Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I'm with you @ThailandTom and @Simonthepilgrim. Using violence to defend yourself does mean that you are cherishing yourself above others or that you are attached to 'your' body or family. Not that my reaction would necessarily be to lie down and take it or that one should never use violence. But from a buddhist point of view (this is a buddhist forum after all) violence is an action that usually misunderstands the true nature of things.
Not to bring rebirth up but I can see that this is one situation where a literal interpretation (or some kind of belief in an afterlife) would result in a different reaction than a figurative one. If karma and conciousness continues on then there could be less attachment to this one life and not as strong a desire to protect it to the point were one would kill another.
More directly to the second amendment. It gives the individual a right to bear arms. Its been interpreted that it doesn't give one the right to bear nuclear arms or chemical arms. So there apparently is some restriction. Would it then be reasonable to restrict hand guns or even 33 round clips (the kind the shooter of Gabriel Giffords used.) Also, there is a difference in gun use between rural America and urban America that really complicates this issue politically.
I understand the train of thought of one life not being anymore important than another, even if it involves your family or someone you deem as an innocent victim, but on this issue I have to go back to not believing something unless it agrees with my reason... perhaps someday if I awaken I'll see it differently.
Also, there is a difference in gun use between rural America and urban America that really complicates this issue politically.
Are you referring here to the use of hunting rifles in rural areas? I still haven't seen an answer to my question about how European countries deal with hunters. Or is hunting not allowed--is the gun ban across the board, not even allowing registered hunting rifles?
Person makes a good point. "Arms" are defined as firearms, not as nuclear arms, etc. If there are some restrictions, is it conceivable that at some point the Supreme Court might see fit to extend those restrictions, if such a case came before it?
.............. Person makes a good point. "Arms" are defined as firearms, not as nuclear arms, etc. If there are some restrictions, is it conceivable that at some point the Supreme Court might see fit to extend those restrictions, if such a case came before it?
Now there's a thought! As the text of the Second Amendment is sacred and taboo, perhaps it only applies to those arms available at the time it was drafted. Back to muzzle-loaded flint-locks.
On the point of changes to the Constitution and the general mind of "we-the-people", we can note that property rights were changed when it was realised that people should not own other people and slavery was abolished.
Now there's a thought! As the text of the Second Amendment is sacred and taboo, perhaps it only applies to those arms available at the time it was drafted. Back to muzzle-loaded flint-locks.
I love this logic! ^_^
On the point of changes to the Constitution and the general mind of "we-the-people", we can note that property rights were changed when it was realised that people should not own other people and slavery was abolished.
Good point. Speaking of property rights, it used to be that only landowners had the right to vote. That got changed, too, to universal suffrage (minus the women ).
Don't forget, though, Simon, that the Constitution was amended to end slavery only as the result of an enormously bloody and destructive Civil War. The issue came close to tearing the country apart, literally.
Even if the Constitution is sacred, no changes allowed, amendments to it are allowed. Suddenly, I have a shred of hope! This has been a good discussion.
Thank you 'person', this is a buddhist forum and if you really want to go all out in a buddhist sense, you will see even your mother is a person equal to the person shooting her. Violent actions almost always create violent reactions. Guns are the most violent thing we have made apart from the bomb. But guns are as easy to buy in most states in the US as toilet paper.
I think there is a great chance that an 'intruder' or 'assailant' will not take any life and they will just take material things. It is a shame to shoot that person and kill them before it is established that life is at stake.
I think most criminals would prefer not to kill anyone as that = more time and I think even they have a small bit of conscience. Of course some will kill.
You can't be sure of the intentions of an intruder... but having the means to protect yourself can help determine the actions of the intruder during a confrontation.
Is that property yours? How do you own anything, is your family yours? Who are you, who are you to take a living beings life in any circumstance.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Here's a BBC report on a Texas man who shot 2 burgalers in the back as they were leaving his neighbor's home. He's talking to a 911 dispatcher who tells him not to and you can hear the shots.
@ThailandTom My family is my accepted responsibility to provide for and to protect... I am free to accept this responsibility, or not, but I chose to accept this.
@person See, that's the thing. Because he had a gun, two people died who could have otherwise been apprehended by police and dealt with in the justice system. I said this a lot earlier on the first of these threads: whatever happened to burglar alarms and calling 911, the old-fashioned way?
