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.
BUDDHIST Packing Pistol Shows America's Warm Embrace of Guns
ALERT: Before I am chided into rereading this entire thread again it is primarily OFFTOPIC! Hey Mountains! This was my post, it was more thinking out loud than directed at anyone specifically. I find there is unspoken bias about what buddhism is or should be. For many buddhist owning a gun is decidely unbuddhist. To me this is just another concept of who or what we are. Concepts narrow and constrict us. Just as other people have concepts about buddhists (that aren't well founded or even true) we ourselves create and project our own concepts of what a "true" buddhist is. I guess I am more of a Buddhist without beliefs type. I can shoot a gun, have a shot of whiskey, defend my family and still hold that inconstance, not-self, the 4NT's, the 8 fold and karma (the here and now kind) are worthy of my deep investigation and respect. Ultimately it must usable and practical, otherwise there is no point. What is the point of philosophy you can't use? It's like communism, looks great on paper but in practical terms it doesn't work because it ignores the human conditon. For me buddhism can't do that. It must be functional, practical and make sense. My beliefs alone, no offense to anyone
Yes, exactly. That is something people tend to forget here. That you can still be a human being and follow the 4 NT's and the 8 fold path quite well. We're not all monks here, why should I abandon my middle way for someone else's?
Zayl I say keep on keeping on! To me inconstance, not-self, the 4NT's, the 8 fold and karma are the essence, they are utterly practical, reasonable, make sense and fit into this life. For me alot of the other stuff is just conceptual baggage and does nothing for my life. I think I'll go have a steak, a beer, maybe shoot a gun later knowing none of this (or lack of it) defines me. We have complete freedom my friend unless we allow our minds and concepts to fence us in.
@Zayl and Swing, you're in good company. I recently read the autobiography of the Dalai Lama's oldest brother, who was the first in his family to be declared a tulku, a reincarnate lama. When the family moved to Lhasa, he missed them so much he abandoned his monastery (in his late teens or early 20's at that point), and organized a caravan to Lhasa (3-month journey, from inside China, where they were from). To supplement their food stores along the way, he brought a number of rifles for hunting. Buddhists eat meat, and Buddhists hunt. His family raised sheep and cattle on their farm, and routinely slaughtered their animals for food, what else were they supposed to do? So like I said, you're in good company.
I actually have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I have a Shot gun and a small revolver. I rarely carry it, but I'm glad I have the option. (And the right) As American's our founding fathers gave us this right to make sure we had the right to protect ourselves, not only from individuals who may bring us harm, but to protect us from our Government. I don't consider a gun (or weapon ownership of any kind) to be a souly 'religious' decision. I think people should base their choice to own a weapon on other things.
As American's our founding fathers gave us this right to make sure we had the right to protect ourselves, not only from individuals who may bring us harm, but to protect us from our Government
But who's going to protect us from ourselves? What about kids who get into their parents' gun collection?
I don't know what the answer is, but I think it's important to ask questions.
But who's going to protect us from ourselves? What about kids who get into their parents' gun collection?
That is where we need to take responcibility. For ourselves and our actions. For what ever Karma comes of our choices. I keep my guns and ammunition seperate and hidden where my son (and no one else) and get into it, under lock and key. When he is old enough I plan to teach him about it, properly. It's use, it's dangers, how to handle it properly, so on and so forth. 'Accidents' happen because of 'ignorance' and 'lazyness'. I spilled the juice on accident. Well, it happened because the lid wasn't screwed on tighly enough. So, yes it was an accident. But, it was avoidable, because if the time had been taken to pay attention and properly secure the lid, it ultimatly wouldn't have spilt. You can't just say "The lid is on". You have to take responcibility for it. The lid is on. It is secure. The container isn't sitting on the edge of the shelf."
I think Knowing the answer is a matter of perception. Everyone's is going to be different. And it is a good question to ask, and to discuss.
You're right, Little Mighty. It comes down to personal responsibility, especially when you become a gun owner. One of the Founders said, "Should we (the government) keep water from people lest they drown? Or fire from people lest they burn themselves?"
