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.
@Zayl We are just watery bags of life, destined to be punctured.
Artificial claws & teeth, are just our fear of this truth. The depth of a spiritual path is typically measured by ones willingness to abandon
ones inherent defensiveness to whatever makes us feel vulnerable. As a camping kayaker in the North, I commonly share living spaces
with animals who are very capable of deflating this bag.
Co habitation with what we fear can become a spiritual lesson based both on attentive awareness and a non adversarial stance as opposed to relying on external tools to assuage the fear of just how ethereal each of us really are.
I am not saying that I think you should abandon your weapons. Only that in being willing to lay them aside, you might find yourself more at one with the world with a wider heart than a conquering warrior will ever know.
Well I think a compassionate act and even selfless act that would be to actualy kill the person to prevent them from 1. Accumulating strong negative Karma 2.Making the people around you from suffering when you die 3. Killing people in the future which would not only cause them and the people around them to suffer and the people around them but also for him to accumulate further negative Karma.
We are the owners of our own karma. You can't influence the karma of others, even the Buddha said he couldn't do so. If somebody has the intention to kill, the bad karma has already been done. Karma is not just bodily act, but mental acts (intentions) as well. If they are stopped killing but still wanted to, karma-wise not that much has changed if anything.
But if you think this is compassionate, ok. I wouldn't judge you for it or anything. Might even say it is heroic in a way. But I just hope you can understand others have a different idea of compassion and this different idea can make them act in ways other yours.
With metta, Sabre
2
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
To the OP, I think you must feel somehow less when you are not strapping a weapon. You feel safer and more complete with it, so you must feel unsafe and incomplete without it. I think I would work on breaking down this notion. Just being aware of it is the first step.
On a similar vein, I feel like a badass wearing combat boots or even just in a new outfit that I feel compliments me well. It's all the same, a mind-made illusion influencing the way we feel about ourselves and surroundings. In itself, there is nothing wrong with feeling good about yourself with these particular items, but it is quite clear that it will lead to suffering when you are without them.
You all speak sense, some more so than others, but there hasn't been an untrue word thus far (Though, I have sensed some vehemence in a few posts) Again, it's not the act of ending a life that feels good to me, I want to make that perfectly, absolutely clear. In fact, unless I am hunting for food (I never hunt for sport, ever) I never even draw my weapon, unless my life is immediately threatened.
I want to make it clear, that I was taught never, ever to draw my weapon unless I fully intend to use it. This means that many a time I have been in the presence of animals who could have disemboweled me easily. But since they seemed rather disinterested and/or fearful and ran away, my weapon remained in it's holster. Unless something is attempting to kill me, I will never attempt to kill it. Unless of course, for food. (But the whole hunting/meat eating thing is a topic for another thread) And when faced with say, a mugger with a knife, since I have a CCW, the bulge under my coat at the hip has dissuaded many a would be attacker from accosting me, leaving both me and the criminal unharmed. In fact, the most I have ever "done" to someone with my handgun is move my coat aside, so they had a plain view of it.
How do you all feel about a firearm at a range? meaning, using it only for target shooting? No one and nothing is harmed by this if proper safety is observed. Yet I have such fun at the gun range. If any of you knew me personally, you would know I am clumsy and talentless in just about every endeavor, I have come to accept this and it does not bother me. However, the only natural born skill I seem to have is with a firearm. It has been that way ever since I was little, and I was outshooting people at the gun range at age 13. Shooting is just about the only thing I can ever seem to do very, very well. It just comes natural to me. Some people are born talented painters, or musicians, or surfers, or athletes. I was born a skilled marksman.
EDIT: I'd also like to add that for a vast majority of my life, I lived far, far, far out in the countryside. Where in an emergency, the police wouldn't come. Instead you'd have to wait over half an hour for the Sheriff or a Deputy to arrive. A lot of bad things can happen during that time. So having the ability to safeguard you and others was seen as a basic necessity by everyone.
What a world you live in, where in your short life "many a would be attacker" or mugger with a knife need to be dissuaded by your concealed firearm. It's hard for me to imagine. Can you not find a way to move through your world with your head held up, without attracting the attention of criminals? If you live out in the country, why are you coming into contact with criminals? I live in the boonies too. Everyone knows about each other here. Criminals stand out. Perhaps I am very naive about modern life in America. Surely it is not a lawless, dog eat dog land all over down there. Maybe move to a friendlier town. Shooting at the range sounds like fun. We have an active rod and gun club here. I have many friends who shoot and or hunt. The rules are pretty strict. A permit is needed to transport a handgun to and from the range each time it's used. You have to be a dedicated enthusiast to bother with the red tape. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm
I am a dedicated enthusiast, I have all the permits needed for a handgun in my state. And I used to live out in the country, but I moved into a town sandwiched between Saginaw and Buena Vista, two notoriously crime ridden towns. I no longer have a CCW though, and no longer carry a handgun in public. I'd move to a nicer town but, you know, money. Nowadays I prefer speed over confrontation, though. Either by sprinting away or just driving away. And since I am able to use a vehicle now and don't have to walk everywhere, maintaining a CCW seemed like too much effort.
These days my guns remain locked in a safe, unless I am going out hunting or out on an extended hike/camping trip. Just so ya know.
What a world you live in, where in your short life "many a would be attacker" or mugger with a knife need to be dissuaded by your concealed firearm. It's hard for me to imagine. Can you not find a way to move through your world with your head held up, without attracting the attention of criminals? ...