You make a good point that having the means to protect yourself can help determine the actions of a (presumably unarmed) intruder in a confrontation. That applies to a narrow range of circumstances, mainly those involving unarmed intruders.
Twice I've head break-ins, and I was home both times. Once, someone broke a window in the basement and climbed in. I quietly exited through the front door (the intruder was in the rear of the basement, which was a rental unit), walked around the corner and down the alley in back to see who it was, and pretended to be a passer-by. I went to the nearest pay-phone and called the police.
The 2nd time, a young person walking past my property saw an open window and climbed in. I could hear them rifling through a closet in the roommate's room, and I thought at first it was the roommate, but he was supposed to be at work. I listened as the intruder seemed to get closer to my room. I was lucky, it was just a teenager. When he saw me, he ran out, climbed back out the window and ran away. I guess he thought he was burglarizing an empty home, and wasn't expecting to be caught and risk being reported. Same with the first incident--it was a teen, and he thought the house was empty, but he was wrong. I was in bed, so the lights were out, and the renters downstairs were out. Intruders aren't always the worst-case-scenario kind.
Seriously, what is up with these home invasions in the US. They happen in the UK, but the vast majority are known drug dealers or those who live in very very poor comunities mainly. Are these home invasions so frequent? Why is it only in the US with regards to developed countires that home invasions, homicides and death senetences are at the highest?
@ThailandTom New Mexico seems to have more of that than average. It's the second poorest state in the US, and has islands of prosperity, that become targets.
@Telly03 I know. I was really lucky. I could have ended up like that elderly neighbor lady, who was broken in on by two or three youths. But the only things I had worth stealing were well hidden. I still see no cause for getting a gun, only for taking more precautions.
But tell me, Telly, what would be your plan if you did get a gun? Would you keep it at home only, maybe in the bedroom nightstand? Or would you carry it in your car with you as well? Stuff can happen anywhere. It's such a big step to take, buying a gun. What if someone broke into your home while the family was away, and you came home, and there was the intruder, facing you with your own gun?
Yes, I would keep it in the home. We are not allowed to carry a gun outside of our residence or business in Hawaii unless your liscensed to do so, and I have no reason to be granted such a liscense.
You are correct in your scenario that I had just jeopardized the safety of my family by having the gun in the house... the way I see it though is that if an intruder was comfortable with the idea of using a gun in connection of his/her crime, and had the consitution to actually use it, then he/she would most likely have brought their own. After all, they are easy enough to obtain, which is the real problem here.
The odd thing is that in the US homicide rates have been falling, yet the public perception is that life is becoming more dangerous. These perceptions must be media-driven.
Canada: 1.62. US: 5.8. The lowest are the Germanic countries.
That's weird about Honduras. It used to be such a quiet, placid place. The Contra war against neighboring Nicaragua trashed it, I think.
Is that property yours? How do you own anything, is your family yours? Who are you, who are you to take a living beings life in any circumstance.
A decent human being who accepts the responsibility.
It is all well and good if you want to sit by and watch your family and innocents get killed and do nothing about it. I however will not stand for it, and will try with all of my might to protect them. No they are not "mine" but neither are their lives free to be claimed by some homicidal maniac. I am protecting their lives, not claiming them. If you think any other way you have an addled brain, boy. Or if Buddhism teaches that the best option is to stand around and watch the bloodshed like some poor ignorant sheep then I say I reject Buddhism. I can see if you have no means to help in the situation you can remain a bystander if you want. But I DO have the means to save lives, and I will use it. If I just stood there and chose not to do anything even though I could, I am no better than the one who killed those people.
As a Buddhist, it should be known that at times you need to get over yourself and act in a non Buddhist way. I also think that the negative karma I get for killing or wounding an assailant would be a lot less than the negative karma I would receive if I had the capability to stop him, but chose not to act.
And as for how "bad" the U.S. seems, it is a common misconception. Our media is sensationalist by nature, so anything you see from our media is dialed up to make it seem ten times worse than it really is. The common assumption across the pond is that here in the U.S. we get into gunfights every day in the streets and it is practically a warzone. And that everyone has a cabinet full of assault weapons. And that gun owners are uneducated warmongering hicks or violently psychopathic criminals. Truth is, things get along here much as they do anywhere else. Sure we have gun crimes, but we also have established measures to deal with said gun crimes, and life goes on. This is not the middle east where you can go to the market and buy an assault rifle for twenty bucks.
