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.
"Authorities have said they are investigating whether Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 48, were part of a crime ring linked to burglaries and the use of fake immigration documents" "Torres and Ortiz were carrying a sack with almost $2,000 in cash and jewelry taken from the home. Both were criminals from Colombia who had been convicted on drug trafficking charges" Real nice fellows. As an aside when one preys on others one might expect this to be a potential hazard. Do I think Mr. Horn should have been charged? Yes. Do I think that those guys should have been killed for stealing property? No. Did those guys, by their actions, participate in their own deaths? Yes.
Didn't the film clip say they were burglarizing the home next door? So there was no self-defense involved. Was it the local sherif or police who said Horn isn't a vigilante? But taking the law into your own hands is the definition of vigilantism. Horn wasn't involved in the crime in any way, he was watching it from next door. He knew the police were on the way, but he killed the thieves anyway. Notice it didn't cross his mind to disable them by shooting them in the foot or leg. That would have delayed them 'til the police could come, and it would have left blood for the canine unit to track.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Different people are going to treat the use of guns in different ways. But when you have a hammer in your hand everything tends to look like a nail.
Real nice fellows has nothing to do with it IMO. They weren't a physical threat to anyone, just because someone is a lowlife and a criminal doesn't mean that they deserve to die. @Theswingisyellow you state your beliefs at the end but prior to that you give several reasons why they 'had it comin'. Its this attitude toward life and a partial view towards 'the bad guys' that says they don't deserve any kindness that I find particularly un-buddhist.
See the video I posted earlier, the burgalers weren't even in his house. He got away without any repercussions.
Like others have said, it is very dependent on the state. Gun laws are not nation-wide except in limited circumstances of ownership and such. In Ohio, this would not fly. In Texas, and if my understanding of this story and Texas law is correct, the man was legally in the right. From what I've read years ago, he confronted the thieves as they came out of his neighbor's house and one or more of them lunged at him with a crowbar. To use a cheap pun, they were Texas Toast as soon as they decided to lunge at him.
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?
No no no. In virtually every state (Texas and maybe New Hampshire or Vermont are exceptions), you cannot simply shoot someone who is in your house and an intruder. Threat of physical harm or death are prerequisites to the use of lethal force.
In Ohio, if I walk in and someone's got my TV and carting out the door, legally I can't shoot them, although I certainly would pull the gun on them.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
"From what I've read years ago, he confronted the thieves as they came out of his neighbor's house and one or more of them lunged at him with a crowbar. "
Yeah right, I'm sure thats what really happened and not made up to justify Mr. Horn's actions after the fact. Did you listen to the 911 call in the video? As he walks out I think I hear him say 'I'm going to kill them' and just before he pulls the trigger 'boom, you're dead'.
You may be right about the legality of lethal force in the home. A quick google search came up with The Castle Doctrine and it does vary from state to state. I don't really want to argue about the legality of it. My main focus is on the morality of our actions. Even if Mr. Ford was completley legally justified my stance is that is was morally wrong.
Well I can't speak to the veracity of any account. I don't have functioning speakers, so the video is not much use watching. I disagree with the "hammer and nail" business. I only recently began carrying a sidearm everywhere and while driving. I treat bombastic strangers with the same degree of suspicion I always have, and am fully aware of the law and in which lethal force is justified or not. I'm not Dirty Harry and pulling a gun every time I hear a fire alarm go off.
I hope I never have to use my pistol. But if I'm attacked or my fiancee's life threatened, I'm sorry, but that assailant is a goner. I guess you can say that's immoral, but I value my life and my fiancee's higher than that of someone who's trying to do either of us harm. It would be highly immoral not to act in that situation.
I was young at the time and only caught wiff if you will of the story on the radio. I did not hear the 999 call. It must have been a long time ago because I think I was either in my early teens or a kid. But anyway, I remember feeling that yhe was in the wrong some how. But my point is that it is rare.
Different people are going to treat the use of guns in different ways. But when you have a hammer in your hand everything tends to look like a nail.
Real nice fellows has nothing to do with it IMO. They weren't a physical threat to anyone, just because someone is a lowlife and a criminal doesn't mean that they deserve to die. @Theswingisyellow you state your beliefs at the end but prior to that you give several reasons why they 'had it comin'. Its this attitude toward life and a partial view towards 'the bad guys' that says they don't deserve any kindness that I find particularly un-buddhist.
I didn't say they deserved to die, in fact I said the opposite. Where did I say they didn't deserve kindness? They put themselves into a situation that resulted in their deaths. People create their own kamma. They preyed upon others. I am sorry I don't find their actions or way of making a living noble. As I pointed out under the law Mr. Horn should be in prison. What you read into it, especially "they had it comin" is on you. Is it in your definition of Buddhism that you find me un-buddhist?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
"They put themselves into a situation that resulted in their deaths. People create their own kamma."