I was chased, at night, down a city street by 2 would-be attackers. So I know the feeling.
What a world you live in, where in your short life "many a would be attacker" or mugger with a knife need to be dissuaded by your concealed firearm. It's hard for me to imagine. Can you not find a way to move through your world with your head held up, without attracting the attention of criminals? ...
I was chased, at night, down a city street by 2 would-be attackers. So I know the feeling.
That is a terrible experience. I hope it never happens to you again. Or me.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Imo, shooting guns at a gun range is no where near the same thing as hunting. Shooting at a target turns the activity into a carefully honed skill. I shoot targets whenever I can and I have no desire to shoot living things. On a similar vein, don't zen monks have a history with archery?
@zombiegirl hunting aside, let's just put that whole vein of discussion away for now, that is interesting! I had no idea Zen monks had a history of archery.
Then again, it makes sense. When I am aiming down the sights, the world seems to fade away. All I see are my iron sights lined up, and the target down range. All I hear is my heartbeat as I hold my breath, and all thoughts are either gone or focused solely on one thing, the target, and how best to strike it.
Well I think a compassionate act and even selfless act that would be to actualy kill the person to prevent them from 1. Accumulating strong negative Karma 2.Making the people around you from suffering when you die 3. Killing people in the future which would not only cause them and the people around them to suffer and the people around them but also for him to accumulate further negative Karma.
We are the owners of our own karma. You can't influence the karma of others, even the Buddha said he couldn't do so. If somebody has the intention to kill, the bad karma has already been done. Karma is not just bodily act, but mental acts (intentions) as well. If they are stopped killing but still wanted to, karma-wise not that much has changed if anything.
But if you think this is compassionate, ok. I wouldn't judge you for it or anything. Might even say it is heroic in a way. But I just hope you can understand others have a different idea of compassion and this different idea can make them act in ways other yours.
Im from Europa and I just don't understand the whole ' I gotta protect myself ' ....fear American's have.
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.
Of course, historically Europe has always been a peace-loving oasis where nary a single gun has ever been shot.
Is this sarcasm??
The history of Europe is a long and a violent one. Roman Empire, dark middle ages, spanish aquisition, the pruissian empire, both world wars...And everything in between.
In Europa also people get murdered, raped, bullied, punched, robbed, taken hostage, but that doesn't cause most Europeans to buy a gun and to protect property and such.
Worst is that even though loads of innocent people got shot in America, the NRA keeps on telling that with MORE guns that will not happen again. This is so...illogical it makes my ears bleed.
Honestly, you are not likely generally to be randomly murdered out in the boonies, but there is still plenty of crime. We live in the sticks, and my dad does to but about an hour away, and multiple times in the past 6 months there have been home invasions and robberies/burglaries where the homeowners have been tied up and beaten, and also 2 people who are going around acting as police officers, pulling single women over on dark, rural roads. Again in situations where the cops are a good 20+ minutes away because it is the Sheriff who has to respond and we live in one of the largest counties on this side of the Mississippi. So, it can take a long time for a sheriff to be able to get there. My dad has taken to putting up wireless security cameras so he can check on their property when he is away from home because 2 of the home invasions have been within miles of his house, and this is an area where the houses are separated by several miles. There was actually another home invasion in a small town about 10 minutes from him just the other day. So, yes, crime happens even in rural areas, you just don't have so much the gang activity and random drive by shootings...you have things like this that happens because the people know how long it'll take for cops to arrive and they'll be LONG gone with a cover of extremely heavy darkness because of the lack of any lighting whatsoever on rural farm type roads.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
My fiance and I have an impending move coming up that will likely leave me home alone a lot of the time and I plan to get a shotgun for home protection. I want it for peace of mind but I hope to never have to use it. I don't feel bad about this decision.
Could a 'stun utility belt' be just as effective? Maybe a stun gun, a tazer and pepper spray on a ninja type utility belt - if you get freaked out, put it on and walk around the house armed to stun just in case?
Guns aren't great at protecting and being safe at the same time - they need to be locked away and ammo should be kept separate - they should only be loaded in a safe environment and then never pointed at people... so you'll have this problem between the point where you become freaked out and the point where you are fully armed and you and those you wish to protect are behind the barrel... keeping ammo and gun together or worse still loaded and at hand can't be good.
If you do choose to have a gun for protection in your home but keep the ammo completely separated from said gun, you might as well not have one.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited July 2013
You sound like you think I've never handled a gun before. Firstly, there won't be any kids in my home, so the securities can be whatever my partner and I decide seems appropriate and accessible. And secondly, while it might be true that having a gun increases your chance of getting shot, I'm not afraid of getting robbed. As a woman moving to a new state who will likely be living alone much of the time in a high crime city, my biggest fear is more of being an easy target for rape. I carry pepper spray now, but to quote Death Proof, "Mother f***** tryna RAPE ME, I don't wanna give him a skin rash!" When I said I wanted a gun for my own peace of mind, this is really the most important part. I can't describe to you the mental torment I experienced living alone the last time because of my history. The illusion of power is good enough for me. I think this post ties in pretty well with the OP, heh.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
You sound like you think I've never handled a gun before.
Well, I definitely haven't. And the thought of having to keep all the 'working components' separate, under safe 'lock and key' and having to assemble everything and bring it all together at a time of possible need....
