Статья из Economist для intermediate и выше с русскими подсказками

The horror might have happened anyway. But gun control might have made it less easy

“YOU caused me to do this.” That was Cho Seung-hui's excuse (повод/оправдание) for murdering 32 people. Police found an essay in the young student's room that appeared to blame everyone but (кроме) himself for what he was about to do (собирался сделать). In it, he raged against (злился на) religion, women, rich kids, debauchery (распущенность) and the “deceitful (лживые) charlatans” at Virginia Tech, where he was studying English.
It was the worst peacetime shooting (перестрелка) in American history. Investigators (следователи) are still scrambling (с трудом пытаются) to work out (решить/определить) what happened. A combination of announcements, leaks (утечки информации) and witnesses (свидетельских показаний) suggest that it went something like this. Around 7.15 in the morning on April 16th, in a dormitory (общежитии) called West Ambler-Johnston Hall, Cho shot (выстрелил) and killed Emily Hilscher, an attractive 19-year-old would-be vet (будущего ветеринара). Around the same time, he shot Ryan Clark, a popular member of the university marching band. Why he chose these two as his first victims is unknown. Rumours (слухи) that he was attracted to Miss Hilscher are, inevitably (неизбежно), circulating. Mr Clark may have been shot because he tried to intervene (вмешаться/помешать).
On finding the bodies, the police assumed (предположила) it was a domestic dispute (бытовая ссора) and sought Miss Hilscher's boyfriend, who had dropped her off (высадил ее) at the dormitory that morning in his pick-up truck. They found him, pulled him over and questioned him.
Meanwhile, Cho was mailing a manifesto to NBC News. It included pictures of him posing with guns, video clips and a rambling (хаотичный/путаный) and obscene (непристойный) diatribe (резкая обличительная речь) against wealthy people. At 9.05, while police were still pre-occupied with (поглощены) Miss Hilscher's boyfriend, Cho entered Norris Hall, a block of classrooms half a mile from Ambler-Johnston. He locked the doors with chains (на цепь) to stop people escaping. Then he walked into classrooms, one by one, and tried to kill everyone inside. He had two guns: a Glock 9mm and a Walther P22. Both are semi-automatic: they fire bullets (пули) as quickly as you can keep pulling the trigger (курок). Each Glock magazine (обойма) held 15 rounds (выстрелов); the Walther's held 10.
Survivors said the gunman killed without saying a word. He shot teachers and students at close range (с близкого расстояния), in the face, in the mouth, anywhere. He put about three bullets into each victim, to make sure (для уверенности [в их смерти]). Every time he emptied (опустошал) a magazine, he reloaded (перезаряжал) with skill and speed. He had plenty of ammunition. He kept on killing until police burst into Norris Hall. Then he shot himself. His face was so badly disfigured (обезображено) that police found it hard, at first, to identify (установить личность) him.
Some of his classmates had a hunch (догадки), though. When the news broke that a gunman was shooting people at random (наобум), several guessed (догадались) it was Cho. He had always been quiet in class—in fact, he rarely spoke to anyone. He hid behind sunglasses, a hat and a blank expression (отсутствующее выражение лица). But his classmates found him intimidating (пугающим). It was his imagination that alarmed them.
He wrote two short plays (пьесы) for a creative-writing class. Nearly every line speaks of gore (кровь). The cardboard dialogue (литературные диалоги) suggests an author who never really listened to other people. And the plots are suffused with (наполнены) anxious fury (бешенством/неистовством): about money, sex, religion and overbearing (властный/повелительный)adults.
In 2005 two female students complained to the police that Cho was stalking (выслеживал) them, but declined (отказались) to press charges (настаивать на обвинениях). Police warned him off but did not arrest him because he had made no specific threats (угроз). A district court found reason to believe him “mentally ill” and “an imminent (неотвратимый) danger to self or others” and ordered him to undergo (пройти) a psychiatric test. But the examination found “his insight and judgment are normal” and he was discharged (освобожден/выпущен из под наблюдения).
He bought a gun on February 9th, at a pawnshop (ломбард), and another on March 16th, at a gun shop in a nearby town. Both sales were legal. Cho was a native South Korean, but he had lived in America since he was eight years old. His family owned a dry-cleaning business in northern Virginia. Cho was a legal, permanent resident. He showed the gun dealer three forms of identification: a Virginia driving licence, a cheque book with a matching address and an immigration card.
A quick background check (проверка биографических данных) showed he had no criminal record (прежней судимости), so he was entitled (имел право), under Virginia law, to buy one gun each month. The gunshop owner insisted he found nothing suspicious (подозрительного) about the college boy.