This is the statement I disagree with wholeheartedly. Nothing they did should have put their lives at risk. If the police had shown up they certainly wouldn't have died. The dispatcher repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to go out but he decided they needed to die.
Didn't My Horn shoot the guy from behind as well? If I remember, I recall hearing or seeing something about that. Maybe I am wrong.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
One of my cousins is an avid hunter and outdoorsman. A few thanksgivings ago I was at his parents house and he had his musketball gun. In my state they allow bow hunting and 'primitive' weapon hunting a few weeks before they open it to guns. Anyway his gun was a modern weapon but you needed to load each powder cartride and bullet. He showed it off to us and fired it a few times. I felt completely comfortable there with him handling and shooting the gun.
My other cousins husband is a regular city dweller raised outside of the gun world. He had a handgun he used for some target practice as well. His use made me nervous even though he seemingly did everything right.
I don't think it was about the type of gun used but rather the attitude of the person using the gun that was the reason for my differing reactions.
A gun is a serious thing and isn't some magic solution that makes ones world automatically safer. If its power is not fully appreciated it can actually make ones world more dangerous.
I'm not sure why anyone is defending Horn. He wasn't threatened in any way. The police were on their way. The fact that the thieves later were discovered to have been outlaws from Columbia in no way justifies Horn shooting to kill people robbing a neighboring home. There's a criminal justice system that exists to deal with robbers, and the police were on their way. Why hasn't Horn been charged with murder? Is he a friend of the local police chief? The thieves' background has been investigated, but Horn hasn't, to determine if he has personal connections that have allowed him to remain at large and uncharged.
"They put themselves into a situation that resulted in their deaths. People create their own kamma."
This is the statement I disagree with wholeheartedly. Nothing they did should have put their lives at risk. If the police had shown up they certainly wouldn't have died. The dispatcher repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to go out but he decided they needed to die.
How do you disagree with this statement? They ended up dead. Pretty hard to disagree with that.
If you climb mountains with out safety gear would you be surprised to end up getting hurt on a mountain?
If you break into homes in a state where most people have guns you run the risk of being shot. If you assault mr or mrs KnightofBuddha you will be killed.
If you carry a gun to kill assailants you will run the risk of killing someone.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
"They put themselves into a situation that resulted in their deaths. People create their own kamma."
This is the statement I disagree with wholeheartedly. Nothing they did should have put their lives at risk. If the police had shown up they certainly wouldn't have died. The dispatcher repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to go out but he decided they needed to die.
How do you disagree with this statement? They ended up dead. Pretty hard to disagree with that.
If you climb mountains with out safety gear would you be surprised to end up getting hurt on a mountain?
If you break into homes in a state where most people have guns you run the risk of being shot. If you assault mr or mrs KnightofBuddha you will be killed.
If you carry a gun to kill assailants you will run the risk of killing someone.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I disagree with it in that criminal activity doesn't justify death. There's simply no equivilancy between stealing and killing.
Its more like, live by the con die by the sword.
If they had shown some intent to do personal injury to someone I would have less objection.
I guess what they deserve is a matter of opinion for sure. What is obvious is that they did not do their best to live in a way that would keep them from dying by gunshot.
If I bring a shark up to the boat and get bitten while taking the hook out, is it the sharks fault? I set up the conditions to have the encounter with a shark.
If I want to be 100% sure that I will never kill someone while driving drunk, I have to choose to never drink or never drive.
Same with guns. If I never carry one I will never kill anyone with one on purpose or by mistake.
If those guys didn't want to die by gunshot they should have been more careful.
You both makes good points here and there IMO. The burglar did not deserve to die, but he knew the risk. His motive, maybe he was desperate, therefore one should have compassion at least to spare his life. If I am correct, the buglar did not have a gun, and he was trying to get away from the point of view from the crime scene.
A burglar at worst may expect to be apprehended by the police, not killed by a gun-happy and/or racist vigilante neighbor. Being foreigners, the burglars may not have known Texans were allowed to shoot intruders and that there was a high percentage of gun owners in the state. (Besides, they weren't intruding into the home of the guy who killed them. The neighbor acted inappropriately, and was told so in the phone call.) And shooting to kill wasn't the only option. Shooting to disable, or not shooting at all, watching the direction of the burglars' escape and giving police a running report as they made their escape were other options.
If you carry a gun to kill assailants you will run the risk of killing someone.
Of whom are you speaking here? The gun-owning neighbor? That makes sense. Most burglars are unarmed, because they don't want a murder rap.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I think this is harsh and overly simplistic in this case.
I believe those guys were Columbians. From what I recall Bogota is or was one of the most dangerous places there is. Whether or not they were from Bogota, they surely knew that life is cheap for some people.
