Best Of
Re: Should a Buddhist own a gun ?
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.
Shoshin1
Re: Should a Buddhist own a gun ?
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.
person
Re: Should a Buddhist own a gun ?
@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.
person
Re: Should a Buddhist own a gun ?
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.
Fosdick
Re: Should a Buddhist own a gun ?
@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?
person
Should a Buddhist own a gun ?
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.
Shoshin1
Re: Why Sangha?
My sangha is largely nature these days. Old white pines have much to teach. As did the songs of 2 Grey Jays while hiking this afternoon. The pattern of the wind on the water. I don't live remotely close to anyone who does Buddhist teachings.
We had a small group here once upon a time that dissolved after the teacher decided he didn't want to deal with a group so far from his home location (even though he only saw us once a year). He helped us start a local group and then we did a yearly retreat together, and also watched his weekly teachings remotely for several years. If I'm being honest it made me a little bitter that I took refuge vows with him where we both made promises in the student-teacher relationship and he bailed after saying he was responsible to be my teacher forever 😆 The local guy who started that Sangha no longer considers himself Buddhist. Several of the people were older and have since passed. A group leader I am not. I miss gathering in a group with like-minded curiosity and interest. It was especially nice in meditation. The pitfalls of living in a rural town with 3,000 residents 😂 Our local Presbyterians do a meditation group, I have considered joining them even though it is Christan-focused just to have the group connection.
karasti
Re: The Dalai Lama in ‘Wisdom of Happiness’
A review I found and translated…
Against the background of an empty, dark universe, he looks straight at you. Wrapped in his red-yellow py. “Eight billion people. Everyone, including our enemy, wants peace.” That's how you get to the movie Wisdom of Happiness 'face to face with the Dalai Lama', sitting in a cinema chair of course.
Of course, this is not a meeting with the 90-year-old Buddhist spiritual leader, born Tenzin Gyatso. But there are less comfortable seats to listen to an hour and a half sermon about inner peace.
In addition, this reading will be provided with a musical and visual setting. With beautiful nature images, and historical film material, such as the Dalai Lama among the refugees crossing the Tibetan mountains on foot.
Professor Paul van der Velde, a specialist in Asian religions at Radboud University in Nijmegen, watched the film at our request.
The Dalai Lama says that he would have preferred to be just a child in the past. And could have played, instead of having to memorise all those Buddhist texts. Very painful.
“Yes, that boys should become monks or, like him, dalai lama, really deprives a child of the chance to want something else. The sixth Dalai Lama, who lived around 1700, stepped down and was killed perhaps because of that. That really couldn't be heard, that was a drama.
The Dalai Lama when he was young.
“It's a whole system in Tibetan culture: you take a boy away from his parents' tent. That's the rules. You may have reservations about that. But the journey of an average tourist to Tibet was only successful with photos of those little, cute monks.
“If I compare that to what is happening on Sumatra in Indonesia with five thousand boys being educated with the Koran, it is suddenly harmful. If I bring that up, it sounds like 'yes, but in Tibet the children are experiencing spiritual growth'. Yes, hoho.”
There was even a special, 'holy' whip for him, reveals the Dalai Lama. About which he says: 'But I didn't feel any sacred pain'.
“That whip is not an overdoing. If you now enter a Tibetan monastery, you will see that those monks are very ordinary boys, who just want to mess around. But there is often a monk's agent walking around there with a sturdy stick. He's hitting. That is still the case.”
Where does the rosy image of the Tibetan Buddhist world come from?
“At the beginning of the last century, it was the theosophists who became obsessed with Tibet. They came into contact with ancient Buddhist texts about Shambhala, a mythical kingdom, which was located in Tibet. This movement again had a lot of influence on the New Age movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Thus remained the somewhat naive idea of paradise around Tibet.
“An age-old deep wisdom would have solidised there, a 'culture of peace', the Dalai Lama calls it in the film. But that's not true. Tibetan history is all war, one and all struggle.
“What has been done by China, which occupied Tibet, is horrific, that is so. What has been done to the Tibetans is indefensible. Only the dream image of Tibet deserves an adjustment: we should not sweep the dark sides of that culture under the carpet. The Tibet of the Dalai Lamas also experienced a lot of slavery.”
Yet the Dalai Lama is widely seen as a moral leader. How did that happen?
“He owes that moral leadership in part to what happened to him, to the fact that he is the leader of an oppressed people, that he had to flee Tibet, and lives in exile in Dharamsala, India. When this became world news, he became a globally known figure.
“He is also a man with huge communication skills. Look, much of what he says is not that impressive, you can hang his tile wisdom on the wall in Delft blue in no time. But his lessons are very much about his personality. He sits there and looks at the man. You can clearly see that he himself believes in it. He embodies his message. That's cool.
In the film, the Dalai Lama addresses the viewer and talks about finding inner peace and universal happiness.
“What I liked about the film is that he has endured so much misery in his life, and has had to do such difficult things, but still comes with a relatively simple message. You should know: Tibetan Buddhism is full of complicated terms and concepts. But he knows how to bring everything back to a story about inner peace. As an old man, he looks back on a well-spended life, and no longer finds it necessary to be so difficult.
“He knows how to keep people together. It is a connecting figure. And he knows how to hold attention, no matter how old he is. That is admirable.”
Towards the end of the film, the Dalai Lama expresses the hope that women will rule the world, because they would be more peaceful. Is Tibetan Buddhism so female-friendly?
"No. That's really his own message. In the entire Buddhist world, the man is at the top. And people look down on nuns, who also have to abide by many more rules. Tibet does have a tradition of wise women, you have female gurus there. But here, too, the position of women is much less than that of men.
“I completely agree with the Dalai Lama that if we were to seek inner peace, we could make it a wonderful world. We have that potential. But the fact is, in the end we don't do it. That is the point. And that unfortunately remains fairly undiscussed.
“What I did like to hear is that you achieve that inner peace and mutual connection according to the Dalai Lama by using your head. With Western Buddhists you often hear that it would be about the heart. No, it's something that's essential, that's just Buddhism.”
Jeroen
Re: My Dharma practice today
I’ve been continuing my contemplation of what the Dharma has brought…
In a way the books I have valued the most have been those of which I couldn’t afterwards remember much of the content, but which left me feeling uplifted and more blissful. Books which try to imprint themselves on my memory with lists and methods rarely brought me much.
By clearing out much of the unnecessary stuff in my mind, the Dharma allowed me to focus on what remained. The brahma viharas featured strongly — benevolence, compassion, empathetic joy, equanimity — as did meditation through relaxation. But this too passed.
The end of today’s consideration. To be continued.
Jeroen