Wow, that article, 30 break ins a minute. Interesting. My mother ue to tell me of the days when she was a child and nobody even locked their door when they went out somewhere because there was no need to.. Sad how things have changed.
Even lower than thailand!! well, it is an undeveloped country. The rest of europe being at 1.2 though, that is the comparison you should be looking at to be honest.
The 2nd amendment is crucial to the maintenance of liberty. If only the state and criminals connected enough have guns, then you're outta luck when riff raff on in your family's house and the police are minutes away.
DC has some of the strictest gun bans. It was or maybe still is Murder Capital of the country. I own lots of guns and will soon own lots more. It's a fun hobby to indulge in. Ohioans who have a license to carry sidearms in public are the most law-abiding citizens in the state. In fact, they have to be to get a license.
Is that property yours? How do you own anything, is your family yours? Who are you, who are you to take a living beings life in any circumstance.
A decent human being who accepts the responsibility.
It is all well and good if you want to sit by and watch your family and innocents get killed and do nothing about it. I however will not stand for it, and will try with all of my might to protect them. No they are not "mine" but neither are their lives free to be claimed by some homicidal maniac. I am protecting their lives, not claiming them. If you think any other way you have an addled brain, boy. Or if Buddhism teaches that the best option is to stand around and watch the bloodshed like some poor ignorant sheep then I say I reject Buddhism. I can see if you have no means to help in the situation you can remain a bystander if you want. But I DO have the means to save lives, and I will use it. If I just stood there and chose not to do anything even though I could, I am no better than the one who killed those people.
As a Buddhist, it should be known that at times you need to get over yourself and act in a non Buddhist way. I also think that the negative karma I get for killing or wounding an assailant would be a lot less than the negative karma I would receive if I had the capability to stop him, but chose not to act.
And as for how "bad" the U.S. seems, it is a common misconception. Our media is sensationalist by nature, so anything you see from our media is dialed up to make it seem ten times worse than it really is. The common assumption across the pond is that here in the U.S. we get into gunfights every day in the streets and it is practically a warzone. And that everyone has a cabinet full of assault weapons. And that gun owners are uneducated warmongering hicks or violently psychopathic criminals. Truth is, things get along here much as they do anywhere else. Sure we have gun crimes, but we also have established measures to deal with said gun crimes, and life goes on. This is not the middle east where you can go to the market and buy an assault rifle for twenty bucks.
I guess you could add up the odds. I have never been in a situation where I had to try and save a life by means of force, so I could not say if I would worse a gun IF I had one. If it were to save many many lives then sure.
But still handguns, that is mainly what I am getting at here. Shotguns are legal in the UK under strict regulations but handguns are so rules against that you can get a very harsh sentence for being found with one. They are too easy to carry around the streets.
But if they did have guns, I am sure there would have been deaths. I did not hear or read about any deaths, there may have been... But one thing is for sure, if people had guns there would have been more chaos
Oh, but I mean for the shopowners who had their properties ransacked by thuggish youths. A storeowner brandishing a gun would have probably not resulted in death at all, but might have made ransacking a less likely option.
Ah, but if every shopkeeper had a gun or the vast majority, that would also allow the thugs to own guns. Can you see where I am going with this? Out of every shop that was looted, if every keeper owned a gun and at least one thug in each incident had a gun (at least), I wonder how many shootings would have occurred.
I don't know, but I'm curious. What are the incidences of knife attacks in Britain? And what are the stats on breaking and entering vs. the US? I know in places like Texas and Arizona, it's extremely unwise to break into someone's property.
There's a different perception in the States vs. Britain. Here, especially among NRA folks like me, we see self-defense as much a part of a free society as freedom of speech. Self-preservation is fundamentally an individual responsibility first, and government second. Whereas in Britain, it seems like the government and police are the primary guarantors of safety.
Well, I am not privy to the actual stats, but knife crime was and I assume still is big in the UK, mainly London and Glasgow. Although it is a big thing, I would estimate that the death rate is lower than that of the US with regards to guns. I think someone posted it was 4.something, in the EU it is 1.2.
If you get caught with a knife out in urban areas, you CAN get a jail sentence, but that would depend on your criminal history etc. There was a period where loads of kids of 12-16 were going arund london stabbing each other, area code gangs.
In the US, if someone breaks into your house and you kill them, is that kosher?
