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.
Empathy for gun owners.
how
Veteran Veteran
I wonder if one of the attractants to having a gun...(Being able to effect instant changes at the touch of a finger), is the same attractant that gives any media screen operator their own stimulation, (is this our own version of godhood)
and if asking gun folks to give up their guns is as difficult for them to hear as someone suggesting we give up our computers.
**
I am not talking about comparing the worth of one activity over the other**, but whether the giving up of the stimulant of one is comparable in difficulty to giving up the stimulant of the other.
2
Comments
I own guns. Not hand guns or assault guns. But I own hunting rifles, and a bow. I don't use them to hunt anymore. But we do enjoy target practice with both the guns and the bow, as we live about 2 blocks from a gun range.
It's possible that there is that connection to them, yes. For me, it's not a big deal. If the govt told me to turn them over, I wouldn't care much, except for one because it belonged to my great grandfather. Even then, I have other things of his and it still wouldn't bother me much.
I can't speak to city life and why so many street kids want guns. But it has been ingrained in rural life for so long it is like a tradition. Because many of the people still living rural lives are people whose great (or farther) grandparents settled in those areas, and guns were needed then for protection from wild animals and for hunting. You'd be surprised, maybe, how many people in rural area still rely on hunting to supply a significant amount of their food for the year. It can completely ruin their year plan if they don't get the deer they expect because it's so much meat they don't have to buy. It would be like someone telling you you cannot put up a Christmas Tree anymore. The tradition runs deep.
For me, I can understand, to a degree, the attachment for rural people and guns. But, they also tend to be well taught how to use them (more so than city folk) and the safety is usually much higher. It's not very common for rural people to shoot each other or have so many gun accidents. When I was a kid (I'm 40 now, for reference) we took gun safety training in school in 7th grade. We brought our guns and ammo to school on the bus and left them in unlocked lockers and went to gun training after school, which happened in the basement of our elementary school, which has a gun range in it. It was not a big thing, it was just something kids did the same way we did swimming lessons and driving lessons. It was not uncommon for high school kids to drive around with their gun in racks that hung inside their windows, and park them in the school lot. It's just a different way of living, I guess. It's pretty hard to explain to city people what rural life is like where people really do still hunt for food and face wild animals killing their livestock that they rely on for food and income. Just like I wouldn't have a clue how to ride the subway.
@how -- I have a hunch that there are as many reasons for owning firearms as there are people who own them. Practicality, power, a psychological prop, entertainment ... who knows? It is difficult to have an even-handed discussion if the knee-jerk assumption leaps immediately to the worst-case scenario.
I honestly don't know when I meet someone with a gun or a computer precisely how much, if at all, they are hooked or damaged by their affections. Linking the two by asking whether the attraction is the same ... well, it feels a bit off, somehow, in my mind.
Just mumbling.
PS. I suppose it should be noted that the governor of Mississippi has made it legal and sensible for some people to be armed in church.
The Australian Govt took high powered weapons off people in 1996. If you didn't hand them in you faced a hefty fine and possibly jail time.
Because the gun lobby is tiny in this country, gun owners had no choice and many were happy to do so after what happened at Port Arthur - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
For the most part it worked however there are still gun enthusiasts bitter about it. For a number of them their main gripe was that the then Prime Minister addressed a large group of them wearing a bullet proof vest!
Yes, sorry.
I find the link incomparable.
it's apples and oranges. The two, on a domestic level, are so far removed from one another it's like asking "Do you prefer drinking milk or rock climbing?"
Guns have a satisfying feel and weight to them, and make sounds of precision metal parts snapping into place, which appeals to people the way quality tools do sometimes. I like the feel of them.
Having one tucked under your arm or holstered on the belt might inspire all kinds of imaginary scenarios in the mind about pulling it out and saving the day. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who will feel naked without their favourite gun close by. Just like some people can't be without their smartphone. The mind might not jump around looking for stimulation the way it does when one can't get online, but there is obviously a deep fear at the thought of having your guns taken away for many gun owners.
I had guns back in my youth when I still thought that when the Big Crunch came I would have to shoot my nieghbors when they came to eat me or something. I still have a shotgun tucked away, but don't see it often.
Yesterday I listened to Sam Harris explain, read and answer questions regarding an article he wrote on guns. I found it thoughtful and unconventional like a lot of Sam's thinking. Its a bit long but maybe some of you would be interested in a slightly different take.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
Or maybe you want to download and listen in your free time.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun-revisited
Hm well here in the Netherlands gun ownership is by license only, and it's strictly regulated and limited to certain categories of weapons like hunting rifles. There are even some strict regulations about the carrying of swords, crossbows and the like.
