Best Of

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 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?

@RobinH said:
I mean that if violence has a culture I'd rather be known as non-violent. Which, in that way would seem like the radical alternative.

Non-violence has a long tradition in India and Tibet, for instance. I recall a story about how Tibetans would sweep the ground with soft brushes in front of a gate, in order to not harm ants and small beetles who may be walking there when the wooden gates were opened. The Jains of India have a strict tradition of not eating after dark, because one may not see insects who land on the food and harm them by eating them. This kind of level of respect for ahimsa, non-violence, is rare in the world.

In the Western world we have largely outsourced violence. The butcher slaughters animals for the meat on your dinner table, the police tackle thieves and robbers, the prison service detains jailed criminals, the army defends the country. Violent action is taken on your behalf, and sometimes without your consent.

I can say I don't own a gun. I feel like it would create a certain amount of violence in my mind contemplating its potential use.

I also don't feel comfortable with the notion of "should". People, and Buddhists, can do what they want with their lives. I might ask them to reflect on how owning or not impacts their mind and practice. We're not all in the same circumstances or mind set.

I hadn't reflected on this question in a while so I googled a bit and an old thread came up that I found interesting.
https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/24890/buddhists-and-guns/p1

My own attitude around guns in the US is that there should be more requirements for owning one, similar to driving licenses. To own one you need to pass a basic written test on safety, most gun deaths are accidental or suicide. To be able to carry one training courses with refreshers courses would be required.

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.

Yes, the Israeli responses are out of all proportion. But I think if you look at the situation through the lens of real-politik it is necessary to create a solution which accommodates both sides.

I think that given the October attack by Hamas, it was inevitable that there would be a reaction by the IDF, and that it would be harsh. How harsh I don’t think anyone could have predicted, it is like the old Roman practice of decimating, killing every tenth man of a captive army but instead applied to a whole population. Setting back civilisation by two thousand years.

Nevertheless I don’t feel you can leave the Palestinian attitude out of it entirely and just pardon them because of the historical and current wrongs they have suffered. There are still old men in the Palestinian Territories holding on to old ownership papers for land in Israeli villages and hoping and planning for a return — some of them were interviewed for television here. This isn’t feasible and there is no political path for it to happen, the modern state of Israel is just a fact.

Anti-terrorism laws are really strict, both here and in Israel. They are the reason for the checkpoints and fences and travel restrictions. How many cases they really prevent I do not know, and perhaps they are more there to show Palestinians the superiority of Israel. But if they weren’t there, how many young Hamas loyalists might go out and stage a mini-October attack every Saturday night? Without that show of force would Hamas violence increase?

@Shoshin1 said:
Palestinians have long said they want peace, peace with dignity, freedom, and equality. That is the truth too often erased.

This is not what I’m seeing if I look at events and at the media coverage back then. Support for Hamas remains high among the population, and Hamas planned and carried out the October 2023 attack. It looks to me like the ‘Palestinians want peace’ narrative is a piece of spin fed to the Western media for the express reason of getting the worldwide public to support them. Although perhaps the population of Gaza want peace a lot more now that it’s becoming clear how bad things can get.

At the root of the conflict are Buddhist mental states — greed, desire, hate, anger. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn said “the line between good and evil runs through every heart.” And it is education and propaganda that feeds the fire. The lessons of Nazi Germany are still reverberating down the ages.

In order for a solution to have a real chance, the behaviour and embedded education on both sides has to change. And honestly, I don’t hold out much hope for a workable solution. Maybe in another few hundred years people will come to their senses.

@Jeroen said:

@Shoshin1 said:
This morning, I, along with hundreds of locals, attended a massive rally and march in the Auckland CBD. The ferry over was full of keffiyeh-wearing, Palestinian flag carrying locals.

I can understand the urge to want to do something about the genocide in Gaza, but there is a difference between supporting a peaceful local government in Gaza and supporting the so-called “Palestinian cause”. The Palestinian people seem to be pressurised socially into supporting Hamas, which tries to get its way with violence, hostage-taking and terrorism. There haven’t been free and fair elections in Gaza since Hamas had a conflict with the Fatah party in 2006.

For me, peace is non-negotiable, and violence should stay out of politics. But because Hamas is the only government Gaza has known for nearly 20 years, I don’t feel I can support the Palestinian cause. Until I know that the Palestinian people are going to throw out the war-mongers, you won’t see me at one of these rallies. I’ll be happy to support causes that call for an end to the violence instead, what the Israeli’s are doing is a disgrace.

This post, due to its lack of information, is supporting a genocide. Hamas have no relevance to anything under International Law because Israel is an Occupying Power under International Law, which forbids Occupying Powers making war against Occupied Territories and allows Occupied People a right of resistance. Try reading this link: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204170

As for Hamas, it has always been questionable who they work for because Israel helped place them into power and continued to lobby countries such as Qatar to fund them. But, as i posted, even if Hamas was a genuine resistance group, Israel has no right to take military action against an Occupied Territory under both International Law and Dhamma Law.

Under law, I cannot trespass in your home and, if you try to defend yourself and I kill you, I cannot assert self-defense as an intruder in your home. This is the same as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2. Nazis cannot claim they acted in self-defence.

It is not possible for a Buddhist with Right View to blame Hamas in any way for the genocide. The genocide is contrary to International Law and the perpetrators of the genocide are the Zionists and particularly their primarily supporters, namely, USA. UK, Germany, etc.

We can compare Gaza to what happened with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah started destroying Israeli military facilities in northern Israel in response to Gaza. Israel had a right under International Law to take military action against Lebanon and Hezbollah because Lebanon is not an Occupied Territory of Israel.

Its black & white under International Law; here: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/204170 There is no argument from a Buddhist point of view. Buddhism is clear in the sutta DN 31 that a Buddhist does not act out of prejudice. Israel has breached International Law countless times since its creation and there are no excuses from an unprejudiced point of view.

@Jeroen said:
Certainly you are welcome to practice Dharma as you see fit 🙏

But I think one Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh has an impact far overshadowing most boycotts or pickets, and perhaps it might be worthwhile to write letters to Buddhist worthies calling on them to support the practice of peace in word and deed…

I do what I do, and what others choose to do is entirely up to them. Some are actively involved, while others choose not to be, and that is their path.

For my part, I attend peaceful solidarity rallies and marches each week and have written numerous letters to my local newspaper. These have been well received by the community, with many readers now actively involved, advocating for an end to the violence and accountability for those responsible.

From what I understand, Thich Nhat Hanh was deeply involved in anti-war activism during the Vietnam War. Through his philosophy of “engaged Buddhism,” he demonstrated that spiritual practice and social action can go hand in hand.

This morning, I, along with hundreds of locals, attended a massive rally and march in the Auckland CBD. The ferry over was full of keffiyeh-wearing, Palestinian flag carrying locals. Thousands came from around the country to join the march for humanity, and no doubt many Buddhists were among the crowd.

I think the argument that since social media algorithms manipulate what gets seen that makes them an editor and a publisher and responsible for what gets seen on their platforms is right. They hide behind the fact that the posts are user generated content to get away with the enragification of the world.