Very state dependent. In Texas, yes. In Ohio, it's conditional. It's called the "Castle Doctrine," which in my state means, that if you can show that you reasonably felt in serious danger of injury or death, you can shoot them. You hear about this happening once every month or so around here. But nationally, it happens all the time.
I remember a case way back in the UK where a young male was breaking into a farmhouse, the farmer shot him with a shotgun and the guy died. That was a huge story because it is so unheard of. That must had been around 8 years ago now I guess. I am not actually certain on the laws of killing someone in your home if they are breaking into it in the UK, I would guess that it is a straight nono. You would probably get done for manslaughter, get 7 years and serve half of that.
I am sorry to see that this debate has, once again, degenerated into a them-vs-us, UK-vs-US argument. Perhaps it is inevitable as these are two systems which, as KoB points out, are underpinned by different presuppositions. One of the most egregious aspects - and it is an argument that I find least satisfactory about pro-Buddhist debate - is reference to some sort of utilitarian agenda.
The truth is that the government and states of the US decided to add a fifth 'right' through the Second Amendment. As it was a democratic decision, we may dislike it but we have disliked many another democratic decision (the Anschluss, for example). The democratic decision of the UK, France and many other countries has been to outlaw the private, unlicenced ownership of lethal weapons.
Perhaps someone can tell me if the occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan made any efforts to deny this 'right' to the indigenous populations by disarming them? It might have been sensible, n'est-ce pas?
The truth is that we shall not reach a consensus on this topic.
Perhaps someone can tell me if the occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan made any efforts to deny this 'right' to the indigenous populations by disarming them? It might have been sensible, n'est-ce pas?
I don't know of any such effort being made. As for the States, the cat has been let out of the proverbial bag. Even abolishing the 2nd amendment would be fruitless. Not only would it incite an armed rebellion and civil war, but it would be unenforceable. Imagine being that hapless officer tasked with taking your crazy uncle's arsenal from him. There are millions of guns that simply don't "exist" officially.
I guess I should also bring up a rather important factor that influences my way of thinking and in truth, my very nature. At age nine or ten I started thinking for myself, and stopped being Christian. Shortly after (a year or so)I found and adopted my first religion I ever chose for myself, I became an Asatruar. As a follower of Asatru I adopted the old gods as mine to revere and venerate, the Aesir. I have only been a Buddhist say for the past two or three years. So for a very large and significant part of my life (end of my childhood into adulthood) I raised myself to be a Warrior. To this day I still honestly believe that honor, valor, and self-sacrifice are tantamount to my way of life. I abhorred oath-breaking. So if I made a promise or signed a contract, no matter how much it harmed me or others I would hold up my end, without hesitation. Of course, I only struck an oath if it adhered to my standards of honor.
I always carried a weapon, and I still mostly do. To me, I did not see it as a tool to harm others. I saw it as a tool to save others as well as myself if ever the need arose. Generally this last crucial bit is the thinking of anyone that carries a weapon. In fact, it should be, because if it is not, then they are not suited for carrying a weapon. So if you see someone carrying such a tool, you really should not be overly alarmed. Because from my experience, guns stay holstered and blades stay sheathed unless there is no other choice but to use them. So if you see someone using a weapon to harm innocents, then they were not fit to have a weapon in the first place. And armed people like us, or the police, will be there to protect you.
And now for a song, that conveys fairly well the feelings I had, growing up as a Warrior
"The plan of invasion and evil deception Was made in the halls of the dark kingdom To steal their riches to slay them all To make them kneel for a new god The guard woke up the sleeping men With a sound of a bronze horn The enemy is getting closer So brace yourselves for assault
Swords in their hands they killed each and every man Who dared to invade their sacred land Victory songs are rising in the night Telling all of their undying strength and might
Arrows are raining from the sky As brothers fight side by side We, we were outnumbered But your destiny is to win
Fight, fight with the rage of a bear.... Defend, our homeland... Crush, crush every enemy.... And seal, our victory....
Swords in their hands they killed each and every man Who dared to invade their sacred land Victory songs are rising in the night Telling all of their undying strength and might
Ei urhot kaukaisen pohjolan Uhan eessä taipuneet Jälleen pauhaa kansi taivahan Veri valuu maahan lumiseen Moni nähdä ei saa enää huomista Moni jää heitä kaipaamaan Jälkipolville jää maa rauhaisa Voiton laulut soi ainiaan Voiton laulut soi ainiaan!