By comparison the murder count for 2015 was 143 compared to 12,253 in the US. Which is not bad for a country with 17m inhabitants compared to 300m. Most murders in the Netherlands are connected to organised crime, who import weapons illegally from Russia and the East.
Us drug addicts are always not perhaps as skilful as we think ... My addictions, to mention a few are: tea and coffee, computers, violent films, dharma and air. The Buddha mentions how he tried to do without breath and got a headache, back in his live on a grain of rice ascetic and pranayama period. So air might be a neccessity for most.
In the Middle Way, we try to cut down on our dependencies to stimulants. Apart from the skilful tantric phase that stimulates the sensory nature into appropriate dharma channels.
A Zen samurai might have a gun or sword on her shrine, just as a tantrist might have beer. I would find it difficult to practice the ridiculous Gun Fu mindfully or be a mindful drunk. Not to say it is impossible. We have to decide our tolerance levels and unskilful/skilful natures and nurtures.
... and now back to the 'vice' of chat stimulation ...
@how I cannot directly compare to the concept of stimulation. But I have talked to a lot of gun owners on media that selects for more conservative people who I knew over time sharing joy and humor unrelated to politics or religion and it blew me away that these guns are unbelievably important to them. And a variety of stereotypes or characters going from country to more urban and common interests but libertarian and alien
ingrained views. Ingrained views would be a big part and also just that guns are like your GOD GIVEN right not neccessarily in a sect or whatever stereotype maybe like a deist but the idea that guns are like 'natural rights' or God given. I would say as important to them as religion is more a comparison. It blows me away how important. And I actually cooled down on wanting legislature as sort of 'agenda movements' rather I know there will be disagreement steams struggling and maybe eventually some stepwise targeted measures to improve things that can be agreed upon. But I think guns as important to some people as religion. Not sure if I could say guns are as important as meditation though because meditation is like the way to let go so maybe it doesn't make sense to say that guns are comparable to meditation.
Guns seem like an addiction which is peculiar to US culture.
I've always disliked guns but it stems from some weird feeling that they are like cheating. Or for the fearful.
For some silly reason I've always felt that we have no right eating an animal we couldn't take down beast against beast.
I'm kind of a freak though.
Guns do appeal to those fascinated with the mechanics of stuff - simple tools - any time is a good time to learn how to use tool X, Y or Z. Now, I can appreciate just how skillful any gun handler can be, because of their attitude - the best attitude is when you respectfully learn how to handle them in a safe manner - being a person who has no immediate 'need' for one - and is respectful of life, in general. People who are involved in accidental shootings (I mean the gun owners) are the ones who never took a gun safety course and/or have chosen not to follow the guidelines that they learned.
I think part of that is the result of the frontier culture/history of the U.S. We have a similar thing here in Canada (though not to the same extent), and still have (mostly rural/small town) areas in the country where the majority have a strong resistance to government control of firearms.
But we don't have a specific article in our Constitution that guarantees our citizens' rights to bear arms. We achieved our sovereignty more slowly and organically from Britain (and still have ties to the Commonwealth and Crown), whereas the U.S. achieved their independence and expanded their borders through revolution and armed struggle. The U.S. was born and built through force, and that mindset seems almost ingrained in the minds of most Americans.
@silver. Good point. Long before I became a soldier I belonged to a rifle club. Our instructor was a retired USMC gunnery sgt. We learned nearly as much about self discipline as marksmanship. Very good life lessons.
I'm not sure I have a specific position anymore but I have some isolated thoughts on the matter.
Even if you banned gun sales in the US tomorrow a good gun can be maintained for decades or even centuries and bullets can be manufactured at home. Getting the US to a level of guns like the UK or something would take a major effort and there are enough people who wouldn't sell them back or actively fight any effort to take them by force that I think guns are here to stay in the US.
A gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times higher than a home without a gun. You're 20 times more likely to be shot by someone you know than an unknown assailant. And twice as many people die from guns by suicide than homicide. So guns are most dangerous to gun owners.
Much of the original intent behind the second amendment giving the citizen the right to own a firearm was to protect citizens against a tyrannical government takeover. But looking at the state of the military and police forces today even the best equipped and trained citizen militia groups wouldn't stand a chance against that might.