I can just see myself asking a would-be intruder to "just hang on a moment while I get my firearm...."
The thought of owning a gun actually turns my stomach....
I wouldn't begrudge a homeowner with no children to work out where keeping a loaded weapon might work if they felt the need. I would never be ok with someone with children in the house, keeping a loaded gun in the house. Ever.
Power and a sense of control (illusions that they may be) feels good in a world that is essentially chaotic, unpredictable, and insubstantial. That being said shooting is fun! I have weapons and would use them to protect myself or my family, though I would never wish for such a situation to occur. Weapons, another of life's paradoxes, harmful and helpful all at once. To act like they are just evil and no one might ever harm you is foolish, to act like they are the be all that ends all and living in a paranoid world where everyone may attack you is equally foolish, middle road........
Well, I keep my revolver in a bedside drawer, and I keep it on an empty chamber in the cylinder, so instead of 6 rounds I keep 5 in it. Everyone where I live is well trained in firearm safety, and they know I keep it loaded, so no one touches it. So I'd never have to ask a robber to hold on while I grab my gun.
I guess you'd have to ask them to hold on while you grabbed your pepperspray too eh?
@Karasti yes, exactly. if children were in my home the rules would change dramatically. meaning my weapon and ammunition would be stored in separate, locked areas. Though I'd still keep a cudgel of some type in my bedroom.
What a sad situation. Sleeping with a hand gun within reach. Young women arming themselves from fear of being raped in their own home. Brutal home invasions even in the countryside. Mentally unstable people with legal access to weapons of all kinds. How many times a week do I hear someone on the radio claim that America is the greatest country on earth. The most free. It's simply not true. I hope the American people can fix the mess they are in.
What a sad situation. Sleeping with a hand gun within reach. Young women arming themselves from fear of being raped in their own home. Brutal home invasions even in the countryside. Mentally unstable people with legal access to weapons of all kinds. How many times a week do I hear someone on the radio claim that America is the greatest country on earth. The most free. It's simply not true. I hope the American people can fix the mess they are in.
Don't worry about us Americans. As the world goes, we're doing just fine.
@robot well, you are entitled to your opinion, though it sounds like you only hear the worst of the worst.
Opinion you say? I hear what you are saying in this thread. It's all muggers, robbers and rapists. It would be enough to scare the shit out of me even if I didn't listen to the news, which I do.
Opinion you say? I hear what you are saying in this thread. It's all muggers, robbers and rapists. It would be enough to scare the shit out of me even if I didn't listen to the news, which I do.
91 homicides in Memphis so far this year (I live ten minutes away from there). The odds: about 1 in every 3700 people in Memphis will be murdered. 157 were killed last year in Memphis. It ONLY ranks # 10 in the ten most deadliest cities in the US.
Since the Newtown shooting, the US has well exceeded the US casualties of since the Iraq invasion in 2003 (murder, suicide, accidents):
Of course, no country has NO crime. However, violent crime was so rare in 2007 when I lived in Christchurch, New Zealand--where even the cops didn't carry firearm strapped to their hip. I never felt so safe roaming the streets, day or night.
What we call "normal" in the US strikes me as utterly insane. But it won't change-- the problem lies not merely in the politics but in the culture. We've conditioned ourselves into thinking we need guns, and the vicious cycle continues. And gun manufactures have everything to gain from it. We've made our bed and now we will have to lie in it.
Americans, many of them/us, live in fear, and it's very sad. The reasons for it are very complex, both those who live in fear and those who commit such acts. When you consider our resources, we still experience an extraordinary amount of crime both with guns and in other ways. The people who have, hold on for dear life and those who do not, fight those who do. There are still far worse places in the world to live. Though, even those kids (from another thread) who have SO little and suffer SO much are so much happier than we are. Watch "The Human Experience" on Netflix. It's a good reminder. People need to get to the bottom of their fear and let it go. It's hard. When I was about 7 years old, my best friend and I were threatened by a kidnapper. In our town of 150 people. It causes me fear to this day. I work through it but have not been able to let it go just yet. However, my sister, whose home has been robbed multiple times, has no problems letting go. It's an interesting thing.
Americans, many of them/us, live in fear, and it's very sad.
What is our loaded gun? What baggage do we carry to feel safe? Yesterday I was packing fear on a local walk. It was getting dark, I imagined (yep I brought my unsettled mind) that I could be robbed or attacked for wearing a vampire T-shirt (a gift from Romania/Transylvania) or robbed of my 'Amitabha chant' playing ipod. Next time, less of 'a smile from Transylvania’ with vampire teeth logo, no technology bling . . . will I be able to leave my fear. I fear not . . .
"And this is the way to understand how it is that because of defensiveness various evil, unskillful phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies. If there were no defensiveness at all, in any way, of anything anywhere, in the utter absence of defensiveness, from the cessation of defensiveness, would various evil, unskillful phenomena — the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies — come into play?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for the coming-into-play of various evil, unskillful phenomena — the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies — i.e., defensiveness.
I use my knife to clean my fingernails, that's about it. Defense against garden dirt and annoying cuticles.
I think it is quite possible to own "sticks" knives, gun, bows and whatever without the intent to be defensive (or offensive) with them.