Swords in their hands they killed each and every man Who dared to invade their sacred land Victory songs are rising in the night Telling all of their undying strength and might Telling all of their undying strength and might"
I don't think that me and knightofbuddha were even debating in the end, just discussing actually.
About Iraq, all I can say is this. My friend, Yasmin is from Iraq who now lives in the UK. She moved there at the start of the war because so many people were dying each day due to the war. Accidental deaths, misplaced bombs, etc etc etc. People she knew, people she would go to school with, friends of the family, there one day gone the next. She said she wishes she could go back to Iraq and live, she is bored and sometimes depressed in London and on her facebook page she has pictures of her as a child in Iraw and everyone looks happy. She said it was a better time then than it is now for her in the UK.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If someone broke into your house to steal your stuff then in the US it would be legal to kill them. I have to ask how balanced is that? Your stuff vs. their life. Of course one can't be sure they won't try to cause you harm. But even then getting beat up vs. their life. Maybe they want to kill you or rape you and your loved ones. In that case maybe you could just scare them away with your gun. Maybe they have a gun too though and drawing yours makes them escalate to take out theirs and use it where they just had it to coerce you into doing what they want. Now a burglary where you might loose a laptop and some cash has turned into a gunfight for two or more peoples lives.
It's probably too late to put the cat back in the bag barring the aftermath of some kind of widespread gun violence inside the US. For myself I couldn't imagine using a gun on someone else so I wouldn't get one. I don't have a family to protect so I think I'd have an easier time dealing with getting my stuff stolen or getting my face beat in, or not being able to protect others in public in than the feeling of taking another life.
In the UK I know that MOST people who burglarize houses, maybe also the EU do not want to be seen, if they do they may scatter as they often have no guns or anything, maybe a screwdriver or crowbar. But come on, personal possestions vs life.....
Well, you know. if someone unarmed breaks into your house, and then you come out waving a handgun around, I suspect that the intruder will vacate the house rather quickly, without you even having to put a scratch on him.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Well, you know. if someone unarmed breaks into your house, and then you come out waving a handgun around, I suspect that the intruder will vacate the house rather quickly, without you even having to put a scratch on him.
And what if they do have a handgun? Probably their intention was to steal some stuff now its to defend themselves by killing you if need be. A stray bullet could hit someone else. Maybe they do kill you and one of your kids sees, can't have any witnesses.
Things can and do go wrong. I think people who carry guns imagine themselves in hostile situations where they can ride in to save the day. Maybe you can, but maybe you escalate the situation or a stray bullet hits an unintended target. Just give up your stuff and move on.
Two black bears broke into my neighbour's place while she was away, a while back, and totally destroyed it. I slept with a shotgun by the bed till they had both been put down.
@Simonthepilgrim I don't see this as a match between the US and UK. We're trying to compare how life in other countries works without guns, compared to the US. It seems we don't have hardly any European members at the moment, except the UK people, so that's why it may seem like this is some kind of Brits-vs.-Yanks argument, but I don't think that's the spirit in which the conversation is being conducted.
And as for how "bad" the U.S. seems, it is a common misconception. Our media is sensationalist by nature
True, and I think this is one reason why people have the impression that gun violence has gotten worse, rather than decreasing statistically.
Truth is, things get along here much as they do anywhere else. Sure we have gun crimes, but we also have established measures to deal with said gun crimes, and life goes on.
I would only make one comment to this. It's possible that Americans have, after so many generations, gotten used to a certain level of gun-related crime, so that what seems like a situation out of control to people from other countries looks to us more or less (campus shootings and accidents involving children excepted) like life as usual. In the first decades after "horseless carriages" (aka: "motorcars") were invented, there were accidents, including deaths, resulting from people being hit by cars. This was seen as a big crisis with lots of alarm about the number of senseless deaths, and so forth. It was feared that deaths would skyrocket as cars ownership became more common. Nowadays, we don't think anything of it, for the most part, unless someone we know gets killed by a car, and the exponential rise in the death rate from car accidents hasn't happened that I'm aware of.
Humans adapt to changing conditions. Do people in countries that freely allow gun ownership adapt to a higher rate of homicide? Just wondering.