Maybe a good guy with a gun could stop a bad guy with a gun in those occasional situations where there is an active shooter. Unless that good guy is well trained in keeping calm, identifying targets, etc. they are also likely to misfire and cause more trouble than they are preventing. So I think if say anyone wants to carry a firearm around for protection they should have to undergo regular situation and shooting training and get licensed.
I'm not sure there can ever be enough gun control to stop mass shootings. The terror attacks in Europe shows criminals and terrorists can get their hands on guns if they really want. And hunting rifles instead of handguns could easily be used for school shootings, though the way they are carried out might change.
Gun ownership and gun violence is very different for rural areas than it is for large cities, so its tough to apply one gun control law that adequately addresses the needs of both areas.
When sitting, what do you notice is occurring with what you see, hear, smell, taste, feel or think?
Which sense gates tend to dominate and which tend to be obscured from your attention?
These responses to phenomena, in consistently directing your attention towards one sense gate over another, is our conditioned nature, our identity construction, our egos dream world and the very nature of the selfish self.
This constant corruption to the broad spectrum of incoming sense data only serves to willingly perpetuate the self verses other agenda that all tribal memberships promote.
Do you see how this occurs when gun ownership is mentioned or
when our electronic social media gets equated to a socially acceptable form of crystal meth?
How do you respond when your membership gets questioned?
^^^ Tee hee.
We iz junkies? [lobster faints]
As an identity I meditate BUT leaving behind that partisan addiction is my long term plan. When I say long term, I mean the next few minutes ...
Stroke your guns, non-guns, egos, personality traits, arisings or ...
... or what?
Or Nothing?
-I'm a firearms owner as well; pistols, rifles, shot-guns, but no bow. I haven't hunted in a very long time...
I owned an M-1 Carbine, which I bought upon release from active duty, until some 20 years ago, my wife handed it in "because it was dangerous to have a gun in the house"
I do not miss it. Also, it was difficult to find safe places to fire it.
I also owned a bow for a while.
I have no objection to gun ownership per se.
However, I do not feel high powered semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines do not belong in the family 'arsenal'. They have one purpose, and it is not recreational.
It is ironic that the same organization that led the movement to end the sales and use of the Thompson and like weapons is now the biggest proponent of high powered assault weapons on our (US) streets.
OH HOW LOVE OF MONEY CORRUPTS!
If it saves one life, banning such weapons is worth it.
This is not a 2nd Amendment issue..the 2nd Amendment still allowed gun ownership. It is a sensible ownership and use of guns issue and a lives matter more than profits issue.
As far as reasons for gun ownership, that is to be answered beach individuals her/himself. If you choose to own a gun or a bow:
1. Don't insist on carrying it/them in Toy'R'Us or Wallmart or Kiddyland.
2. Take an authorized weapons safety course from a qualified instructor.
3. Show others the respect you wish to receive.
4. Be careful.
Peace to all.
We learn about slavery in school; it's not part of our personal lives. Easy to see what a bad thing it was. Horrible, dehumanizing, etc. But why wasn't it seen that way at the time? Something we grow up with feels "natural " and it's not easy to recognize that the natural order of things should be challenged from within. And for those with the temerity life isn't easy.
Will guns ultimately go the way of slavery, foot binding, etc? Wouldn't it be interesting to come back in a few hundred years and see?
Unfortunately, @Steve_B, all those things (slavery, foot binding, etc.) take on different forms and fashions in different eras.
And if slavery can reappear, and substance abuse, in different time periods, that prognosticates against permanent abolition. These social ills, including destructive/harmful traits like gun ownership, war, alcoholism, genocide, may be built in to the genome.
How is gun ownership (and not gun misuse/abuse) on the same level of alcoholism and war and genocide? You specifically singled out alcohol in terms of being abused/misused/addiction, but not gun ownership. Why? It should, it seems, be either gun abuse and alcohol abuse, or gun use and alcohol use. But of course, alcohol is more accepted even in places where guns are not. Because of tradition and habit, of course. But yet we excuse it for alcohol as long as it does not cross a line into abuse or addiction, yet we condemn all gun ownership? That doesn't make much sense to me. Guns do have a practical purpose, despite what some seem to believe.