That said, as has been said a few times now, not everyone is at a place in their practice where they would be willing to allow someone to take their life, or the lives of their loved ones simply to avoid practicing defense in fighting back. I think it's great for those who are at that point. I logically understand it, but as a parent I cannot at this point in my life and practice, feasibly do it. Perhaps one day. But as we get into with meat eating so often, I don't think that telling other people that they should be willing to die if someone attacks them (or allow their kids, spouse, etc to die) is necessarily the right way to go.
I asked earlier, if you see someone else being attacked, is it really the loving/compassionate thing to do to not help them? Buddhism aside, in many states it is illegal to not provide assistance to someone in need. If one of my kids was being attacked I would hope bystanders would not just stand there and watch because they happened to be Buddhists who didn't believe in defense or fighting.
"And this is the way to understand how it is that because of defensiveness various evil, unskillful phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies. If there were no defensiveness at all, in any way, of anything anywhere, in the utter absence of defensiveness, from the cessation of defensiveness, would various evil, unskillful phenomena — the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies — come into play?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for the coming-into-play of various evil, unskillful phenomena — the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies — i.e., defensiveness.
Shouldn't one admit that there is a huge difference with being defensive towards others and taking up "sticks" knives, etc as a way to resolve conflicts and "defend one's position" on matters.... and taking up sticks, knives or whatever in defense of one's LIFE and/or SAFETY? Because in the passages above it is talking about defending oneself against "conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies."
I'm sorry, but to take that as literally meaning the same as defending one's life or safety (or someone else's) is ridiculous. Buddha always encouraged compassion, even for one's own self... it would seem compassionate to see the worth of one's own life and to defend it against violence and death...
There is no moral demerit for saving oneself. To imply otherwise is pretty fatalistic, no?
I agree. I think that completely not defending yourself against violence is not necessarily a good thing. One can defend themselves without killing or at least without intending to kill. Perhaps someone invades your home, and does not listen to your requests to leave, you have a gun, they have a knife, perhaps you shoot them in the leg. Chances are they won't die, and your intent by shooting them in the leg was to stop them so that you can call authorities, but still perhaps the bullet hits the femoral artery and they die anyhow. That sort of intention is what I mean.
Anyhow, I think the scenarios are numerous and that ideally, if we do have to defend ourselves or someone else, we should try to do it without killing the other person. However, for myself, I do not have any sort of gun training in stressful situations. I am a good shot, and I have a lifetime of experience around guns. But I would not trust my abilities in a situation where I take a loaded gun from under my bed and approach a funny noise in my house. Most people who have guns do not have this kind of training and their ability to stay calm in a home invasion situation (as one example) and have the ability to aim in order to solely injure I think is probably pretty rare. Most people will raise the gun and fire, which is going to hit the average person (if it hits them at all) in the head or chest/abdomen.
So, ideally, if you have to fight back, attempt to cause the least about of harm when/if possible. But I don't think most people have the training and emotional control to be able to follow through with such a plan.
Just food for thought: Nearly 800 children under 14 were killed in gun accidents from 1999 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly one in five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents involve firearms. That's an average of 72 kids per year.
For every 1 time a gun is used in self-defense, it is used 22 times for homicide (most often used on someone who knows the person holding the gun), suicide or in accidents.
Women who live in homes with guns are more likely to be killed by domestic violence than other women.
Teens who have guns in the home are more likely to die by suicide.
There are ALL sorts of statistics that are easy to find that show the extreme unbalanced nature for the argument of keeping a gun solely for the purpose of self defense.
The one question I ask myself often when thinking about gun debates is, if NO one had guns, would anyone need them? I'm leaving hunting out on purpose because one can hunt by other ways than firearms. It's similar to countries having nuclear weapons. "We need them to protect ourselves but we don't want you to have them." Yet the ones that have them are far more likely to use them on someone else...who then doesn't have the same means to protect themselves. So, wouldn't it just be better if no one had them at all?
By the way, just because I ponder such things does NOT in any way mean I am advocating for making gun ownership illegal or any other such thing. Just something I think about. I would give up the guns we own if it meant saving the lives of 72 children who die in gun accidents every years.
"And this is the way to understand how it is that because of defensiveness various evil, unskillful phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies. If there were no defensiveness at all, in any way, of anything anywhere, in the utter absence of defensiveness, from the cessation of defensiveness, would various evil, unskillful phenomena — the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies — come into play?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for the coming-into-play of various evil, unskillful phenomena — the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies — i.e., defensiveness.
Shouldn't one admit that there is a huge difference with being defensive towards others and taking up "sticks" knives, etc as a way to resolve conflicts and "defend one's position" on matters.... and taking up sticks, knives or whatever in defense of one's LIFE and/or SAFETY? Because in the passages above it is talking about defending oneself against "conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies."
I'm sorry, but to take that as literally meaning the same as defending one's life or safety (or someone else's) is ridiculous. Buddha always encouraged compassion, even for one's own self... it would seem compassionate to see the worth of one's own life and to defend it against violence and death...
There is no moral demerit for saving oneself. To imply otherwise is pretty fatalistic, no?
Hi,
I agree it seems to be talking about taking up arms to go around fighting. But then again, 'taking up swords' is mentioned together with 'accusations' and 'divisive speech'. I guess you can say quite minor things not on par with charging somebody with a weapon.
But ok this sutta aside then. I agree self defense and attacking out of revenge/conflict are in a way a huge difference because the intention is different. And surely one is way more problematic than the other. But in both cases the intention is still based on a view of self, of "me vs them" and so finally preferably one wouldn't do either I would say. At least I would prefer to.
