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.
Why does the weight of a weapon feel "good"?
Zayl
Veteran
Well, when I carry my old 1912 pump shotgun passed down to me by my great grandfather, or when I am wearing my new Ruger vaquero 45lc revolver on a belt laden with ammunition, I just want to know why exactly the weight of these armaments feels natural to me. When I wear them, I feel like I should have had them all this time. And when I am without them, I feel too light and almost naked. Holding a firearm in my hand just feels correct, that's as well as I can describe it. Where I live we still have wild bear and cougar. Not to mention the new invasive species of Siberian wild boar, which is extraordinarily aggressive (they have been known to attack a human on sight, with no provocation) so whenever I walk in the wilds, I at the very least carry my revolver on my hip. But the weight of this weapon feels natural enough that it almost feels like it should have been there all along. Is that the nature of a human? to be armed? I cannot deny this, as holding and using a firearm feels as natural to me as waking up in the morning.
Is it correct for a human being such as myself, to be able to wield such firepower, to defend himself? I am by no means a maniac, which many anti-gun people believe. My weapon remains holstered, and ineffective, unless something directly threatens my life or the lives of others. Out where I live, in the sticks, carrying a firearm on your hip is seen as a near necessity. But in town, where I have to forgo a firearm, I feel unprotected, vulnerable, and that the life of myself and those directly around me are at the mercy of whatever force. What is wrong with taking this responsibility in your own hands?
I may be a civilian, but in the Americas, it is not uncommon for a civilian to be trained and more effective in the use of a weapon than the military. I just want to know what you think.
Is it correct for a human being such as myself, to be able to wield such firepower, to defend himself? I am by no means a maniac, which many anti-gun people believe. My weapon remains holstered, and ineffective, unless something directly threatens my life or the lives of others. Out where I live, in the sticks, carrying a firearm on your hip is seen as a near necessity. But in town, where I have to forgo a firearm, I feel unprotected, vulnerable, and that the life of myself and those directly around me are at the mercy of whatever force. What is wrong with taking this responsibility in your own hands?
I may be a civilian, but in the Americas, it is not uncommon for a civilian to be trained and more effective in the use of a weapon than the military. I just want to know what you think.
0
Comments
I too live in nature. Bears, cougars and wolves are common here. And by here I mean right in my neigbourhood. In my yard even. I have lived here for 38 years. I don't need a gun to fit in here.
When I was in my twenties I had the idea that I should have a stash of firearms and ammunition for the Armageddon. It passed.
Guns feel cool. They are such precision machines. Tools can be like that too. Or cameras.
Try not to buy into it. It's ruining your country.
here, I am not talking about using a firearm against other humans, not at all. I'd just like to make that clear to other posters.
Even game wardens can euthanize or kill at need, as to killing animals. They prefer to not euthanize, usually, and are chosen to be some of the most respectful of nature folks. But Florida has alligator hunts to get rid of those that keep coming to where man is and kill children of mankind or a child of mankind, legal ones for licensed hunters/trappers. So, there are circumstances where an offense of limited kind is justified some times as best defense, while willy-nilly offense is bad.
What 'force' are you talking about?
Who has 'threatened your life or the lives of others'?
Firing in the air will often scare animals away. Firing at them is fraught with danger if you miss, wound them or cause panic so that they continue the attack, rather than run.... perhaps it would be better to condition yourself to pursuing a Pacifist route and rather than falling into the trap of believing that Americans NEED to be armed, you actually worked on conditioning others that dispensing with weapons is a more humane and Compassionate route to take.
Is what I think.
Your tool is compensating for an incapacity that you feel is sufficiently threatening to your survival to warrant the response.
The weight is the reminder of the 'security' it brings - the survival gap is plugged enough for the stress to be managed.
Instead I would suggest to try to respect the lives and feelings of all living beings, humans and animals alike. Following this precept and the others is what according to the Buddha is the way out of fear.
There is this story of the Buddha being charged by a raging elephant. He didn't jump away, didn't do anything, but instead send thoughts of kindness to the elephant, and the elephant stopped his charge. Don't misunderstand me as if I'm comparing myself to the Buddha, but it gives an idea of what is possible. Or at least some inspiration. Whether the story is true or not, it gives the idea of what kind of mind we want to develop on the path.