They were conditioned to be what they were and where they were at that moment. But so was their killer.
If you can't rise above your conditioning or at least keep your eyes open for danger then no one can help you.
I spend most of my time at sea. If I die by drowning, I won't be happy about it, but I won't be too surprised.
They were conditioned to be what they were and where they were at that moment. But so was their killer. If you can't rise above your conditioning or at least keep your eyes open for danger then no one can help you. .
OK. So how come the killer, who also failed to rise above his conditioning, isn't paying a price?
They were conditioned to be what they were and where they were at that moment. But so was their killer. If you can't rise above your conditioning or at least keep your eyes open for danger then no one can help you. .
OK. So how come the killer, who also failed to rise above his conditioning, isn't paying a price?
Because he lives in Texas
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I guess what they deserve is a matter of opinion for sure. What is obvious is that they did not do their best to live in a way that would keep them from dying by gunshot.
If I bring a shark up to the boat and get bitten while taking the hook out, is it the sharks fault? I set up the conditions to have the encounter with a shark.
If I want to be 100% sure that I will never kill someone while driving drunk, I have to choose to never drink or never drive.
Same with guns. If I never carry one I will never kill anyone with one on purpose or by mistake.
If those guys didn't want to die by gunshot they should have been more careful.
It seems to me by that reasoning, @KnightofBuddha by living in a dangerous neighborhood is creating the conditions to be assaulted. He therefore shouldn't blame the would be assailant and should look to himself for living in that neighborhood in the first place.
Karma doesn't mean that whatever happens it couldn't have been any other way. An example I've heard is that if someone is drowning in a river a standerby could just say "that's their karma" and let them drown. That would be an incorrect view of karma because if the bystander jumped in to save them then that would also be their karma. To tie it in to the Texas example, it may have been the robbers karma that they were shot and killed but if Mr. Ford hadn't shot them then that would also be their karma. I put the responsibility %100 on Mr. Ford, ok maybe like %99.
I see it as 2 different issues... the robbers accepted the risk when they decided to break into a home in Texas... right or wrong, the risks are evident, and the outcome does not surprise me.
Mr Ford is responsible for taking their lives, but in Texas I guess this is accepted for the circumstance... I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is. I don't get to vote in Texas elections, so there isn't anything I can do.
"They put themselves into a situation that resulted in their deaths. People create their own kamma."
This is the statement I disagree with wholeheartedly. Nothing they did should have put their lives at risk. If the police had shown up they certainly wouldn't have died. The dispatcher repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to go out but he decided they needed to die.
They robbed and preyed on people. They put themselves in a dangerous line of work. They bear responsibility for that. Again, I don't believe someone deserves death for stealing. I believe Mr. Horn should have been put in jail. We are the owners of our actions, come what may, be it fair or not.
I refuse to comment on the story, because I don't know it. It's a bit much for me to speak passively about him "probably" doing such and such or "maybe" so and so. Clearly, the district attorney and police felt it was justified or at the very least unwinnable to bring Mr. Horn to court, which is not to say that he was necessarily right, but only that he probably was at least legally justified. Texas has a unique Castle Doctrine in that it applies not only to YOUR property and person, but to others as well.
It seems to me by that reasoning, @KnightofBuddha by living in a dangerous neighborhood is creating the conditions to be assaulted. He therefore shouldn't blame the would be assailant and should look to himself for living in that neighborhood in the first place.
I had to read this a few times. That's really mind-boggling! What about women who dress scantily? Or are just extremely attractive? Their fault for being raped because they were too attractive or for walking where there is a rapist lurking? Are assailants simply automatons with no free will at all? Blame the victim I guess.
I am fortunate in that my apartment complex has only suffered minimal crime over the years. A few blocks down and I won't go without armed escort. It seems a bit outrageous to blame victims of crime for living in the only neighborhoods they can afford.
Mr Ford is responsible for taking their lives, but in Texas I guess this is accepted for the circumstance... I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is. I don't get to vote in Texas elections, so there isn't anything I can do.
But there's a difference between this incident, and the accepted practice in TX, as I understand it. It's ok to shoot someone who has invaded your property and is threatening you in TX and some other states. That is not what happened in the incident we're discussing. A neighbor shot and killed intruders into a neighboring property. That is not covered by what has been called the "Castle Principle" (if that's the right term), as enshrined in law in some states. Lawyers should be all over that case, because by letting Mr. Horn go uncharged with any crime, a dangerous precedent has been set. Now it's not about someone protecting their own property. It's about a vigilante going hunting for humans on other people's property.
Mr Ford is responsible for taking their lives, but in Texas I guess this is accepted for the circumstance... I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is. I don't get to vote in Texas elections, so there isn't anything I can do.