That comes down to being responsible. You shouldn't leave easily accessible, loaded gun collections to little children. And they should only be permitted around guns if they are extremely familiar with them.
A lot more children die from drowning in household pools than children who die from guns of their parents.
In the late 1920s and '30s, when HHDL's oldest brother was growing up in Tibet, a lot of rural cultures, including Tibetans, ate more meat than they do now. I find it interesting that there is a growing vegetarian movement among modern Tibetans abroad. In A Small Step for the Tibetan Vegetarian Movement, a Giant Leap for Tibetan Civil Society, Tenzin Wangyal wrote:
"[T]he Tibetan exile community is seeing such a disproportionately high number of people turning to vegetarianism that this trend could be called a vegetarian revolution or explosion of sorts. In recent years, many prominent Tibetans have also become vegetarians and 2004 was observed as Tibetan Vegetarian Year. His Holiness who has been a steadfast supporter of vegetarianism also recently 'turned to a vegetarian diet.'" http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=11991&t=1
Some other Tibetan teachers also emphasize vegetarianism; Chatrul Rinpoche, for example, won't take students unless they're vegetarian! A singular approach, perhaps, though historically, Tibetan teachers (Shabkar Tsodruk Rangdrol, Jigme Lingpa) have written and taught urging their students to avoid killing animals for any reason.
In Hong Kong, many Buddhists and Buddhist monks were vegetarian, and to this day (imho) Hong Kong has some of the best-developed veggie dishes around. There are many vegetarian restaurants as a result of the high number of Buddhist vegetarians. At the same time, Hong Kongers and other Cantonese have a reputation for eating anything that moves; so, just as in Tibet, laypeople are more likely to be meat-eaters than monks and nuns are.
Well, after all that I'm hungry now, lol. Back to the Christmas cookies.
A lot more children die from drowning in household pools than children who die from guns of their parents.
Bad situations should not be compared, because with doing so, everything can be rationalized. I'm just gonna randomly kill the person next door, some people kill tens of people after all. I'm just gonna kill tens of people, Hitler murdered thousands after all -
Either accept there is a real (although minor and reduced with responsible ownership) threat that if you have both children and guns, there is the possibility of the child getting hurt by the gun. If you own a gun, there is a possibility of someone getting hurt by accident by your gun. If you don't own a gun, there is no possibility of someone getting hurt by your gun.
Hi. I'm a gun owner. I would rather die than be unable to have the ability to defend the people I love from attack. I made this decision after a person attempted to break through the front door of my apartment. He was fully aware that people were at home and awake. His intentions were most assuredly violent.
I'd kill him 10,000 times to save my girlfriend once. I'd kill the Buddha 10,000 times to save her once. I like to think that the Buddha would be happy with that set-up, too.
Most opposition to gun ownership comes from well-meaning but simultaneously arrogant and naive people who have never had to face the reality of violence. Sometimes it develops into a really ugly, authoritarian impulse to control the lives of the 'ignorant other'. Not cool at all.
I thought the numbers were a little higer than that, say on the order of 40 million.
Well, yes. My argument was mainly in that whenever you compare two unfortunate situations there is one much worse then both of them - thus you can't use it as an argument, since you could argue for anything (and make it sound reasonable, less harmful, the correct choice etc.) that way.
...That is where we need to take responcibility. For ourselves and our actions
And there's the root of the problem. Nobody in America wants to take responsibility for anything, least of all their own actions. I see the results of this every single day at work. We want someone else to fix us (give me a pill - fix me) instead of taking responsibility for our own health and well being. It's the same with almost anything else in life. Yes, there are people who do, without doubt. But they are not in the majority. And these same people own guns. If everyone was a highly responsible adult, it would be no problem at all.