@zayl I can say, that I grew up in an area where gun culture is still very much a part of daily life. Quite literally, every single person I know owns a gun, even my 88 year old grandma. We have not had a murder here in 30+ years, and that was via axe, not gun. I grew up hunting, and I am good with a rifle, a handgun and a bow. But I would never say that I feel better or more human or anything carrying a gun than when I don't. I do not have a carry permit but know many, many people who do (my area of the state has the highest % of carry permits) and these are not people who are highly trained in ANY WAY. They just like to carry a gun when they go to Shopko because it makes their ego feel powerful and in control when most likely they would just end up shooting themselves in the foot or killing an innocent person should a robbery or something take place. I actually feel extremely laden with responsibility and other things I can't describe right now when I carry a gun, and 99% of the time it is simply to walk down to the shooting range a couple blocks from my house to target shoot. I actually prefer the bow, by far. It takes far more skill.
That said, when I am doing backcountry hiking and camping, I do carry a pistol. In my state we can open carry in the fields, forests and waters without a permit for self-protection. I worry more about what crazy people I'll run into than animals, lol, but I would defend myself and my kids against a wild animal. I've never had to. Never even come close. But you bet I'd go against the precepts and shoot a bear that didn't respond normally when I attempted to scare it away. I'd prefer not to, I find the bears and wolves far more fearsome of me, but there are some who do not respond as they should.
As for whether it's natural, I can't say. In my experience, no. Because I grew up with guns from the time I was a very young child, and it is not natural to me. Though I can understand in a sense how it would feel that way if you are used to carrying one all the time. I carry a buck knife on my belt most of the time and if I forget it, I feel it in the same sense as I do when I realize I forgot my cell phone. But I don't feel more natural or more human carrying a knife or a cell phone, either. I feel the most natural when I am carrying nothing at all. No purse, no cell phone, no sunglasses, no buck knife, no gun or bow.
However, I do not own a gun, despite being encouraged to due to my profession and the clients whom I work with.
I have often imagined if I were cornnered and death was immienent, hopefully I would be mindful enough to compassionately forgive my slayer and seek the clear light. However, there are many evasive and finesse measures that would prevent the event from occuring...which is perhaps the best...recognize the potential and deal with or avoid the situation before it escalates...which imho is the more skillful and compassionate thing to do.
And at the very least, to get back on the topic, somebody who carries a gun to defend themselves already has arisen the intention to possibly hurt some being. So for that alone I would never carry a gun. (I'm lucky I live in Europe anyway. This 'carrying a gun for self defense' thing, some of you may not realize, is very much influenced by society. [of course also environment] Over here in general people think very different about carrying guns.)
Americans have become conditioned by their own society, laws and neighbourhoods that not only is carrying a gun, lawful and justified, it's also a "God-Given Right" and the only way to deal with 'bad guys'.
Americans, it seems to me (and not only in here, on this topic) seem to believe that it's a necessary evil to be armed, and have frankly, been terrified into believing that if they're NOT armed, they're going to be murdered in cold blood one day, and be defenceless in the process.
Statistically, you run a greater risk of so many other ways of sustaining injury or death, than from the firearm in the hands of a violent and opportunistic criminal.
Anyhow, as far as a dangerous wild animal situation, how I feel *personally* is different than how I feel being a parent. I cannot in good conscience allow myself to simply be killed by an animal, and I certainly couldn't do it and allow my children to see it. They already lost one parent. I prefer that they not lose another. That said, also, I never bring a weapon to a campsite or any other such thing. It's actually pretty rare that I'd have a gun with while my children are with. It is more so for backcountry camping. The bears that come into campsites are used to people and very rarely will attack because of their habituation. Bears in the wild with little to no human contact are another story and are much more easily spooked. I don't do much of that type of camping with my kids at this point though due to the ages of the younger ones.
Anyhow, overall I agree with the general assessment of Americans and their fear. But it turns into a circle. People *are* victims of random gun violence here. Yes, it's far more rare than a car accident or other causes of death. But it does happen and because of that, it makes people afraid, so they think the answer is more guns...when access to guns is the start of the problem to begin with. It turns into a "well the bad guys have guns! So I need guns to fight the bad guys!" argument. But it starts at the top, too, with a government who thinks they above everyone else in the world has a right to nuclear and biological weapons to protect us from the bad guys of the world...when in many cases we ARE the bad guy that the rest of the world should be protected from.
Americans, it seems to me (and not only in here, on this topic) seem to believe that it's a necessary evil to be armed, and have frankly, been terrified into believing that if they're NOT armed, they're going to be murdered in cold blood one day, and be defenceless in the process."
Please let me defend my country (or what's left of its sanity, anyway) by assuring you non-Americans that despite what you see and hear about the US, and how OFTEN you see and hear it, the type of person described above is in a VERY SMALL minority in my country.
