would not see such a huge difference among similar neighborhoods. Something else is clearly going on.行为经济学的视角
根据Yens Ludwig教授的说法，解决方案与行为经济学有关，即关注人类非理性行为的经济学分支。
Original English
According to Professor Yens Ludwick, the solution has to do with behavioral economics. the branch of economics that focuses on human irrationality.暴力行为的激励机制
如果你认为解决方案是更大的“大棒”或更大的“胡萝卜”，那么你隐含地认为枪支暴力或暴力行为的问题是激励措施。你想象着，在扣动扳机之前，人们或多或少地理性地或仔细地权衡即将发生的事情的利弊。但事实并非如此，美国大多数谋杀案和枪击事件都源于争吵。
Original English
>> If you think the solution is either bigger sticks or bigger carrots, you implicitly think the problem of gun violence or violent behavior is one of incentives. You imagine that before anybody ever pulls a trigger, they are more or less rationally or deliberately or carefully thinking through the pros and cons of what's about to happen. But that's not what most murders, most shootings in the United States actually are. The overwhelming share of murders stem from arguments.成功的暴力预防策略
因此，毫不奇怪的是，真正成功的减少暴力研究实际上是关于如何防止争吵升级为暴力。简而言之，社会科学家发现了两种方法。第一种是犯罪学家称之为非正式社会控制。基本思想很简单。当冲突开始出现时，负责任的成年人，可以是邻居、社区成员或保安，在附近可以化解局势，防止其升级为暴力。在充满活力的社区中，街道上有很多眼睛。人们彼此认识，他们互相照顾，并且他们感到有能力在紧张局势升级时介入。
Original English
>> So, not surprisingly, the truly successful studies about reducing violence have actually been about how to prevent an argument from escalating into violence. In a nutshell, social scientists found two ways to do this. The first is about what criminologists call informal social control. The basic idea is simple. When conflicts begin to emerge, having responsible adults, this can be neighbors or community members or security guards nearby, can diffuse the situation before it escalates into violence. In vibrant neighborhoods, there are plenty of eyes on the street. People know one another, they look out for each other, and they feel empowered to step in when tensions rise.宾夕法尼亚州空地清理实验的意义
宾夕法尼亚州的实验正是实现了这一点。清理空地并不是因为一个好的社区会阻止犯罪分子，而是因为当你修整空地，把它变成一个小公园时，人们更有可能花时间在公共场所，而不是躲在家里。枪击事件减少了，而且幅度很大，在低收入社区中减少了20%或30%。
Original English
>> when you fix up a vacant lot, you turn it into a little pocket park, people are much more likely to now spend time out in public rather than hunker down in their homes. and shootings go down and not by a little but by a lot on the order of like 20 or 30% in low-income neighborhoods.更多眼睛，更少暴力
其他研究考察了改善街道照明或雇用额外保安的影响，得出了类似的结论。街道上更多的眼睛意味着更少的暴力。当有人及早介入，无论是邻居、路人还是保安，暴力就不会仅仅被推迟。它被阻止了，因为升级的时刻已经过去，因此可能导致生命改变的冲动暴力决定永远不会发生。
Original English
>> Other studies examining the impact of improving street lighting or hiring additional security guards have reached similar conclusions. More eyes on the street lead to less violence. When someone intervenes early, whether it's a neighbor, a passer by, or a security guard, violence is not simply postponed. It's prevented because the moment of escalation has passed and therefore a snap decision of violence that would turn a life around is never made.自我干预的重要性
第二种实际上有效的行为解决方案侧重于自我干预，帮助个人管理那些紧张、情绪化10分钟的窗口。这种方法与心理学家描述的认知行为技术非常相似。这种干预措施中最成功的一种是“成为一名男人”或BAM项目，由青年指导开发。BAM通过结构化的学校内小组咨询，与面临辍学或卷入司法系统风险较高的城市学校的年轻男性合作。该项目教授旨在帮助参与者放慢速度、更清楚地评估情况并在冲动可能占上风的时刻做出更明智的决策的社会认知技能。
Original English
The second behavioral solution that actually works focuses on self interruptions, helping individuals manage those tense, emotionally charged 10-minute windows themselves. This approach closely mirrors what psychologists describe as cognitive behavioral techniques. And one of the most successful interventions of this kind is the becoming a man or BAM program developed by youth guidance. BAM works with young men in urban schools who face a heightened risk of dropping out or becoming involved in the justice system through structured inschool group counseling sessions. The program teaches social cognitive skills designed to help participants slow down, evaluate situations more clearly, and make wiser decisions in moments when their impulses might otherwise take over.BAM项目的影响