But there's a difference between this incident, and the accepted practice in TX, as I understand it. It's ok to shoot someone who has invaded your property and is threatening you in TX and some other states. That is not what happened in the incident we're discussing. A neighbor shot and killed intruders into a neighboring property. That is not covered by what has been called the "Castle Principle" (if that's the right term), as enshrined in law in some states. Lawyers should be all over that case, because by letting Mr. Horn go uncharged with any crime, a dangerous precedent has been set. Now it's not about someone protecting their own property. It's about a vigilante going hunting for humans on other people's property.
I'm not sure about that. Castle Doctrine does let you protect others and their property in Texas. Whether Mr. Horn's action qualified for that is really not knowable to me. I guess it really depends on whether the dearly departed thieves were shot in the back or front, and whether they threatened him or not. If they did, then it's no wonder he walked free.
I see. So Mr. Horn may have been within his rights. Texas is a strange place. And you're right, we've reached the point where we don't have enough facts to go by to continue. But I recall hearing Mr. Horn claim in the video that the burglars had come onto his property and were threatening him, but I really doubt that happened, I had the impression he said that to try to stay out of trouble. I thought the video showed the intruders shot in the back, but I may be wrong.
I think the law in Texas is worrisome. If the police didn't want Mr. Horn to shoot the intruders and wanted him to leave the case up to them to handle, as we heard them say on the video, there shouldn't be a law allowing him to disregard their demand.
It's a very unique state, being the only one to once have been its own nation. Over the past few years, the greater Cleveland area has had quite a few burglaries ending in dead burglars from gun-owning homeowners. None that I know o have been charged. In downtown Akron a few springs ago, a pizza place was held up by a masked man with a shotgun. He was dispatched with about 10 bullets by the owner and then collapsed dead in the street, still holding on to a fistful of dollars. Very Eastwood-esque ending. That story was included as part of the training class I took for concealed carry permit. While a crack shot, the store owner stupidly used full metal jackets, which could have easily killed any bystanders behind the robber. Luckily, there were none.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I refuse to comment on the story, because I don't know it. It's a bit much for me to speak passively about him "probably" doing such and such or "maybe" so and so. Clearly, the district attorney and police felt it was justified or at the very least unwinnable to bring Mr. Horn to court, which is not to say that he was necessarily right, but only that he probably was at least legally justified. Texas has a unique Castle Doctrine in that it applies not only to YOUR property and person, but to others as well.
It seems to me by that reasoning, @KnightofBuddha by living in a dangerous neighborhood is creating the conditions to be assaulted. He therefore shouldn't blame the would be assailant and should look to himself for living in that neighborhood in the first place.
I had to read this a few times. That's really mind-boggling! What about women who dress scantily? Or are just extremely attractive? Their fault for being raped because they were too attractive or for walking where there is a rapist lurking? Are assailants simply automatons with no free will at all? Blame the victim I guess.
I am fortunate in that my apartment complex has only suffered minimal crime over the years. A few blocks down and I won't go without armed escort. It seems a bit outrageous to blame victims of crime for living in the only neighborhoods they can afford.
I don't agree with that reasoning, I argued in the rest of that post why. @robot and @Theswingisyellow seem to be saying that the robbers created the karma for getting shot by putting themselves in a dangerous situation, I disagree.
They robbed and preyed on people. They put themselves in a dangerous line of work. They bear responsibility for that. Again, I don't believe someone deserves death for stealing. I believe Mr. Horn should have been put in jail. We are the owners of our actions, come what may, be it fair or not.
I'm not getting the distinction. Maybe its just a difference of opinion. To me the responsibility they bear for stealing is jail, I don't think they should get away scot free. You don't believe they should have been killed, you believe Mr. Horn should have gone to jail. I don't see how robbing and preying on people creates the karma for being killed. It must be in the way we define karma.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
It's a very unique state, being the only one to once have been its own nation. Over the past few years, the greater Cleveland area has had quite a few burglaries ending in dead burglars from gun-owning homeowners. None that I know o have been charged. In downtown Akron a few springs ago, a pizza place was held up by a masked man with a shotgun. He was dispatched with about 10 bullets by the owner and then collapsed dead in the street, still holding on to a fistful of dollars. Very Eastwood-esque ending. That story was included as part of the training class I took for concealed carry permit. While a crack shot, the store owner stupidly used full metal jackets, which could have easily killed any bystanders behind the robber. Luckily, there were none.
A very clear cut case of a justified killing IMO. However, I don't feel that it is a morally justified action from a Buddhist point of view. Its a life vs stuff to me.