There is also this turning the other cheek kind of idea:
"Phagguna, if anyone were to give you a blow with the hand, or hit you with a clod of earth, or with a stick, or with a sword, even then you should abandon those urges and thoughts which are worldly. There, Phagguna, you should train yourself thus: 'Neither shall my mind be affected by this, nor shall I give vent to evil words; but I shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and I shall not give in to hatred.' This is how, Phagguna, you should train yourself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I guess you'd have to ask them to hold on while you grabbed your pepperspray too eh?
I never put myself in a situation where I might need any form of additional defence. And I live in an area which is almost completely crime-free and very secure. And no, I don't have locked gates or barred windows.
I'm getting the impression here that people here are not only proud to be able to own firearms, but actually consider those who don't to be of a lesser level. Those who don't like firearms, would never own one, or would never use one, are mocked and considered foolish for leaving themselves defenceless.
However, if you guys didn't have free access to buy guns - there wouldn't be any need for the pistol in the bedside locker, would there?
Violence begets violence. And the people who end up making the most profit are those who are actually paid to sit at a drawing board and design even better and yet more lethal weaponry with which to kill. The refinement improves and killing is more effective and efficient, with every new weapon that comes off the drawing board. It makes my blood run cold to think of that as being their job-spec.
Let's be honest, guns are not just tools to defend ourselves. They became fetish objects long ago; witness their ubiquitous presence in action movies. Every screen hero back to silent flicks has toted a slick firearm and used it with rapier precision. Think of Clint Eastwood's "Go on, punk. Make my day." The message is clear: if you want to be tough and in control you need to be packing heat.
But it's nonsense. An illusion, the stuff of fiction. Do we really want a world full of rampaging cut-price Rambos? Because we do get to choose the world we make, you know.
Very true, Krasti. It's very easy to make generalizations about any nationality. I remember when visiting or living in Thailand I actually had Thais say things to me like:
"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?"
When I visited Cambodia, they all told me I was going to contract AIDS from all of my mosquito bites. :wow: What a difference a land border makes in terms of AIDS controversy. But they kept calling me "French girl," so perhaps that was the reason for the difference in assumptions. Should have told them that I was an American... then they would have just assumed I was already doomed.
Anyway, there's an excellent Ajahn Brahm story about this in his book WHO ORDERED THIS TRUCKLOAD OF DUNG? (or OPENING THE DOOR TO YOUR HEART, depending upon your edition). If someone knows the story I'm talking about (i.e. the monk having to decide who the robber should kill), and they can find the story online and post it here (he may have even spoken about it in an online teaching), I think it's a valuable parable to contemplate. It's not necessarily about guns and gun control, but it touches upon the topic of defending yourself/others and the value of all life. I'd post it myself from my copy of the book, it's too hot and I'm way too lazy today to type that entire story out.
... No, but we get to choose how we respond to the world everybody else makes.
There are millions of people in the world who do not get to choose how they respond to the world that everybody else makes. There are abused children and battered wives who are virtually powerless. There are those who starved to death in Darfur and other African droughts. There are the homeless all over America (and other countries, as well) who are not mentally competent enough to decide how to respond, and are therefore powerless. There was the young Black boy a short while ago (not Trayvon) who was shot in the chest at point blank range by an angry neighbor who thought he might have stolen something.
There is far more powerlessness in the world than most people realize.
Sorry for the long quote but I think it is worth it:
In Plum Village, where I live in France, we receive many letters from the refugee camps in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, hundreds each week. It is very painful to read them, but we have to do it, we have to be in contact. We try our best to help, but the suffering is enormous, and sometimes we are discouraged. It is said that half the boat people die in the ocean. Only half arrive at the shores in Southeast Asia, and even then they may not be safe.
There are many young girls, boat people, who are raped by sea pirates. Even though the United Nations and many countries try to help the government of Thailand prevent that kind of piracy, sea pirates continue to inflict much suffering on the refugees. One day we received a letter telling us about a young girl on a small boat who was raped by a Thai pirate. She was only twelve, and she jumped into the ocean and drowned herself.
When you first learn of something like that, you get angry at the pirate. You naturally take the side of the girl. As you look more deeply you will see it differently. If you take the side of the little girl, then it is easy. You only have to take a gun and shoot the pirate. But we cannot do that. In my meditation I saw that if I had been born in the village of the pirate and raised in the same conditions as he was, there is a great likelihood that I would become a pirate. I saw that many babies are born along the Gulf of Siam, hundreds every day, and if we educators, social workers, politicians, and others do not do something about the situation, in twenty-five years a number of them will become sea pirates. That is certain. If you or I were born today in those fishing villages, we may become sea pirates in twenty-five years. If you take a gun and shoot the pirate, all of us are to some extent responsible for this state of affairs.
After a long meditation, I wrote this poem. In it, there are three people: the twelve-year-old girl, the pirate, and me. Can we look at each other and recognize ourselves in each other? The tide of the poem is "Please Call Me by My True Names," because I have so many names. When I hear one of the of these names, I have to say, "Yes."
Call Me by My True Names
Do not say that I'll depart tomorrow because even today I still arrive.
Look deeply: I arrive in every second to be a bud on a spring branch, to be a tiny bird, with wings still fragile, learning to sing in my new nest, to be a caterpillar in the heart of a flower, to be a jewel hiding itself in a stone.