P.S. @Zayl You speak Suomi?? I used to, a little. I love the language! ^_^
If someone broke into your house to steal your stuff then in the US it would be legal to kill them. I have to ask how balanced is that? Your stuff vs. their life. Of course one can't be sure they won't try to cause you harm. But even then getting beat up vs. their life. Maybe they want to kill you or rape you and your loved ones. In that case maybe you could just scare them away with your gun. Maybe they have a gun too though and drawing yours makes them escalate to take out theirs and use it where they just had it to coerce you into doing what they want. Now a burglary where you might loose a laptop and some cash has turned into a gunfight for two or more peoples lives.
It's probably too late to put the cat back in the bag barring the aftermath of some kind of widespread gun violence inside the US. For myself I couldn't imagine using a gun on someone else so I wouldn't get one. I don't have a family to protect so I think I'd have an easier time dealing with getting my stuff stolen or getting my face beat in, or not being able to protect others in public in than the feeling of taking another life.
If you shoot someone over property, your gonna be the one going to jail. Lethal force can only be used against lethal force. If one claims self defense and kills or maims someone, one is admitting to an act that would otherwise be illegal. Now it's on one, to show why this required one to kill or maim someone else. The guys lying on your floor, gun in his hand that he leveled at you, you shot him. That is self defense. Guy laying dead on your lawn, your TV in his arms with four bullet holes in his back....better find some hobbies you can do in prison.
I never really intended to start a 'brit vs US' debate, this forum is widely amerian users. I can only go by what I know for fact, and that is where I have lived, which is the UK and Thailand, for short periods Malaysia and cambodia but I do not now enough about those two other countries to commment.
I would like to point out that dakini makes a very good point, people adapt to their surroundings. It is one way our species has survived a great deal. The shootings that go on in the US are so common, it is not too much of a big deal to most people. The same goes for gun ownership. For someone in the EU, it would be a big deal. You need to put yourself in someonelses shoes to see the full picture sometimes.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If you shoot someone over property, your gonna be the one going to jail. Lethal force can only be used against lethal force. If one claims self defense and kills or maims someone, one is admitting to an act that would otherwise be illegal. Now it's on one, to show why this required one to kill or maim someone else. The guys lying on your floor, gun in his hand that he leveled at you, you shot him. That is self defense. Guy laying dead on your lawn, your TV in his arms with four bullet holes in his back....better find some hobbies you can do in prison.
See the video I posted earlier, the burgalers weren't even in his house. He got away without any repercussions.
I didn't realize it was Texas!!! They are a nation unto themselves. As with all things, nothing is cut in stone. The officers at the scene, the DA ect. all can have their biases and probably for this reason nothing happened to this guy. Even if he was brought up on charges a sympathetic jury still could have let him go. Justice certainly isn't blind. That being said I wouldn't take my chances and indeed would err on the side of what is justified.
Comments
Not to bring rebirth up but I can see that this is one situation where a literal interpretation (or some kind of belief in an afterlife) would result in a different reaction than a figurative one. If karma and conciousness continues on then there could be less attachment to this one life and not as strong a desire to protect it to the point were one would kill another.
More directly to the second amendment. It gives the individual a right to bear arms. Its been interpreted that it doesn't give one the right to bear nuclear arms or chemical arms. So there apparently is some restriction. Would it then be reasonable to restrict hand guns or even 33 round clips (the kind the shooter of Gabriel Giffords used.) Also, there is a difference in gun use between rural America and urban America that really complicates this issue politically.
Person makes a good point. "Arms" are defined as firearms, not as nuclear arms, etc. If there are some restrictions, is it conceivable that at some point the Supreme Court might see fit to extend those restrictions, if such a case came before it?
On the point of changes to the Constitution and the general mind of "we-the-people", we can note that property rights were changed when it was realised that people should not own other people and slavery was abolished.
Don't forget, though, Simon, that the Constitution was amended to end slavery only as the result of an enormously bloody and destructive Civil War. The issue came close to tearing the country apart, literally.
Even if the Constitution is sacred, no changes allowed, amendments to it are allowed. Suddenly, I have a shred of hope! This has been a good discussion.
I think most criminals would prefer not to kill anyone as that = more time and I think even they have a small bit of conscience. Of course some will kill.
You make a good point that having the means to protect yourself can help determine the actions of a (presumably unarmed) intruder in a confrontation. That applies to a narrow range of circumstances, mainly those involving unarmed intruders.
Twice I've head break-ins, and I was home both times. Once, someone broke a window in the basement and climbed in. I quietly exited through the front door (the intruder was in the rear of the basement, which was a rental unit), walked around the corner and down the alley in back to see who it was, and pretended to be a passer-by. I went to the nearest pay-phone and called the police.