As far as protection, we don't keep them for that. I've never actually bought a gun in my life. They were all handed down from family. We have 2, and then the bow. But the guns are trigger locked and locked in a cabinet, and the ammo is locked up separately. The axe, the baseball bat, a machete, or even just an arrow without a bow would be our best weapons. All of which are within reach, because we store them in our bedroom closet to keep the kids away from them, LOL.
A couple of preambles first, and then I'll get into the comparison between guns and the other social ills.
1. Don't read too heavily into specific details in the way I've phrased things. It's a very broad, diffuse point I'm making, and there's no intent to imply parsing among one malady or another by verbal omission from any particular sentence. Sorry for the careless phrasing.
2. None of this is directed at you specifically, or any other individual. It's commentary on broadly disseminated social facets. If you're personally offended, I certainly apologize. My intent is to look from far away at broad issues, and not to closely look into your particular house. I promise.
Now then,
The people who founded our country and wrote the first laws and our constitution were intelligent, passionate, driven, and extremely prescient, individuals. They have left us an extensive written record of what inspired them -- mostly Liberty. So why then did these foresighted, cerebral, high-minded deep thinkers with a strong sense of right & wrong, liberty, etc, keep slaves? I submit that they were so inured to slavery that they simply could not see the irony of pursuing liberty for themselves while simultaneously depriving blacks of liberty. Slavery just seemed natural to them; a practice of their forebears, tradition, etc.
Guns are of course not identical to alcohol, methamphetamine, trans fats, genocide, or Donald Trump. Social ills don't have to be identical to each other. And in fact, among the ones we've been discussing (slavery, guns, alcohol, etc) and a few others we haven't (overpopulation, climate change, GMOs), the general recognition of something badly amiss varies very widely. I think we now recognize and agree more or less universally that slavery is an evil. But it took time (and a war) to arrive at this enlightenment, amazing though that may seem today. By the way, would you agree that women are people? How about blacks? What took so long to include them in the voting population? Same thing: inurement, tradition, cultural inheritance, etc. Suffrage needed all the brave eccentrics it attracted, because most people accepted the status quo without acknowledging )or even recognizing) the wrong.
Guns among the general populace may go this way too. It's already happening in some civilized corners of the planet. On the other hand, slavery could come back to the west. And I certainly don't think humans are past the time of war, genocide, famine, etc. Hard to say what things may look like in the distant future. Too many things we're incapable of recognizing, because we're too close to them to perceive the ironies that will baffle our descendants.
If anyone on this forum knows how to build a flux capacitor, I'd personally like to read ahead a few chapters to see how some of these things turn out.
I'm not offended
But there is a distinct difference not just between owning guns and misusing them, but also among gun owners as a group. I hesitate to even mention I own guns because of the conclusions people jump to when they lump categories of people together, such as labeling all Americans as gun-loving crazies.
I am all for much stricter gun control. I would like to see lay people unable to buy police and military weapons (but I'd also like to see our military stop using them, too, lol). I'd like to see guns-all of them-licensed and insured the exact same way cars are. You should be required to prove you are capable of owning it on a regular basis, you should have to pay fees just to own each gun, and each one should have to be insured, with higher risk guns costing more in insurance, just like cars. And doctors should be able to report that you are no longer mentally stable enough to own them and they can them be taken away...just like your drivers license if you can no longer see or have seizures etc. Guns, like cars and almost everything else we own, should be a privilege that is earned and kept, not a right. I don't in any way believe this gun culture is what our founders had in mind.
I do think it's important too allow people the ability to own them for the purpose of collecting food. As I said above, I know many, many families who rely on hunting as a major way to get their meat through the year. While this is not common everywhere, it is very common in rural areas. I literally cannot think of a single family I know that doesn't have guns, and very very few of them use them for anything other than hunting. We haven't had a shooting of another person (one gun suicide I can think of and he was a self-admitted gang banger from Colorado) accidental or on purpose, in the 40 years I've lived here.
I, too, would love to see many years in the future over a number of issues. Including whether the humanity manages to save itself.
Sorry, mine overloaded. Now all it does is great smores.
Ay curumba! You are preparing for the zombie apocalypse ...
@how is making a very subtle point. Nothing or little to do with the rite to bare limbs or arms.
It is about how naked is your dharma awareness?
We belong to mental and emotional affiliations. Loaded gun clubs, which we hit ourselves and others over the head with. Don't justify your karmic addictions. Find them. Expose them. Be aware of them ...
... and now back to killing zombies ...
I live in an open carry state. So it is entirely legal to put on a gun belt and carry a weapon. As long as the weapon is visible. When I saw this for the first time it was as though I'd stumbled onto a movie set.