I still arrive, in order to laugh and to cry, in order to fear and to hope. The rhythm of my heart is the birth and death of all that are alive.
I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river, and I am the bird which, when spring comes, arrives in time to eat the mayfly.
I am the frog swimming happily in the clear pond, and I am also the grass-snake who, approaching in silence, feeds itself on the frog.
I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones, my legs as thin as bamboo sticks, and I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to Uganda.
I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat, who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea pirate, and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and loving.
I am a member of the politburo, with plenty of power in my hands, and I am the man who has to pay his "debt of blood" to, my people, dying slowly in a forced labor camp.
My joy is like spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom in all walks of life. My pain if like a river of tears, so full it fills the four oceans.
Please call me by my true names, so I can hear all my cries and laughs at once, so I can see that my joy and pain are one.
Please call me by my true names, so I can wake up, and so the door of my heart can be left open, the door of compassion.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Sabre thanks for making an argument from Buddhism's point of view.
We all come at this issue from our own place in this world. We each have different upbringing and experiences that color our view of it. I understand the need to defend yourself and others and there are good reasons for doing so.
After all the reasons my wish is that we could also remember that Buddhism and pretty much any religion challenges us to aim for lofty goals.
3
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
... No, but we get to choose how we respond to the world everybody else makes.
There are millions of people in the world who do not get to choose how they respond to the world that everybody else makes. There are abused children and battered wives who are virtually powerless. There are those who starved to death in Darfur and other African droughts. There are the homeless all over America (and other countries, as well) who are not mentally competent enough to decide how to respond, and are therefore powerless. There was the young Black boy a short while ago (not Trayvon) who was shot in the chest at point blank range by an angry neighbor who thought he might have stolen something.
There is far more powerlessness in the world than most people realize.
This is being overly dramatic in a thread about whether we as Buddhists think it odd another Buddhist enjoys owning a gun. And it's off-topic. When I say "we" I mean "we" here. During this discussion.
Comments
@Zayl
We are just watery bags of life, destined to be punctured.
Artificial claws & teeth, are just our fear of this truth.
The depth of a spiritual path is typically measured by ones willingness to abandon
ones inherent defensiveness to whatever makes us feel vulnerable.
As a camping kayaker in the North, I commonly share living spaces
with animals who are very capable of deflating this bag.
Co habitation with what we fear can become a spiritual lesson based both on attentive awareness and a non adversarial stance as opposed to relying on external tools to assuage the fear of just how ethereal each of us really are.
I am not saying that I think you should abandon your weapons. Only that in being willing to lay them aside, you might find yourself more at one with the world with a wider heart than a conquering warrior will ever know.
But if you think this is compassionate, ok. I wouldn't judge you for it or anything. Might even say it is heroic in a way. But I just hope you can understand others have a different idea of compassion and this different idea can make them act in ways other yours.
With metta,
Sabre
On a similar vein, I feel like a badass wearing combat boots or even just in a new outfit that I feel compliments me well. It's all the same, a mind-made illusion influencing the way we feel about ourselves and surroundings. In itself, there is nothing wrong with feeling good about yourself with these particular items, but it is quite clear that it will lead to suffering when you are without them.
I want to make it clear, that I was taught never, ever to draw my weapon unless I fully intend to use it. This means that many a time I have been in the presence of animals who could have disemboweled me easily. But since they seemed rather disinterested and/or fearful and ran away, my weapon remained in it's holster. Unless something is attempting to kill me, I will never attempt to kill it. Unless of course, for food. (But the whole hunting/meat eating thing is a topic for another thread) And when faced with say, a mugger with a knife, since I have a CCW, the bulge under my coat at the hip has dissuaded many a would be attacker from accosting me, leaving both me and the criminal unharmed. In fact, the most I have ever "done" to someone with my handgun is move my coat aside, so they had a plain view of it.
How do you all feel about a firearm at a range? meaning, using it only for target shooting? No one and nothing is harmed by this if proper safety is observed. Yet I have such fun at the gun range. If any of you knew me personally, you would know I am clumsy and talentless in just about every endeavor, I have come to accept this and it does not bother me. However, the only natural born skill I seem to have is with a firearm. It has been that way ever since I was little, and I was outshooting people at the gun range at age 13. Shooting is just about the only thing I can ever seem to do very, very well. It just comes natural to me. Some people are born talented painters, or musicians, or surfers, or athletes. I was born a skilled marksman.
EDIT: I'd also like to add that for a vast majority of my life, I lived far, far, far out in the countryside. Where in an emergency, the police wouldn't come. Instead you'd have to wait over half an hour for the Sheriff or a Deputy to arrive. A lot of bad things can happen during that time. So having the ability to safeguard you and others was seen as a basic necessity by everyone.
And I agree with your edit.
Can you not find a way to move through your world with your head held up, without attracting the attention of criminals?
If you live out in the country, why are you coming into contact with criminals? I live in the boonies too. Everyone knows about each other here. Criminals stand out.
Perhaps I am very naive about modern life in America. Surely it is not a lawless, dog eat dog land all over down there. Maybe move to a friendlier town.
Shooting at the range sounds like fun. We have an active rod and gun club here. I have many friends who shoot and or hunt.