Among Cho's victims there were teachers and students, engineers and international-studies majors. One professor, Liviu Librescu, a 76-year-old Holocaust survivor (переживший Холокост), blocked the door of his classroom with his body to slow Cho's entrance. This bought enough time for his students to jump out of the window. But not enough for Mr Librescu himself to escape.
Many people asked how the horror might have been averted (предотвращен). Some complained that Virginia Tech should have warned students immediately after the first shootings, rather than waiting two hours, that the campus should have been “locked down” straight away, and that security at universities in general is too lax (вялый/слабый/небрежный).
With hindsight (взгляд в прошлое), it is clear that early warnings might have been useful. But police did not know who they were looking for or what kind of threat he posed until it was too late. Locking down the entire campus is tricky (сложный/мудреный) when the campus is the size of a small town. And American universities in general are extremely safe places. So guarding student dormitories is hardly the most urgent task for the police. Most Virginia Tech students seem to think that the university coped (справился) just about as well as it could have.
Some critics wondered why more could not have been done about Cho's obviously troubled mental state (психическое состояние). The question is, what? Until this week he had harmed (навредил) no one, so it is not clear that there was enough justification (оснований) for medicating him against his will (воли) or locking him up. Probably the most fruitful lessons to be learned from Virginia Tech concern (касаются) guns.
Some Democrats called for tighter gun controls. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California lamented (посетовал) that “shootings like these are enabled by the unparalleled ease (беспрецедентная легкость) with which people procure weapons in this country” and said she hoped that the tragedy would “reignite the dormant (находящиеся в спячке) effort to pass common-sense gun regulations”. But most politicians showed little enthusiasm for this idea. President George Bush said that “now is not the time to do the debate [on gun control].” Harry Reid, the Senate's Democratic majority leader, warned against a “rush to judgment” (скоропалительных выводов).
Those who already favour (поддерживают) gun control argue that if Cho had been barred (помешали/воспрепятствовали) from buying semi-automatic weapons, he could not have killed so many people. Those who oppose gun controls argue (утверждают) that if only his victims had been armed, they could have shot him before he shot more than a few of them.
The academic debate about whether guns save more innocent (невинных) lives than they cut short (обрывают), or vice versa (наоборот), may never end. Most Americans are inclined (склонны) to believe the latter (последнему (в списке перечисленного)). But politicians bow to (склоняются (в пользу)) the gun enthusiasts because their beliefs are much more likely to determine how they vote.
In the 1990s, the Democrats tried to impose modest gun controls. For example, in 1994 President Bill Clinton signed a ban on assault weapons (оружие ближнего боя) —military-type rapid-fire rifles with no conceivable (постижимый) civilian use except perhaps to defend one's home against a whole gang of drug-dealers. President Bush allowed this ban to lapse (терять силу) in 2004, however, and the Democrats are convinced that gun control helped them lose elections in 1994 and 2000.
The reason is that, no matter how often the Democrats promise not to take away hunters' rifles, the NRA (национальная стрелковая ассоциация) treats any curb (расценивает любое сокращение) on gun rights as a first step towards complete disarmament (разоружение). And without their 240m guns, it argues, Americans will be defenceless (беззащитными) not only against criminals but also against tyranny. The NRA draws on history to support its arguments. The first European settlers conquered America with guns; British soldiers tried to confiscate them, but the Americans revolted (подняли бунт) and shot off the superpower's yoke (иго).
This may be a selective view of history, but it is still relevant, for two reasons. One is that the notion of a right to bear arms is enshrined (закреплено) in the constitution. The other is that the NRA constantly exaggerates (преувеличивает) threats to gun-owners. Its sells books such as “Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defence (самообороны)”.
Few urban Americans swallow (глотают) this twaddle (чепуха), which is why many cities have stiff (жесткие) anti-gun laws. But some rural people do, and plenty more love hunting and think anti-gun Democrats are wusses (рохли/слабаки/тряпки). To counter (чтобы противостоять) this image and court (снискать расположение) rural votes, the Democratic Party has largely abandoned (отказалась от) its gun-control crusade (кампании (дословно: крестовый поход)). Its presidential candidates now play up (рекламируют) their love of hunting, real or otherwise. In several states, the party has recruited serious gun enthusiasts as candidates. The Democratic governor of Montana boasts (хвастает) that he has more guns than he needs, but not as many as he would like. And the Democrats won control of the Senate last year by fielding (номинировав) a pro-gun war hero to snatch ( чтобы вырвать) a pro-gun state from a pro-gun Republican incumbent (занимающее должность лицо). That state was Virginia.