Person, To me karma is not some punishment that is somehow dispensed. Karma is simply this to me: What I do, say or think has consequences. That is all. There is not a judgement in this. They may be good consequences, bad consequences or somewhere in the middle. All I am saying is their actions put them into this situation. Karma is not a reward or punishment system; our actions will have results, intended or otherwise. Person said: "To me the responsibility they bear for stealing is jail" I agree with you but when you choose to commit crime you are rolling the dice. There are a million variable that could influence the outcome of one's actions. Unfortunately for these guys guntoting Horn was a variable. The key point though is they chose to embark on this path, had they not, this would not have occurred. This is what I mean by making their karma, they chose a course of action and this was the result.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Theswingisyellow If I remember right from some of your other posts you're a 'here and now' philosophy practicioner, right? I'm not, I think thats the difference, I don't expect that you put a judgement on karma and neither do I. For me though karmic results carry beyond the action in some kind of 'mystical' way and the result fits the action. So there is no rolling of the dice in my view of karma and when you say its their karma I hear a literal tit for tat kind of statement.
This discussion seems to have got away from a debate about the Second Amendment which permits citizens to own weapons in order to guarantee a free state. Nothing is said about shooting burglars who, as far as I know, do not threaten the state. The Amendment, as I understand it, was based on the British Bill of Rights of 1689 which followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and permitted Protestant subjects (we had no citizens) to bear arms and added "for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law". The last three words are the key to why British law can now limit and licence gun ownership, a law which has been significantly tightened since the tragedy at Dunblane.
As a Buddhist and as a Christian, I find the very notion of private gun ownership repellent and the arguments about 'protecting property' to be specious as 'property' is in itself a highly dubious concept. I would add that, from the point of view of Christian history, it might be interesting to note that, before the imperium of Constantine, Christians were not permitted in the Roman Army as they were not permitted to kill!
How utterly fascinating, Simon! We are not taught that there was a clause in the British Bill of Rights that was similar to the 2nd Amendment. This opens up the possibility that the amendment may have had an antecedent, it may have evolved from the British Bill of Rights. I wonder if any scholars have studied this question.
I think there's no question the Buddha would have been appalled at someone killing two people over some stolen property. Modern reality isn't very Buddhistic. How fascinating as well, that Christians weren't allowed to kill, prior to Constantine. Can you tell us more about that? How and why did he change that? What was his justification?
A very clear cut case of a justified killing IMO. However, I don't feel that it is a morally justified action from a Buddhist point of view. Its a life vs stuff to me.
It was a case of life or death for him unfortunately as the store owner had a shotgun to his face and had provided insufficient amounts of cash to the robber. Good riddance to him.
This discussion seems to have got away from a debate about the Second Amendment which permits citizens to own weapons in order to guarantee a free state. Nothing is said about shooting burglars who, as far as I know, do not threaten the state
I don't believe there is much of a distinction frankly. A free state is of paltry value to me if I am at the mercy of bandits when agents of the state are elsewhere. Just read that the crime rate, despite the recession, has decreased for the fourth straight year in the US nationally. Gun ownership has increased rapidly during the same time. If guns are so bad, why hasn't crime gone up at the same rate of gun ownership?
'property' is in itself a highly dubious concept
I'll leave the Christians to argue the rest, but I find the notion that concepts of property are dubious...to be very dubious itself, and agree adamantly with James Madison and Jefferson that guarantees of private property are as sacred as scripture. And also DeToqueville who believed that the more ownership and stake people had in a society (i.e. property), the less likely there would ever be rebellion.
How utterly fascinating, Simon! We are not taught that there was a clause in the British Bill of Rights that was similar to the 2nd Amendment. This opens up the possibility that the amendment may have had an antecedent, it may have evolved from the British Bill of Rights. I wonder if any scholars have studied this question.
I think there's no question the Buddha would have been appalled at someone killing two people over some stolen property. Modern reality isn't very Buddhistic. How fascinating as well, that Christians weren't allowed to kill, prior to Constantine. Can you tell us more about that? How and why did he change that? What was his justification?
Augustine was the one to really first champion the notion of "just war." Though he came a while after Constantine. I'm not sure there was a theological evolution about violence during Constantine's time, or if it was more of a matter of expedience for a Christian state to survive in a hostile world. I would imagine the latter.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
"It was a case of life or death for him unfortunately as the store owner had a shotgun to his face and had provided insufficient amounts of cash to the robber. Good riddance to him. "
If the robber was really going to kill him out of anger or whatever for not having enough cash I'm ok with the store owner killing him then. In most cases though I think armed robbers use the threat of violence to force compliance and aren't interested in killing. If I'm not mistaken the police recommend giving over your valuables and not pulling a gun.
I also wonder how the store owner managed to pull a gun on someone who was pointing a gun at him with the intent to kill.