The rules are pretty strict. A permit is needed to transport a handgun to and from the range each time it's used. You have to be a dedicated enthusiast to bother with the red tape.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm
I am a dedicated enthusiast, I have all the permits needed for a handgun in my state. And I used to live out in the country, but I moved into a town sandwiched between Saginaw and Buena Vista, two notoriously crime ridden towns. I no longer have a CCW though, and no longer carry a handgun in public. I'd move to a nicer town but, you know, money. Nowadays I prefer speed over confrontation, though. Either by sprinting away or just driving away. And since I am able to use a vehicle now and don't have to walk everywhere, maintaining a CCW seemed like too much effort.
These days my guns remain locked in a safe, unless I am going out hunting or out on an extended hike/camping trip. Just so ya know.
without the weight or need for weapons
feels a lot better.
Just so you know. :wave:
Then again, it makes sense. When I am aiming down the sights, the world seems to fade away. All I see are my iron sights lined up, and the target down range. All I hear is my heartbeat as I hold my breath, and all thoughts are either gone or focused solely on one thing, the target, and how best to strike it.
One of the first 'Zen books' I read . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery
Some do flower arranging and eat food too . . .
. . . the things those Zeniths get up to . . .
The history of Europe is a long and a violent one.
Roman Empire, dark middle ages, spanish aquisition, the pruissian empire, both world wars...And everything in between.
In Europa also people get murdered, raped, bullied, punched, robbed, taken hostage, but that doesn't cause most Europeans to buy a gun and to protect property and such.
Worst is that even though loads of innocent people got shot in America, the NRA keeps on telling that with MORE guns that will not happen again. This is so...illogical it makes my ears bleed.
Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home 2004
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
Could a 'stun utility belt' be just as effective? Maybe a stun gun, a tazer and pepper spray on a ninja type utility belt - if you get freaked out, put it on and walk around the house armed to stun just in case?
Guns aren't great at protecting and being safe at the same time - they need to be locked away and ammo should be kept separate - they should only be loaded in a safe environment and then never pointed at people... so you'll have this problem between the point where you become freaked out and the point where you are fully armed and you and those you wish to protect are behind the barrel... keeping ammo and gun together or worse still loaded and at hand can't be good.
I think this post ties in pretty well with the OP, heh.
I can just see myself asking a would-be intruder to "just hang on a moment while I get my firearm...."
The thought of owning a gun actually turns my stomach....
Well, I keep my revolver in a bedside drawer, and I keep it on an empty chamber in the cylinder, so instead of 6 rounds I keep 5 in it. Everyone where I live is well trained in firearm safety, and they know I keep it loaded, so no one touches it. So I'd never have to ask a robber to hold on while I grab my gun.
I guess you'd have to ask them to hold on while you grabbed your pepperspray too eh?
@Karasti yes, exactly. if children were in my home the rules would change dramatically. meaning my weapon and ammunition would be stored in separate, locked areas. Though I'd still keep a cudgel of some type in my bedroom.
Young women arming themselves from fear of being raped in their own home.
Brutal home invasions even in the countryside.
Mentally unstable people with legal access to weapons of all kinds.
How many times a week do I hear someone on the radio claim that America is the greatest country on earth. The most free. It's simply not true.
I hope the American people can fix the mess they are in.
Opinion you say?
I hear what you are saying in this thread. It's all muggers, robbers and rapists. It would be enough to scare the shit out of me even if I didn't listen to the news, which I do.
Since the Newtown shooting, the US has well exceeded the US casualties of since the Iraq invasion in 2003 (murder, suicide, accidents):
IRAQ WAR: 3500
US SINCE NEWTON: 6200
Of course, no country has NO crime. However, violent crime was so rare in 2007 when I lived in Christchurch, New Zealand--where even the cops didn't carry firearm strapped to their hip. I never felt so safe roaming the streets, day or night.
What we call "normal" in the US strikes me as utterly insane. But it won't change-- the problem lies not merely in the politics but in the culture. We've conditioned ourselves into thinking we need guns, and the vicious cycle continues. And gun manufactures have everything to gain from it. We've made our bed and now we will have to lie in it.
Next time, less of 'a smile from Transylvania’ with vampire teeth logo, no technology bling . . . will I be able to leave my fear. I fear not . . .
The less I carry, the safer I feel.
I think it is quite possible to own "sticks" knives, gun, bows and whatever without the intent to be defensive (or offensive) with them.
That said, as has been said a few times now, not everyone is at a place in their practice where they would be willing to allow someone to take their life, or the lives of their loved ones simply to avoid practicing defense in fighting back. I think it's great for those who are at that point. I logically understand it, but as a parent I cannot at this point in my life and practice, feasibly do it. Perhaps one day. But as we get into with meat eating so often, I don't think that telling other people that they should be willing to die if someone attacks them (or allow their kids, spouse, etc to die) is necessarily the right way to go.
I asked earlier, if you see someone else being attacked, is it really the loving/compassionate thing to do to not help them? Buddhism aside, in many states it is illegal to not provide assistance to someone in need. If one of my kids was being attacked I would hope bystanders would not just stand there and watch because they happened to be Buddhists who didn't believe in defense or fighting.
Shouldn't one admit that there is a huge difference with being defensive towards others and taking up "sticks" knives, etc as a way to resolve conflicts and "defend one's position" on matters.... and taking up sticks, knives or whatever in defense of one's LIFE and/or SAFETY?
Because in the passages above it is talking about defending oneself against "conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies."