The vast majority of Americans are reasonable, and logical when it comes to the reality of gun ownership, what should be limited and regulated and what shouldn't be. Believe it or not, the majority of Americans are not walking around in constant fear of "bad guys"... even the millions who live in (economically depressed and /or troubled) inner cities and heavily populated surrounding areas are not the ones who are 'armed to the teeth'.
No, it's the "survivalist" mindset person who most likely lives in some rural area in the middle areas of the US, who coddles their own sense of fears and paranoia against other people (and especially the government!) who are gun hoarders and NRA nutbags.
But again, please realize that these people are a SMALL MINORITY among us. And the NRA is very small, $$$ LOUD and powerful $$$ lobbyist, but a minority just the same.....
A lot of the problem is the deep pockets of the NRA who own the politicians. Because even though the vast majority of people are yelling for more restrictions on guns, the politicians won't pass them because of the lobby power. Mostly due to a completely ignorant lack of understanding of what the changes in law would entail.
Edit: That doesn't make sense, lol. 2 different thoughts. The lobby power buys the politicians into not making changes that the people support, and make it appear as those Americans don't support gun changes. Which isn't true. Those who do NOT support the changes, largely have a complete lack of understanding about what those changes would be. People need to view gun ownership as more of a privilege akin to having a drivers license.
"It true in America streets paved in gold?"
"Do you have AIDS?" -- "No, why would you ask me that?" -- "Don't all Americans have AIDS?"
So I guess what I wanted to say is, that it is conditioned what many people find reasonable. But luckily 'us' Buddhists are supposed to think for themselves. What actually is our personal reason for having a gun and is that wholesome or unwholesome? In my view, having it for self defense is not a really wholesome reason. I think that was what the first post was on about when asking if it is 'correct'.
Out here in the west, a lot of people (though clearly not a majority) live in very isolated areas. Wild animals sightings (including some coming right into peoples homes, and including bears and mountain lions) are not unheard of, and if you live out in the sticks, it seems pretty reasonable to have a little protection. Unfortunately, Colorado is a gun state, and I have friends who have several guns here in Colorado Springs. They're into hunting and target shooting. Right now there are 2 recall elections moving forward here -- and in both issues the ONLY issue is that the state senators voted for stricter gun laws.
I don't see how defending oneself is unwholesome.
We have 4 guns, and a bow. The guns all have trigger locks, and are locked in cabinets. Never loaded. The ammo is locked up separately and all the keys are stored separately. They bow is locked up as well as the arrows, too. They'd do us no good if someone broke in. I'll take my chances. Plus, we have a dog which is an awesome deterrent. I'm far too aware of the chances of one of my kids or their friends becoming a statistic. We also live about 2 blocks from a target range and we spend time there, mostly with the bow because it's the most fun. My eldest hunts, so he practices with his hunting rifle fairly often.
Obviously it also depends on the situation. But a situation does not have to force one into owning a gun. In Thailand and other countries people lived (and still do) along dangerous snakes and tigers. They generally don't have a gun. In the time of the Buddha tigers and elephants were common, but there were no guns at all. I bet you also won't find a gun in a Buddhist monastery nowadays, even if it is in the most bear infested part of America. What I want to say it is also our personal responsibility to look beyond the general conditioning.
Defending oneself is not unwholesome per se. You can also defend yourself by shouting in case of a bear, or playing dead, or running away, hiding, just handing over your money in case of a robbery, or whatever many not unwholesome ways there are to defend yourself that don't include shooting down the other.
But a gun is made to defend oneself by threatening or hurting the other. (whether that other is a human or an animal does not matter) That's a different ballgame, because the intention of hurting the other is based upon a wrong understanding that somehow we have the right to make others suffer, which only occurs when we think in terms of "us" and "them", because of an attachment to our own existence, to self preservation.
Now I'm not saying everybody who owns a gun is a dumb immoral person, or anything like that. But from a Buddhist point of view (at least my Buddhist point of view), there is no wholesome reason for owning a gun. The Buddha went very far in how important it is to not want to hurt others. See for example this sutta:
That said, it's easy to say you can just yell at a bear or play dead and it'll go away. That only happens on TV, lol. Much of the time, indeed you can make a lot of noise and a bear will go away. But most certainly not always. Dozens of people die every year in tiger attacks in various areas of the world (far more than are attacked by bears). I'm guessing if they had access to guns they would defend themselves. A guy close to where I lived was attacked by a bear in his yard and almost died, lost his eye and sustained severe head and facial injuries. He would have died if his friend had not had a gun and shot the bear.