I realize that many people feel that in a threatening situation like this with a low life thug involved lethal force is justified. There are also ways to defuse a situation with well placed words and body language. In fact I'm in the process of learning about how to do such things right now. You're probably not going to convince someone to change their mind about what they were already intending to do, but you can de-escalate the situation so it doesn't end in violence.
@Simonthepilgrim You're right this post did get a bit off track and probably would fit better in the other gun thread but this is where the disagreement started. Also, very interesting facts.
Whilst the matter of Buddhism is also being addressed in another thread as well, this one has the primacy in time so may I use it to bring the debate back to Buddhist thought?
Let us start at the beginning: the Noble Truths. The Second teaches us that our dukkha is the result of our clinging or aversion, our attachments. It is clear that many here are deeply attached to their ownership of weapons. They justify this attachment by other attachments (possessions, family, life, comfort, safety, tradition, etc.). The Third Noble Truth, however, teaches us that the way out of dukkha is to free ourselves from our attachments, our clinging, our aversion, by practising the Noble Eightfold Path.
At the very heart of this teaching is that, despite appearances, it is counter-intuitive. The 'normal' human reaction is one of becoming attached. The Buddha realised and taught that this 'normal' instinct leads to suffering and dissatisfaction, and that, in order to escape, we must act, internally and externally, in a directly opposite way.
Of course, we tend to defend ourselves and those to whom we are attached but is this the way out of dukkha? But I would refer to the mystery of kamma as well. A number of posts have raised the argument that people should own arms to defend their children. No one appears to have considered what weight or resultant kamma is laid on the children of a person who has killed for them. Banners in the anti-war demos sated "Not In My Name"; I think the same could be said about killing in someone else's name.
For me the basic text is to be found in John's Gospel (15:13): "No greater love has anyone that they lay down their own life for their friends". It does not say, you notice, take another's life for their friends.
I said this at the very start of this thread. Does anybody who is active in this dicussion not think that the bill of rights should be changed? Times change, everything changes, so why should this one thing not change with accordance with time? Well, one answer would be because many Americans are attached to it because of what it represents. In my honest opinion, I do not see why things should not be allowed to be changed with time, to keep it the way it is for as long as your country exists seems like pure folly.
Whilst the matter of Buddhism is also being addressed in another thread as well, this one has the primacy in time so may I use it to bring the debate back to Buddhist thought?
Let us start at the beginning: the Noble Truths. The Second teaches us that our dukkha is the result of our clinging or aversion, our attachments. It is clear that many here are deeply attached to their ownership of weapons. They justify this attachment by other attachments (possessions, family, life, comfort, safety, tradition, etc.). The Third Noble Truth, however, teaches us that the way out of dukkha is to free ourselves from our attachments, our clinging, our aversion, by practising the Noble Eightfold Path.
At the very heart of this teaching is that, despite appearances, it is counter-intuitive. The 'normal' human reaction is one of becoming attached. The Buddha realised and taught that this 'normal' instinct leads to suffering and dissatisfaction, and that, in order to escape, we must act, internally and externally, in a directly opposite way.
Of course, we tend to defend ourselves and those to whom we are attached but is this the way out of dukkha? But I would refer to the mystery of kamma as well. A number of posts have raised the argument that people should own arms to defend their children. No one appears to have considered what weight or resultant kamma is laid on the children of a person who has killed for them. Banners in the anti-war demos sated "Not In My Name"; I think the same could be said about killing in someone else's name.
For me the basic text is to be found in John's Gospel (15:13): "No greater love has anyone that they lay down their own life for their friends". It does not say, you notice, take another's life for their friends.
So Simon if someone was savagely knifing you to death(this is all hypothetical) and I was there with a gun you would choose which of the following: A. I do nothing and allow you to die ("Not In My Name") B. I put myself between you and the assailant, recieving the stab wounds and dying in place of you. ("No greater love has anyone that they lay down their own life for their friends") C. Shoot this person (It doesn't have to be fatally) so he quits acting like your a side of beef. In the hypothetical question I would choose C. because on its face it makes sense and it would (potentially) inflict the least amount of harm. For me not to help you would be unconscionable. For me the Third Noble Truth is in realizing the cessation of anguish/suffering by letting go of its origins (the Second Noble Truth) I don't identify with this implement, as such I cannot see, how it could be a source of Dukkha. There is no clinging, attachment nor aversion to it. The thing itself is not important but our relationship to it.
To the OP; "The way I see it civilians who know weaponry can become an asset should the need for guirila war arise" I could see this potential. I don't think the government, at least here, minds having an armed citizenry. In WW2 some of the best pilots were guys who hunted. People who are trained and well versed in the use of arms will naturally be better with them. Whether this is a good or bad thing is obviously debatable.