The 2nd time, a young person walking past my property saw an open window and climbed in. I could hear them rifling through a closet in the roommate's room, and I thought at first it was the roommate, but he was supposed to be at work. I listened as the intruder seemed to get closer to my room. I was lucky, it was just a teenager. When he saw me, he ran out, climbed back out the window and ran away. I guess he thought he was burglarizing an empty home, and wasn't expecting to be caught and risk being reported. Same with the first incident--it was a teen, and he thought the house was empty, but he was wrong. I was in bed, so the lights were out, and the renters downstairs were out. Intruders aren't always the worst-case-scenario kind.
No gun. I'm still here (knock on wood).
@Telly03 I know. I was really lucky. I could have ended up like that elderly neighbor lady, who was broken in on by two or three youths. But the only things I had worth stealing were well hidden. I still see no cause for getting a gun, only for taking more precautions.
But tell me, Telly, what would be your plan if you did get a gun? Would you keep it at home only, maybe in the bedroom nightstand? Or would you carry it in your car with you as well? Stuff can happen anywhere. It's such a big step to take, buying a gun. What if someone broke into your home while the family was away, and you came home, and there was the intruder, facing you with your own gun?
Yes, I would keep it in the home. We are not allowed to carry a gun outside of our residence or business in Hawaii unless your liscensed to do so, and I have no reason to be granted such a liscense.
You are correct in your scenario that I had just jeopardized the safety of my family by having the gun in the house... the way I see it though is that if an intruder was comfortable with the idea of using a gun in connection of his/her crime, and had the consitution to actually use it, then he/she would most likely have brought their own. After all, they are easy enough to obtain, which is the real problem here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245417/Burglary-victims-attacked-home-30-minutes.html#ixzz0nLFOvJui
per 100,000 population in 2010 the world homicide rate was 6.9
US rate was 4.8, even lower than Thailand at 5.3
The highest was Honduras at 78 (mind boggling)
Much can be said for West/Central Europe though at 1.2
Canada: 1.62. US: 5.8. The lowest are the Germanic countries.
That's weird about Honduras. It used to be such a quiet, placid place. The Contra war against neighboring Nicaragua trashed it, I think.
It is all well and good if you want to sit by and watch your family and innocents get killed and do nothing about it. I however will not stand for it, and will try with all of my might to protect them. No they are not "mine" but neither are their lives free to be claimed by some homicidal maniac. I am protecting their lives, not claiming them. If you think any other way you have an addled brain, boy. Or if Buddhism teaches that the best option is to stand around and watch the bloodshed like some poor ignorant sheep then I say I reject Buddhism. I can see if you have no means to help in the situation you can remain a bystander if you want. But I DO have the means to save lives, and I will use it. If I just stood there and chose not to do anything even though I could, I am no better than the one who killed those people.
As a Buddhist, it should be known that at times you need to get over yourself and act in a non Buddhist way. I also think that the negative karma I get for killing or wounding an assailant would be a lot less than the negative karma I would receive if I had the capability to stop him, but chose not to act.
And as for how "bad" the U.S. seems, it is a common misconception. Our media is sensationalist by nature, so anything you see from our media is dialed up to make it seem ten times worse than it really is. The common assumption across the pond is that here in the U.S. we get into gunfights every day in the streets and it is practically a warzone. And that everyone has a cabinet full of assault weapons. And that gun owners are uneducated warmongering hicks or violently psychopathic criminals. Truth is, things get along here much as they do anywhere else. Sure we have gun crimes, but we also have established measures to deal with said gun crimes, and life goes on. This is not the middle east where you can go to the market and buy an assault rifle for twenty bucks.
Even lower than thailand!!
DC has some of the strictest gun bans. It was or maybe still is Murder Capital of the country. I own lots of guns and will soon own lots more. It's a fun hobby to indulge in. Ohioans who have a license to carry sidearms in public are the most law-abiding citizens in the state. In fact, they have to be to get a license.
But still handguns, that is mainly what I am getting at here. Shotguns are legal in the UK under strict regulations but handguns are so rules against that you can get a very harsh sentence for being found with one. They are too easy to carry around the streets.
There's a different perception in the States vs. Britain. Here, especially among NRA folks like me, we see self-defense as much a part of a free society as freedom of speech. Self-preservation is fundamentally an individual responsibility first, and government second. Whereas in Britain, it seems like the government and police are the primary guarantors of safety.