But, in Thailand today there is an estimated 10,000,000 privately owned guns, of which only 38% are registered. In fact, out of 178 countries, Thailand ranks #11.
This choice of course does not just include guns. In the time of the Buddha there were other weapons, and in Europe there are also legal weapons (or items that act like a weapon) one can choose to have or not have.
If a bear gets killed by somebody else, there is not much I can help to do about it anymore. But I can choose not to (have the means to) kill the bear myself or not encourage anyone to.
Anyhow, I don't disagree with your assessment about taking responsibility and doing whatever is in our power to prevent situations and act with loving kindness when situations arise. I have a hard time believing anyone on this board would simply lay there and let a wild animal tear them apart without fighting back (which doesn't even mean you have to kill the animal, or the person attacking) because a sutta says not to. Not do I believe they would stand there are and watch while a wild animal attacked another person. Is that really loving kindness? Not everything in suttas is necessarily meant to be taken 100% literally, I don't think.
For all the time I spend in the woods and my years living here, I've never had to shoot an animal I was afraid of. Many times bears have not responded (and wolves and badgers and others) to pot banging and yelling. A warning shot works 100% of the time. I've chased at least a dozen bears from campsites with warning shots, and not once did I raise the gun with the intention of killing the bear. Quite the opposite.
What I said (and meant) was that when we do run across the true "survivalist type" person; the person who has multiple pistols, rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons, etc and honestly believes they need all this because everyone is out to 'get them' -- from crazy escaped convicts, to minorities, to illegal immigrants, and most people in authority (government), they most likely live in the more or less rural areas of our country. Not always, but most likely they do.
Florida is a gung-ho gun state as well. Florida (not unlike many states) is basically made up of a few (4-5?) more urban/city areas, and the rest sprawling suburbs and rural areas. The NRA is big in Florida.
In contrast, New Jersey, where I live, is one of the most populated states in the nation. Not nearly the largest but up in the top 3 or 4 for population density, with MANY urban areas, and yet we are not an NRA lovin' state. We are right between NYC and Philadelphia; two huge urban areas, and yet we are not known as a gun-totin' state either.
People don't seem to be as paranoid and in need of unlimited self-protection in the way of military style weapons and mass amounts of ammo. Now I'm not claiming we don't have gun owners here, because of course we do! But we don't seem to be obsessed with guns, or collecting large amounts of them, or worried about the government "taking away our guns" either. ::: shrugs:::
Personally, I have no issues with anyone of sound mind owning A gun as a method of home (and personal) protection. There is nothing illegal about that.
However, I do believe -very strongly- that home protection weapons should never, EVER, leave one's home property and be brought out into public spaces; EVER. Hunting weapons and target range weapons are another matter, and are usually well regulated and restricted in residential and public settings. But carry and conceal laws like in Florida and other states?
I think they are dangerous, unnecessary, and frankly... bullshit....
Also, I think war and the widespread death it brings is something much closer to Europeans and almost non existent to most Americans.
Personally i think it's a marketing scam of the NRA, to keep people buying guns they just don't need.
Nobody needs a gun. And; death is unavoidable, no gun is going to protect you from it eventually.
Thanks for the clarification, @MaryAnne. I probably read it wrong.
I wish gun ownership was regulated more like a drivers license, and I don't understand why it can't be. People should have to take classes to get their purchase permits, and they should have to keep them up-to-date. The frequency in which guns are successfully used to thwart robbers, attacks, or mass shootings are pretty darn limited compared to the carnage that irresponsible owners cause.
It is outrageous to suggest that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. If my life depended on it I would kill the other person if it was the only way to stop them from killing me.
I think we both know you would defend yourself if you had to, any one in their right mind would.
And yes to the drivers license concept!
A certain amount of insurance coverage should be required for each and every single weapon owned; from the small pocket pistol, to the bedside Luger to the AK-47 or other semi-automatic one uses to shoot beer cans off the fence or whatever. Hunting weapons should require insurance as well. This way when any weapon you own is used in a reckless or unlawful way to rob, injure or kill someone (or something) your insurance will pay for the victim/s medical bills, etc, and most likely they will revoke your 'privilege' to own guns any more because they will rescind insurance coverage. Works for me!
I'll answer all of your posts later, right now I have a splitting headache and the bright screen isn't helping.
And call it outrageous if you want, because you don't understand it (yet). But what is outrageous is not necessarily untrue.
I think you're just used to it, nothing deeper than that. There was a brief period of my life when I was armed when not at home (not guns, I live in England, but other weapons), it never felt natural for me, quite the opposite.