Comments
"Torres and Ortiz were carrying a sack with almost $2,000 in cash and jewelry taken from the home. Both were criminals from Colombia who had been convicted on drug trafficking charges"
Real nice fellows.
As an aside when one preys on others one might expect this to be a potential hazard.
Do I think Mr. Horn should have been charged? Yes.
Do I think that those guys should have been killed for stealing property? No.
Did those guys, by their actions, participate in their own deaths? Yes.
Real nice fellows has nothing to do with it IMO. They weren't a physical threat to anyone, just because someone is a lowlife and a criminal doesn't mean that they deserve to die. @Theswingisyellow you state your beliefs at the end but prior to that you give several reasons why they 'had it comin'. Its this attitude toward life and a partial view towards 'the bad guys' that says they don't deserve any kindness that I find particularly un-buddhist.
In Ohio, if I walk in and someone's got my TV and carting out the door, legally I can't shoot them, although I certainly would pull the gun on them.
Yeah right, I'm sure thats what really happened and not made up to justify Mr. Horn's actions after the fact. Did you listen to the 911 call in the video? As he walks out I think I hear him say 'I'm going to kill them' and just before he pulls the trigger 'boom, you're dead'.
You may be right about the legality of lethal force in the home. A quick google search came up with The Castle Doctrine and it does vary from state to state. I don't really want to argue about the legality of it. My main focus is on the morality of our actions. Even if Mr. Ford was completley legally justified my stance is that is was morally wrong.
I hope I never have to use my pistol. But if I'm attacked or my fiancee's life threatened, I'm sorry, but that assailant is a goner. I guess you can say that's immoral, but I value my life and my fiancee's higher than that of someone who's trying to do either of us harm. It would be highly immoral not to act in that situation.
They put themselves into a situation that resulted in their deaths. People create their own kamma.
They preyed upon others. I am sorry I don't find their actions or way of making a living noble.
As I pointed out under the law Mr. Horn should be in prison.
What you read into it, especially "they had it comin" is on you.
Is it in your definition of Buddhism that you find me un-buddhist?
This is the statement I disagree with wholeheartedly. Nothing they did should have put their lives at risk. If the police had shown up they certainly wouldn't have died. The dispatcher repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to go out but he decided they needed to die.
My other cousins husband is a regular city dweller raised outside of the gun world. He had a handgun he used for some target practice as well. His use made me nervous even though he seemingly did everything right.
I don't think it was about the type of gun used but rather the attitude of the person using the gun that was the reason for my differing reactions.
A gun is a serious thing and isn't some magic solution that makes ones world automatically safer. If its power is not fully appreciated it can actually make ones world more dangerous.
Life is precious, even the misscreants.
If you climb mountains with out safety gear would you be surprised to end up getting hurt on a mountain?
If you break into homes in a state where most people have guns you run the risk of being shot. If you assault mr or mrs KnightofBuddha you will be killed.
If you carry a gun to kill assailants you will run the risk of killing someone.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Its more like, live by the con die by the sword.
If they had shown some intent to do personal injury to someone I would have less objection.
If I bring a shark up to the boat and get bitten while taking the hook out, is it the sharks fault? I set up the conditions to have the encounter with a shark.
If I want to be 100% sure that I will never kill someone while driving drunk, I have to choose to never drink or never drive.
Same with guns. If I never carry one I will never kill anyone with one on purpose or by mistake.
If those guys didn't want to die by gunshot they should have been more careful.
They were conditioned to be what they were and where they were at that moment. But so was their killer.
If you can't rise above your conditioning or at least keep your eyes open for danger then no one can help you.
I spend most of my time at sea. If I die by drowning, I won't be happy about it, but I won't be too surprised.
Karma doesn't mean that whatever happens it couldn't have been any other way. An example I've heard is that if someone is drowning in a river a standerby could just say "that's their karma" and let them drown. That would be an incorrect view of karma because if the bystander jumped in to save them then that would also be their karma. To tie it in to the Texas example, it may have been the robbers karma that they were shot and killed but if Mr. Ford hadn't shot them then that would also be their karma. I put the responsibility %100 on Mr. Ford, ok maybe like %99.
Mr Ford is responsible for taking their lives, but in Texas I guess this is accepted for the circumstance... I'm not happy about it, but it is what it is. I don't get to vote in Texas elections, so there isn't anything I can do.
Again, I don't believe someone deserves death for stealing.
I believe Mr. Horn should have been put in jail.
We are the owners of our actions, come what may, be it fair or not.
I had to read this a few times. That's really mind-boggling! What about women who dress scantily? Or are just extremely attractive? Their fault for being raped because they were too attractive or for walking where there is a rapist lurking? Are assailants simply automatons with no free will at all? Blame the victim I guess.