@lobster They are just tools we use in everyday life, not weapons intended for protection. In fact, we rarely lock our doors. We do chop wood though, and use machetes for being in the woods. I realize @how's point, I was addressing someone else (poorly) who mentioned self-protection. We have guns, but there are no illusions that they will keep us safe in the event of a break in, since that is not why we have them. In fact, we pretty much just choose not to live in fear and worry that people will break in and murder us.
Hmmmm ..this is not addressed to any one individual.
I think the same result would have occurred if this thread was titled..."Empathy for meat eaters"
I asked if our stimulation in enacting control through a computer keyboard, was similar to the stimulation that gun enthusiasts experience over their control over their environment. Can one group let go of their stimulation any more easily than the other?
How long could you actually do that for and what would that feel like?
This question could be about what separates one tribe from another?
The answers on this thread mostly arrived in the form of folks justifying their various tribal affiliations rather than examining the possibility that all tribes are little more than a collective clinging to our own identities.
Tribal memberships are simply the defensive structure of the karmic delusion that birthed us. They are the personification of an innate adversarial ignorance that we all partake of.
So.... if you ever wish to measure the depth of your practice, observe how many of your responses to any phenomena of the moment get edited by your own tribal positioning, because 99% of a Buddhist meditation practice is simply about learning how to drop that editing.
I think it's a question that isn't easily compared. I answered you initial question the best I can, but I think the group/tribe is too varied to be able to easily compare them. Whereas with the internet, while we all use it different ways, the general premise and reasoning is the same for most people who are interacting socially. My attachment to the stimulation of either isn't all that strong, I wouldn't care if my guns were taken away (though I would be slightly unhappy at the loss of a family heirloom, and I am still working through my attachments to sentimental items such as that). Honestly, having the internet taken away is often a blessing, and I quite enjoy power outages as a result, lol. I take internet vacations fairly often. Several times a year and usually a month at a time where the only internet I use is my email because it is the primary communication for my kids' school.
So, for me, the attachment isn't there to that stimulation in either sense. But that is largely because I frequently ask those questions and push myself to go without those things, among others for that reason. I tried to answer the best I could from the points of view that I grew up with and see from a rural perspective. So like I said initially, yes, i could see certain gun people having the same connection/attachment to the stimulation they get from handling and using guns as others get from using the internet.
I didn't really understand the question at first but the word stimulant makes me think of addiction so in that light I'd figure the difficulty would depend on the dependence.
There would be some that would have no problem giving it up and there would be some that cling to an identity that revolves around it.
Indeed.
Let us start from the top. Some very advanced souls are independent of the sense gates based around the body. That is too advanced for me and probably most of us.
Therefore because that is my present undertanding I have to treat the mind-body complex as the basis of our arisings/addictions. That includes the emotional body of course.
The affiliation to our personal being is why we express ourselves in terms of our experience/karma. Guns/meat eating/Gods etc = bad. Dharma/kindness/no-god etc = good.
Emotive issues are the ones where we seperate into us and them.
... and so on.
Long live the Hinayana [oops ...
]
@David
I didn't really understand the question at first but the word stimulant makes me think of addiction so in that light I'd figure the difficulty would depend on the dependence.
I think the Buddhist cannon is just endless different ways of approaching this.
That which stimulates, will connect us to our identity via forms, sensations, thoughts, activities or consciousness. Folks generally direct most of their sense info of what they, see or hear or smell or taste or feel or think towards one or two of these identity avenues.
This limits down the broadest spectrum of life's possible incoming data to only traveling the myopic avenues of our identities own dream.
or
through a Buddhist meditative practice, we can work at allowing all of that incoming data an unmolested journey beyond the limitations of that dream.
which I like to think is what the Buddha called an awakening from that dream.
Indeed. My experience too. It also goes beyond the 'just be attentive' described below, mindfulness, pseudo dzogchen awareness etc. It is attention with compassion or discernment.
So for example a zen zombie killer or unscrupulous tantric banker can be attentive to the moment. A bodhi is attentive to the needs of the situation and that means being able to restrain/retrain the inclination to extremes or unskilful affiliations/behaviour.
Attention
There's an old Zen story: a student said to Master Ichu, 'Please write for me something of great wisdom.'
Master Ichu picked up his brush and wrote one word: 'Attention.'
The student said, 'Is that all?'