...That is where we need to take responcibility. For ourselves and our actions
And there's the root of the problem. Nobody in America wants to take responsibility for anything, least of all their own actions. I see the results of this every single day at work. We want someone else to fix us (give me a pill - fix me) instead of taking responsibility for our own health and well being. It's the same with almost anything else in life. Yes, there are people who do, without doubt. But they are not in the majority. And these same people own guns. If everyone was a highly responsible adult, it would be no problem at all.
I don't think its fair to say "NoBody". I'm American, and I like to think I am responsible. I pay my bills, go to work, raise my child, don't cheat on my husband. I know plenty of gun, and non gun owning Americans who are very respectable, responsible people. I'm also a Nurse, And I don't have a problem with helpting someone control their pain by giving them a pill. It's not me 'FIxing' Them, It's me being "compassionate". Understanding their pain. The point is there are all kinds of people out there. Who are we to judge and decide who should and shouldn't do or have this or that? The person you deny, may one day, have been the person to save your life.
There are plenty od responsible people. Despite the massive proliferation of private gun ownership in the past decade, gun accidents have actually decreased. And violent crime as a whole has decreased even in the recession.
I imagine I would hurt myself if I attempted using a buzz saw because I don't know anything about it. I am reaponsible for learning how it works. The same principle applies with any dangerous equipment, especially guns.
I know there are plenty of stories of gun ownership gone bad, but I thought this recent story of a gun saving a life was interesting... the 911 dispatcher pretty much told her to do whatever she needed to do... and it sounds like in Oklahoma that if there is an unauthorized person in your home, your clear to fire.
There's some news on the gun front. I was going to start a new thread for this, but since this one is still alive and kicking, here goes:
More states are allowing concealed weapons, and are expanding the field of their use. For example, public parks and in restaurants. (Do you want a guy with a gun, drinking beer or wine with dinner, in the same restaurant with you?) "In most states, people don't need a permit to keep a firearm at home. Although some states allow guns to be carried in public in plain sight, gun rights advocates have mostly focused their efforts on expanding the right to carry concealed handguns." (Why? What's in it for them? More sales?)
"More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors over a 5-year period, the Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees, ... including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. ... In addition, nearly 900 permit holders were convicted of drunken driving, a potentially volatile circumstance..."
In "about 20 states ... anyone with a valid concealed handgun permit can buy firearms without the federally mandated criminal background check."
"Ricky Wills, 59, kept his permit after recently spending several months behind bars for terrorizing his estranged wife and their daughter with a pair of guns and then shooting at their house while they, along with a sheriff's deputy, were inside. 'That's crazy, absolutely crazy', his wife said in an interview when told that her husband could most likely still buy a gun at any store in the state."
"...the question becomes whether allowing more people to carry guns actually deters crime, as gun rights advocates contend, and whether that outweighs the risks posed by the minority who commit crimes. Gun rights advocates invariably point to the work of John R. Lott, an economist who concluded in the 1990's that the laws had substantially reduced violent crime. Subsequent studies, however, have found serious flaws in his data and methodology."
An editorial discusses a recent vote by Congress to disallow states from applying their gun laws to visitors from out of state. For example, states with a minimum age requirement for carrying a gun must allow minors to carry guns who are from states with no age restriction. Proponents of the measure say it will "make it easier for law-abiding Americans to protect themselves no matter where they travel." Yeah, I guess we need more law-abiding teens packing heat. Protect themselves from what? Is the entire US the Wild West now? And who are these "gun rights advocates" and "proponents of [various gun-related] measures? Gun industry lobbyists? Sounds like it, judging by the language. "Law-abiding Americans" must be able to protect themselves, anytime, anywhere. That's spin, people!
Most pro-gun people on our gun threads here have said they want to be able to have a gun at home to protect their family. These measures being passed by states and by Congress are aimed at allowing guns anytime, anywhere. What's that about? Clearly the gun industry has taken control of Congress. The question is, as Mountains and others keep reminding us: will this make America safer?
Say you're out with your family, gun safely holstered under your jacket. Some nut shoots you all in the back. What good did your gun do you? Or suddenly, from around a corner, an armed gang appears, holds you & family up, demanding you hold your hands up and unbutton your jacket, so they can take your gun. They wouldn't have to be armed with guns. They could have knives, grab your wife and/or kids, and threaten them until you hand over your gun. They could shoot you with your own gun, then go on a spree and shoot others, with your gun.