听听该项目的参与者说：“我一直知道我有愤怒问题。我继续参加BAM。我注意到的变化是更多的自我控制。我当时走在走廊里，有人撞到了我。我开始感到自己真的生气。我想做出反应。我想告诉他。狠狠地打他。然后我只是想到了他。他可能不是故意那样做的。那是个意外。所以我深吸一口气，冷静下来。我只是走进了教室。”
Original English
Just listen to this participant of the program. I've always known I had anger issues. I kept going to BAM. The change I noticed in myself was more self-control. I was walking in the hallway one time and someone bumped into me. I started to feel myself getting real angry. Like I wanted to react. I wanted to tell him about himself. Smack on. Then I just thought about him. He probably ain't mean to do it on purpose. It was an accident. So I took a deep breath, calm down. I just walked to class.BAM项目的研究结果
Yens Ludwig本人负责通过在芝加哥低收入社区实施的大规模随机对照试验评估BAM项目，结果令人震惊。该项目提高了学校参与度，使毕业率提高了12%到19%，并导致暴力逮捕率降低了惊人的45%到50%。更令人印象深刻的是，当该项目的一个版本实施给更高风险的青少年时，他们被关押在少年临时拘留中心，结果仍然显著。
Original English
Yens Ludwig himself was in charge of evaluating the BAM program through several largecale randomized control trials implemented in lowincome neighborhoods in Chicago and the results were staggering. The program improved school engagement, increased graduation rates by 12 to 19% and led to a staggering 45 to 50% decrease in violent arrests. Even more impressively, when a version of the program was implemented with even higher risk teenagers who were inside a juvenile temporary detention center, the results remained significant.成本效益分析
我们看到，对于那些被认为在芝加哥有最高暴力风险的人来说，统计上减少了20%的再犯率。
Original English
>> We saw that there's a statistically there's like a 20% reduction in recidivvis for the people at highest estimated risk for for violence in Chicago.BAM项目的经济效益
是的，减少20%到50%的暴力是巨大的。与美国的监狱系统巨大的成本不同，这些干预措施是基本上免费的。你有了孩子们，你有了建筑物，你有了警卫。额外的成本基本上只是为警卫提供一周的培训和复印手册。这几乎是免费的。
Original English
>> And yes, a 20 to 50% reduction in violent crime is enormous. And unlike the massive costs of the US prison system, these interventions are basically free. You've got the kids, you've got the building, you've got the guards. The marginal cost, the the extra cost is basically just like a week of training for the guards and photocopying the booklets. It's as close to free as anything ever gets.结论：重新思考枪支暴力
这使我们得出结论，除了提出夺走枪支的案例之外，关于美国暴力问题的绝大多数公众辩论都是错误的。大多数暴力都是争吵升级的结果。这与情绪有关，而不是理性决策。因此，这两种方法都失败了。另一方面，像“成为一名男人”或清理社区环境这样的项目既便宜又简单，可以大幅度减少枪支暴力，因为它们要么增加非正式控制，要么教人们更好地控制自己的情绪。但是，当然，这并不是不减少贫困的借口，也不是忽视是的，给情绪化的人们提供枪支会导致更多的枪支死亡。不，这只是行为科学的一个有趣的见解，可以帮助改善世界，这希望就是你观看这个频道的原因。
Original English
Which brings us to our conclusion, which is that with the exception of making the case for taking guns away, most of the popular debate around violence in the US is misinformed. Most violence by far are arguments gone wrong. It's about emotional, not irrational decision-making. Therefore, both the stick and the carrot largely fail. On the other hand, programs like becoming a man or environmental changes such as cleaning up neighborhoods are cheap, easy ways to drastically reduce gun violence because they either increase informal control or because they teach people to better control their emotions themselves. But of course, this is not an excuse to not reduce poverty or a deflection from the fact that yes, giving lots of emotional people guns leads to more gun deaths. No, it's just an interesting insight from behavioral science that can help make the world a better place, which is hopefully why you watch this channel in the first place.互动与赞助
请在评论中告诉我，这个见解是否让你像我一样感到惊讶。不要忘记查看我们的赞助商Lovable，点击视频描述中的链接。