The master wrote, 'Attention. Attention.'
The student became irritable. 'That doesn't seem profound or subtle to me.'
In response, Master Ichu wrote simply, 'Attention. Attention. Attention.'
In frustration, the student demanded, 'What does this word attention mean?'
Master Ichu replied, 'Attention means attention.'
Source: Charlotte Joko Beck. 1993. Nothing special: Living Zen. New York: HarperCollins. 168.
Someone has been binge watching Walking Dead.
@techie LOL we did binge watch it last year but we are caught up and now have to eait with the rest of humanity for October
But, thank goodness GoT starts in a few days! 
Alas, I have no swords.
@Karasti
If you are tweaking for the zombies the "Walking Dead", there is a companion edition called
"Fear of the walking dead" which is situated on the US West Coast and begins on day one of the outbreak instead of beginning after Rick wakes up from his coma. I think its up to 7 episodes so far.
@Karasti. There are places in the US which are essentially lawless. Though thankfully they are rare. In these locales people feel they cannot trust the police. So I understand why people who would not ordinarily own weapons do so. It may be a grand illusion to believe that owning weapons provides personal protection but nonetheless in some places it makes people feel less fearful.
Yes, indeed there are. Most rural places though, where gun ownership is the highest, are much safer overall than their urban counterparts. I don't know a person who doesn't have guns. Even my 90 year old grandma did before she died. But our town hasn't had a murder in 40 years (knock on wood, lol) and beyond mostly mischief types of crimes, and drunk driving, it's pretty safe. We live in a small village (170 people) outside of a bigger town (3500 people) and because our law enforcement is the county sheriff, the local bar actually sells "Lawless Winton" hoodies, LOL. Because while we have ordinances and such, we have no one who can enforce them locally. We do have the ex-mayor who packs double heat on his hips while he picks up trash along the highway though.
Anyhow, I'd never tell someone they can't or shouldn't have guns or anything else for protection. We just don't really need it here. I think a lot of people go overboard with what they determine is protection though. A husband and wife don't really need 9 guns for protection (and I know someone who does this and almost shot a drunk college kid who tripped and fell in their yard).
I think it is the mindset of the gun owners/users. Canada has a higher ratio of guns to people than the US, but they have a different, more rational mindset. Canada is very little of the insanity found in infuriatingly too many of the folks below the border.
Guns are tools, not phallic symbols or 'toys'. Go hunting, legally please, go to the range, leave then on the rack when you go to Jake's Bar 'N Grill. Don't play 'fast-draw', 'chicken', let's scare the kids in isle C...
Guns most certainly have yet to be proved as cures for impotence. When my home state of Fl relaxed the requirements for concealed carry permits nearly a million where issued. The incidents of guns being pulled during road rage altercations increased greatly. Many people do not have the stability to be armed.
I think the prevalence of guns in the media - tv series, films, games - encourages a certain over familiarity with them on the part of many people. I'm not sure how many people truly get that when you pull a gun, you are a few centimetres away from pulling the trigger and ending the life of another conscious, living, breathing person. Something which has the potential to be life altering for both you and them in a very negative way, not even to mention the karmic consequence.
As an American, with a firm belief in the U. S. Constitution, I have always felt that states should have a fair amount of leeway in making their own gun laws, even taking into consideration the pro-gun rights groups' favorite tale of two cities: Chicago and Dallas. Cities should also be allowed to increase restrictions on gun selling and carrying. If San Francisco and New York want to ban any store from selling firearms within their city limits, fine. New Yorkers and San Franciscans elect their own leadership to that effect. If the people of the cities want to change the laws, they'll elect different leadership or put initiatives on the ballot.
All that being said, where I grew up was quite rural most of my life. My childhood home would have been in the hunting range of a mountain lion if not for development, and that cat was seen in the neighborhood a couple times before they began developing the empty wild lands adjacent to my neighborhood. When my grandfather died, it took nearly thirty minutes for the first emergency responder to arrive. And this was close to a town of nearly 40,000 the year of my birth. Gun ownership in the U. S. is, and has for most of our history, been a matter of self-reliance and survival. There are places in the U. S., even today, where the response time on an emergency call is too great for any chance of survival in many situations.
Yes, Buddhism itself teaches about relinquishing attachment, even to life, but most rural residents in the U. S. are not Buddhists. This is one reason why I favor more local-tailored laws on many fronts. People living in rural areas should be able to own firearms if they feel the need. People living in bigger cities have other resources available.