If you get caught with a knife out in urban areas, you CAN get a jail sentence, but that would depend on your criminal history etc. There was a period where loads of kids of 12-16 were going arund london stabbing each other, area code gangs.
In the US, if someone breaks into your house and you kill them, is that kosher?
The truth is that the government and states of the US decided to add a fifth 'right' through the Second Amendment. As it was a democratic decision, we may dislike it but we have disliked many another democratic decision (the Anschluss, for example). The democratic decision of the UK, France and many other countries has been to outlaw the private, unlicenced ownership of lethal weapons.
Perhaps someone can tell me if the occupying forces in Iraq and Afghanistan made any efforts to deny this 'right' to the indigenous populations by disarming them? It might have been sensible, n'est-ce pas?
The truth is that we shall not reach a consensus on this topic.
I always carried a weapon, and I still mostly do. To me, I did not see it as a tool to harm others. I saw it as a tool to save others as well as myself if ever the need arose. Generally this last crucial bit is the thinking of anyone that carries a weapon. In fact, it should be, because if it is not, then they are not suited for carrying a weapon. So if you see someone carrying such a tool, you really should not be overly alarmed. Because from my experience, guns stay holstered and blades stay sheathed unless there is no other choice but to use them. So if you see someone using a weapon to harm innocents, then they were not fit to have a weapon in the first place. And armed people like us, or the police, will be there to protect you.
And now for a song, that conveys fairly well the feelings I had, growing up as a Warrior
"The plan of invasion and evil deception
Was made in the halls of the dark kingdom
To steal their riches to slay them all
To make them kneel for a new god
The guard woke up the sleeping men
With a sound of a bronze horn
The enemy is getting closer
So brace yourselves for assault
Swords in their hands they killed each and every man
Who dared to invade their sacred land
Victory songs are rising in the night
Telling all of their undying strength and might
Arrows are raining from the sky
As brothers fight side by side
We, we were outnumbered
But your destiny is to win
Fight, fight with the rage of a bear....
Defend, our homeland...
Crush, crush every enemy....
And seal, our victory....
Swords in their hands they killed each and every man
Who dared to invade their sacred land
Victory songs are rising in the night
Telling all of their undying strength and might
Ei urhot kaukaisen pohjolan
Uhan eessä taipuneet
Jälleen pauhaa kansi taivahan
Veri valuu maahan lumiseen
Moni nähdä ei saa enää huomista
Moni jää heitä kaipaamaan
Jälkipolville jää maa rauhaisa
Voiton laulut soi ainiaan
Voiton laulut soi ainiaan!
Swords in their hands they killed each and every man
Who dared to invade their sacred land
Victory songs are rising in the night
Telling all of their undying strength and might
Telling all of their undying strength and might"
About Iraq, all I can say is this. My friend, Yasmin is from Iraq who now lives in the UK. She moved there at the start of the war because so many people were dying each day due to the war. Accidental deaths, misplaced bombs, etc etc etc. People she knew, people she would go to school with, friends of the family, there one day gone the next. She said she wishes she could go back to Iraq and live, she is bored and sometimes depressed in London and on her facebook page she has pictures of her as a child in Iraw and everyone looks happy. She said it was a better time then than it is now for her in the UK.
It's probably too late to put the cat back in the bag barring the aftermath of some kind of widespread gun violence inside the US. For myself I couldn't imagine using a gun on someone else so I wouldn't get one. I don't have a family to protect so I think I'd have an easier time dealing with getting my stuff stolen or getting my face beat in, or not being able to protect others in public in than the feeling of taking another life.
Things can and do go wrong. I think people who carry guns imagine themselves in hostile situations where they can ride in to save the day. Maybe you can, but maybe you escalate the situation or a stray bullet hits an unintended target. Just give up your stuff and move on.
Humans adapt to changing conditions. Do people in countries that freely allow gun ownership adapt to a higher rate of homicide? Just wondering.
P.S. @Zayl You speak Suomi?? I used to, a little. I love the language! ^_^
I would like to point out that dakini makes a very good point, people adapt to their surroundings. It is one way our species has survived a great deal. The shootings that go on in the US are so common, it is not too much of a big deal to most people. The same goes for gun ownership. For someone in the EU, it would be a big deal. You need to put yourself in someonelses shoes to see the full picture sometimes.