Best Of

@Lionduck said:
The question, "Should Buddhists own Guns?"
The question should rather be,"What attitude or mind set should Buddhists who own weapons have regarding their ownership and use of said weapons?"

I see it as, a gun has no purpose besides killing. Is it justified in Buddhist thought to possess one? If you want to be competent in self defence, why not go and learn martial arts?

...and the rest

Yes time to rest... Sorry could not resist. Shoot me!

The question, "Should Buddhists own Guns?"
The question should rather be,"What attitude or mind set should Buddhists who own weapons have regarding their ownership and use of said weapons?"

Even if guns are unlikely to disappear, that does not make their presence harmless. Guns in homes make people far more likely to be killed or to die by suicide, and the “good guy with a gun” rarely stops mass shootings, often making situations worse.

The Second Amendment was written for a very different time, today, citizens cannot realistically defend against modern police or the military, but real people are being killed daily in preventable ways. Stronger licensing, background checks, safe storage, and limits on high-capacity weapons would save lives. Treating guns as inevitable ignores the human suffering they cause.

Again we need to agree to disagree.

I know we've had more than one thread on the topic of guns over the years so I went and looked for some more. This is another good one.
https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/23819/empathy-for-gun-owners/p1

I read my own response and find that my feelings really haven't changed much in the past 9 years.

I'm not sure I have a specific position anymore but I have some isolated thoughts on the matter.

Even if you banned gun sales in the US tomorrow a good gun can be maintained for decades or even centuries and bullets can be manufactured at home. Getting the US to a level of guns like the UK or something would take a major effort and there are enough people who wouldn't sell them back or actively fight any effort to take them by force that I think guns are here to stay in the US.

A gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times higher than a home without a gun. You're 20 times more likely to be shot by someone you know than an unknown assailant. And twice as many people die from guns by suicide than homicide. So guns are most dangerous to gun owners.

Much of the original intent behind the second amendment giving the citizen the right to own a firearm was to protect citizens against a tyrannical government takeover. But looking at the state of the military and police forces today even the best equipped and trained citizen militia groups wouldn't stand a chance against that might.

Maybe a good guy with a gun could stop a bad guy with a gun in those occasional situations where there is an active shooter. Unless that good guy is well trained in keeping calm, identifying targets, etc. they are also likely to misfire and cause more trouble than they are preventing. So I think if say anyone wants to carry a firearm around for protection they should have to undergo regular situation and shooting training and get licensed.

I'm not sure there can ever be enough gun control to stop mass shootings. The terror attacks in Europe shows criminals and terrorists can get their hands on guns if they really want. And hunting rifles instead of handguns could easily be used for school shootings, though the way they are carried out might change.

Gun ownership and gun violence is very different for rural areas than it is for large cities, so its tough to apply one gun control law that adequately addresses the needs of both areas.

@Shoshin1 said:

most gun deaths are accidental or suicide.

>
Most gun deaths are suicide. Accidental deaths make up only around 1%, and homicide accounts for about 34%.

Apparently I never said that.

I think its similar to the question of political involvement. Does it move us toward liberation and compassion, or deeper into suffering and entanglement?

We are involved in and with politics whether we like it or not. Even Buddhists, who seek peace and compassion, cannot escape the consequences of silence or inaction. Every choice, every word, shapes the world around us.

Some try to avoid their own discomfort by denying the injustice happening around them, or by claiming both sides are equally to blame, using that as a way to soothe their conscience.

But how involved are we? Do we involve ourselves in a way that further entangles us or do we involve ourselves in a way that leads to greater freedom?

Just making the point that when you point the finger at someone else, there are three pointing back at you. Don't be so quick to judge.

I also know gun owners who are in favor of major changes to gun laws but own them because this is the state of things here and they feel they have a responsibility to their family. The motivation and feeling they have is one of care and responsibility.

Something worth reflecting on is sometimes its hard to have empathy and see things from another's perspective We tend to approach things we ourselves have little personal experience with as being similar to how we would feel.

I own 3 guns, passively acquired by gift or inheritance. Wouldn't care to generalize about whether I, or anyone else, should have them or not.

@Shoshin1 said:

I also don't feel comfortable with the notion of "should". People, and Buddhists, can do what they want with their lives.

Yes, a Buddhist can technically do whatever they want (and I know I often do), but the real question is whether those choices move us toward liberation and compassion, or deeper into suffering and entanglement.

Bearing in mind that guns were developed for the purpose of killing or maiming, their very existence sits uneasily alongside the Buddhist precept of avoiding harm.

I think its similar to the question of political involvement. Does it move us toward liberation and compassion, or deeper into suffering and entanglement?

I asked this question to AI and this was its reply:

That’s a thoughtful question, and one Buddhists have reflected on for centuries. The answer isn’t a simple yes or no but depends on how one understands and applies Buddhist teachings, especially the First Precept: to abstain from taking life.

Traditional Buddhist View: Owning a weapon, especially one designed to kill, is generally seen as contrary to cultivating non-violence (ahimsa) and compassion. The Buddha discouraged making or trading in weapons, and advised against professions connected with killing. From this standpoint, a gun would symbolise potential harm.

Practical/Modern View: Some Buddhists live in contexts where safety is a real concern. They may argue that owning a gun for protection does not necessarily mean an intent to kill—it could serve as a deterrent. But this is ethically tricky: the moment one uses it, the precept against harming is at risk of being broken.

Inner Reflection: Buddhism often asks: what is the motivation? If a gun is owned out of fear, anger, or desire for control, it strengthens unwholesome states of mind. If it is kept with the thought of protecting others, the owner must still weigh the karmic consequences of possibly harming.

Middle Way Response: Some Buddhist teachers suggest that the best approach is to cultivate alternative forms of protection—community, mindfulness, de-escalation skills—rather than relying on a tool made for killing.

So, what do you think?
Should a Buddhist own a gun ?

If you own a gun, why did you purchase one ?

I guess this mainly applies to people in the US, where for many, guns are part and parcel of daily life, but from a Buddhist perspective the question isn’t about rights or culture so much as whether owning a weapon nourishes fear or compassion.

Life is an improvised dance to Mother Nature's song