Owning a firearm isn't about self-perception, necessarily. It's about being able to do a little more, and reducing burdens on other people, sometimes.
@Kerome, you point out that the U. S. had over 12,000 murders in 2015. Something in particular to consider, over 90% of those murders were committed in the four cities with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, in situations similar to what you describe for the Netherlands; it is mostly criminals with illegally gained weapons committing these murders. This goes back to what I said about Chicago and Dallas. It's a scary proposition to break into someone's house in most of Texas, because you're likely to stare down the barrel of some kind of firearm after doing so. Get stupid in public, and somebody is likely to take aim at you. These facts tend to discourage overt criminal behavior.
All that being said, I do believe in reasonable requirements before someone purchases or carries concealed, and stiff penalties for someone who breaks the law in any way while in possession of a firearm. @karasti, you mentioned having taken gun safety in seventh grade, I took hunter's safety my seventh grade year, with basic firearm safety incorporated in the course. We need to bring that back. A basic knowledge of such tools will help diminish the fear of them. I find an unreasonable fear of something has a tendency to inhibit a person's ability to reason. Making an informed decision after considering the facts and your own worldview is one thing. Writing something off as completely bad without considering all the facts of the case is only limiting us, as individuals and a collective whole.
"One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate.
The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators.
But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg..."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010515&slug=dalai15m0
I wish our police forces could be taught to shoot to injure and take down rather than to kill. I realize in some circumstances it might not happen, but if they were trained with a different mentality other than "shoot to kill" it seems we'd have far fewer officers killing people which just negatively impacts the lives of so many people and erodes trust significantly in the police force. I'm about as law-abiding as they come, and yet I find the police intimidating. Even my cousin's husband is completely different in his uniform and on the job. It's like they aren't people anymore, the space they enter when they are working is almost inhuman. Not for all I am sure, just sharing an experience as I know him well outside of his job but he is like a stranger when he is working. Completely detached and disengaged with the people he interacts with. I have no reason to fear or distrust the police, especially in a small town where I know most of them. But yet I do because they have so much power regardless of whether you actually did something wrong. It's like being held hostage by people who are supposed to help you.
Anyhow, I think our police forces and the rest of us would get a lot of value out of better and different training for weapons use. I realize that you have to understand that when you choose to raise a gun you very well may kill whoever you are aiming at. That was one of my first gun lessons as a kid-shooting melons. With the understanding this is what happens to a human body. However, that doesn't mean we have to stretch it to say that you have to aim to kill every time you raise a gun.
Police do need to be better trained, there are many situations where a little aikido training would manage a situation easily and cops can sometimes escalate a situation instead of deescalating. The threshhold for when to use lethal force for a cop though is lower than it is for whoever they are dealing with, they don't know going into a situation who is a bad guy and who isn't, any seemingly ordinary interaction could be their last. Also, in hand to hand combat or shooting to disable all they need to be is knocked unconscious or disabled for a second for a perpetrator to kill them or get hold of their gun so they can't really afford to take that chance for themselves and others nearby. Handguns aren't terribly accurate and real life situations where people are moving, partially hidden and adrenaline is high is far different than hitting a target in a range.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/police-deadly-force_n_5693020.html
Apparently non-deadly shots do not incapacitate, immediately.
So a shot that is not lethal, has no guarantee that the perpetrator will be rendered incapable of retaliation.
"People fall over when shot, because that's how they remember seeing it in the movies"
See here.
Any hunter knows that when hunting animals, you have to have a 'clean shot' to ensure the animal either drops immediately, or that you can approach it and dispatch it 'humanely' as quickly as possible.
A merely 'injured animal' can survive for a long time if wounded.
Hunters try to avoid this prolonged agony.
The same sense of urgency exists when firing at a criminal gunman.
I think that the discussion had digressed from gun ownership to law enforcement.
I believe that law abiding citizens should have the opportunity and availability to arm themselves for self protection. At the same time regulations must be in place to safeguard the weapons from falling into the wrong hands.
My standpoint is more, the Buddhist precepts state not to kill. It is the first precept, presumably the most important. By having a gun in your house or on your person you are significantly increasing the likelihood that you will end up killing, not just an animal, but directly and consciously another human being. And if not you, then you may end up facilitating another person killing in a tragic accident.
If the intention is not to kill, then why own a gun? It seems better to make the straightforward choice not to have anything to do with guns.