I am fortunate in that my apartment complex has only suffered minimal crime over the years. A few blocks down and I won't go without armed escort. It seems a bit outrageous to blame victims of crime for living in the only neighborhoods they can afford.
I think the law in Texas is worrisome. If the police didn't want Mr. Horn to shoot the intruders and wanted him to leave the case up to them to handle, as we heard them say on the video, there shouldn't be a law allowing him to disregard their demand.
To me karma is not some punishment that is somehow dispensed. Karma is simply this to me:
What I do, say or think has consequences. That is all. There is not a judgement in this. They may be good consequences, bad consequences or somewhere in the middle. All I am saying is their actions put them into this situation. Karma is not a reward or punishment system; our actions will have results, intended or otherwise.
Person said:
"To me the responsibility they bear for stealing is jail"
I agree with you but when you choose to commit crime you are rolling the dice. There are a million variable that could influence the outcome of one's actions. Unfortunately for these guys guntoting Horn was a variable.
The key point though is they chose to embark on this path, had they not, this would not have occurred. This is what I mean by making their karma, they chose a course of action and this was the result.
As a Buddhist and as a Christian, I find the very notion of private gun ownership repellent and the arguments about 'protecting property' to be specious as 'property' is in itself a highly dubious concept. I would add that, from the point of view of Christian history, it might be interesting to note that, before the imperium of Constantine, Christians were not permitted in the Roman Army as they were not permitted to kill!
I think there's no question the Buddha would have been appalled at someone killing two people over some stolen property. Modern reality isn't very Buddhistic. How fascinating as well, that Christians weren't allowed to kill, prior to Constantine. Can you tell us more about that? How and why did he change that? What was his justification?
If the robber was really going to kill him out of anger or whatever for not having enough cash I'm ok with the store owner killing him then. In most cases though I think armed robbers use the threat of violence to force compliance and aren't interested in killing. If I'm not mistaken the police recommend giving over your valuables and not pulling a gun.
I also wonder how the store owner managed to pull a gun on someone who was pointing a gun at him with the intent to kill.
I realize that many people feel that in a threatening situation like this with a low life thug involved lethal force is justified. There are also ways to defuse a situation with well placed words and body language. In fact I'm in the process of learning about how to do such things right now. You're probably not going to convince someone to change their mind about what they were already intending to do, but you can de-escalate the situation so it doesn't end in violence.
@Simonthepilgrim You're right this post did get a bit off track and probably would fit better in the other gun thread but this is where the disagreement started. Also, very interesting facts.
Let us start at the beginning: the Noble Truths. The Second teaches us that our dukkha is the result of our clinging or aversion, our attachments. It is clear that many here are deeply attached to their ownership of weapons. They justify this attachment by other attachments (possessions, family, life, comfort, safety, tradition, etc.). The Third Noble Truth, however, teaches us that the way out of dukkha is to free ourselves from our attachments, our clinging, our aversion, by practising the Noble Eightfold Path.
At the very heart of this teaching is that, despite appearances, it is counter-intuitive. The 'normal' human reaction is one of becoming attached. The Buddha realised and taught that this 'normal' instinct leads to suffering and dissatisfaction, and that, in order to escape, we must act, internally and externally, in a directly opposite way.
Of course, we tend to defend ourselves and those to whom we are attached but is this the way out of dukkha? But I would refer to the mystery of kamma as well. A number of posts have raised the argument that people should own arms to defend their children. No one appears to have considered what weight or resultant kamma is laid on the children of a person who has killed for them. Banners in the anti-war demos sated "Not In My Name"; I think the same could be said about killing in someone else's name.
For me the basic text is to be found in John's Gospel (15:13): "No greater love has anyone that they lay down their own life for their friends". It does not say, you notice, take another's life for their friends.
A. I do nothing and allow you to die ("Not In My Name")
B. I put myself between you and the assailant, recieving the stab wounds and dying in place of you. ("No greater love has anyone that they lay down their own life for their friends")
C. Shoot this person (It doesn't have to be fatally) so he quits acting like your a side of beef.
In the hypothetical question I would choose C. because on its face it makes sense and it would (potentially) inflict the least amount of harm.
For me not to help you would be unconscionable.
For me the Third Noble Truth is in realizing the cessation of anguish/suffering by letting go of its origins (the Second Noble Truth)
I don't identify with this implement, as such I cannot see, how it could be a source of Dukkha.
There is no clinging, attachment nor aversion to it. The thing itself is not important but our relationship to it.
"The way I see it civilians who know weaponry can become an asset should the need for guirila war arise"
I could see this potential.
I don't think the government, at least here, minds having an armed citizenry. In WW2 some of the best pilots were guys who hunted. People who are trained and well versed in the use of arms will naturally be better with them.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is obviously debatable.
I can see your dilemma but, alas, I cannot make choices for you.