I'm sorry, but to take that as literally meaning the same as defending one's life or safety (or someone else's) is ridiculous. Buddha always encouraged compassion, even for one's own self... it would seem compassionate to see the worth of one's own life and to defend it against violence and death...
There is no moral demerit for saving oneself. To imply otherwise is pretty fatalistic, no?
Anyhow, I think the scenarios are numerous and that ideally, if we do have to defend ourselves or someone else, we should try to do it without killing the other person. However, for myself, I do not have any sort of gun training in stressful situations. I am a good shot, and I have a lifetime of experience around guns. But I would not trust my abilities in a situation where I take a loaded gun from under my bed and approach a funny noise in my house. Most people who have guns do not have this kind of training and their ability to stay calm in a home invasion situation (as one example) and have the ability to aim in order to solely injure I think is probably pretty rare. Most people will raise the gun and fire, which is going to hit the average person (if it hits them at all) in the head or chest/abdomen.
So, ideally, if you have to fight back, attempt to cause the least about of harm when/if possible. But I don't think most people have the training and emotional control to be able to follow through with such a plan.
Just food for thought:
Nearly 800 children under 14 were killed in gun accidents from 1999 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly one in five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents involve firearms. That's an average of 72 kids per year.
For every 1 time a gun is used in self-defense, it is used 22 times for homicide (most often used on someone who knows the person holding the gun), suicide or in accidents.
Women who live in homes with guns are more likely to be killed by domestic violence than other women.
Teens who have guns in the home are more likely to die by suicide.
There are ALL sorts of statistics that are easy to find that show the extreme unbalanced nature for the argument of keeping a gun solely for the purpose of self defense.
The one question I ask myself often when thinking about gun debates is, if NO one had guns, would anyone need them? I'm leaving hunting out on purpose because one can hunt by other ways than firearms. It's similar to countries having nuclear weapons. "We need them to protect ourselves but we don't want you to have them." Yet the ones that have them are far more likely to use them on someone else...who then doesn't have the same means to protect themselves. So, wouldn't it just be better if no one had them at all?
By the way, just because I ponder such things does NOT in any way mean I am advocating for making gun ownership illegal or any other such thing. Just something I think about. I would give up the guns we own if it meant saving the lives of 72 children who die in gun accidents every years.
Shouldn't one admit that there is a huge difference with being defensive towards others and taking up "sticks" knives, etc as a way to resolve conflicts and "defend one's position" on matters.... and taking up sticks, knives or whatever in defense of one's LIFE and/or SAFETY?
Because in the passages above it is talking about defending oneself against "conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies."
I'm sorry, but to take that as literally meaning the same as defending one's life or safety (or someone else's) is ridiculous. Buddha always encouraged compassion, even for one's own self... it would seem compassionate to see the worth of one's own life and to defend it against violence and death...
There is no moral demerit for saving oneself. To imply otherwise is pretty fatalistic, no?
Hi,
I agree it seems to be talking about taking up arms to go around fighting. But then again, 'taking up swords' is mentioned together with 'accusations' and 'divisive speech'. I guess you can say quite minor things not on par with charging somebody with a weapon.
But ok this sutta aside then. I agree self defense and attacking out of revenge/conflict are in a way a huge difference because the intention is different. And surely one is way more problematic than the other. But in both cases the intention is still based on a view of self, of "me vs them" and so finally preferably one wouldn't do either I would say. At least I would prefer to.
There is also this turning the other cheek kind of idea:
And I live in an area which is almost completely crime-free and very secure. And no, I don't have locked gates or barred windows.
I'm getting the impression here that people here are not only proud to be able to own firearms, but actually consider those who don't to be of a lesser level. Those who don't like firearms, would never own one, or would never use one, are mocked and considered foolish for leaving themselves defenceless.
However, if you guys didn't have free access to buy guns - there wouldn't be any need for the pistol in the bedside locker, would there?
Violence begets violence.
And the people who end up making the most profit are those who are actually paid to sit at a drawing board and design even better and yet more lethal weaponry with which to kill.
The refinement improves and killing is more effective and efficient, with every new weapon that comes off the drawing board.
It makes my blood run cold to think of that as being their job-spec.
But it's nonsense. An illusion, the stuff of fiction. Do we really want a world full of rampaging cut-price Rambos? Because we do get to choose the world we make, you know.
Anyway, there's an excellent Ajahn Brahm story about this in his book WHO ORDERED THIS TRUCKLOAD OF DUNG? (or OPENING THE DOOR TO YOUR HEART, depending upon your edition). If someone knows the story I'm talking about (i.e. the monk having to decide who the robber should kill), and they can find the story online and post it here (he may have even spoken about it in an online teaching), I think it's a valuable parable to contemplate. It's not necessarily about guns and gun control, but it touches upon the topic of defending yourself/others and the value of all life. I'd post it myself from my copy of the book, it's too hot and I'm way too lazy today to type that entire story out.
I choose to respond by not engaging in the communion of possible violence.
There is far more powerlessness in the world than most people realize.
We all come at this issue from our own place in this world. We each have different upbringing and experiences that color our view of it. I understand the need to defend yourself and others and there are good reasons for doing so.
After all the reasons my wish is that we could also remember that Buddhism and pretty much any religion challenges us to aim for lofty goals.
And it's off-topic.
When I say "we" I mean "we" here. During this discussion.
Let's stick to that.