I know in my state Guns are not allowed in Bars or anywhere alcohol is served. It's also noted in my area that in the regions where gun owner ship is at its highest, crime is at its lowest. Truth be told, even a 'stupid criminal' isn't going to rob a house where they know the owner is 'packin heat'. Would someone mug someone on the street if they knew they were carrying a gun? Did you hear the story today about the mother of a 3 month old in Oklahoma (I believe) who called 911 NYE because someone was breaking into her house? She told the dispatcher she had a gun and asked permission to shoot the intruders if they managed to get in before help arrived. Long story short, she killed one of the men breaking into her house. Protecting not just herself, but her home and her baby. Hadn't she had that gun....
I saw that in the news online. She was taking instructions from 911, and she lived in a state that allowed homeowners to shoot intruders. Not all states allow that.
There was more than one intruder? What happened to the other one?
The other one got away and turned himself in the next day. Actually, I believe it's more then half of the states that have the "castle" law, which allows you to protect your home. And in this particular case, the 911 operator specifically told her she couldn't tell her to shoot any one but to "do what she had to do" to protect her baby.
I feel people should be able to own guns to protect themselves. They should be responsible and conduct themselves accordingly. If they are in breach of the law in the use/misuse of said arms, they should go to jail. How is it that people feel the government should stay out of their lives when it comes to abortion, who one sleeps with and drug use yet when it comes down to protecting this very life these same people feel very correct in their assertions one should not be able to do so? I am for the least amount of government intrusion in my liberties, whether I want to smoke a fatty (I don't) have and abortion (I can't as I am a male, and feel it unethical anyway but that would be my personal choice) bang some guy (not my thing,but if it's yours by all means) or own a piece of metal to protect myself or my family; what right does the government have in dictating these issues? Either your for civil liberties or your not.
How is it that people feel the government should stay out of their lives when it comes to abortion, who one sleeps with and drug use yet when it comes down to protecting this very life these same people feel very correct in their assertions one should not be able to do so?
Maybe because it's much more of a matter of life or death with gun ownership. Because things can get out of control fast when a gun is in the hands of the wrong person, and tragedies can (and do) happen. (You don't see abortion doctors running amok, forcing abortions on women. It's not the same. And let's not get into a debate about when "life" begins.)
According to one of the articles posted above, state and fed authorities often don't remove guns from people who have already acted irresponsibly with them. Anyone who uses their legal firearm to endanger others should lose their right to have it. That doesn't happen often enough. Some states allow minors to have guns. What's next, marketing guns to middle school kids to protect themselves in case a student goes on a shooting spree with a gun?
What about those cases where high school students have gotten hold of a parent's gun, and killed other students? In those cases, had the guns they took from the home been under lock and key? If so, how difficult was it for the teen to find the key?
Why don't the French, the Brits, the Italians, the Scandinavians worry about their civil liberties being denied them, guns being denied them? Europeans aren't marching in the streets for gun rights. These articles tend to confirm my suspicion that the American public is being manipulated by marketing ploys implemented by the gun industry.
@ Dakini As I said your either for civil liberties or your not. It's about govenment intrusion and the rights of a free society. We are not Europeans, our histories and foundations are very different. The comparison is apples to oranges. Abortions kill people, though you right, doctors are not running around forcing them on people, but it's okay to end a life legally because of covienience but to have the means to protect myself is somehow anathema? It's either a free society or its not. Where does it end with government? Who determines that? Should our goverment tell you: 1. Who you should sleep with? Afterall it's potentially dangerous. You may end up sick with a disease. You may die. 2. You can't drink alcohol? It's entirely legal yet is responsible for countless deaths, disability, crime and neglect. Kids can get a hold of it too. 3. What drugs you should take? The same reasons for alcohol. 4. If you should smoke tobacco? Same as drugs and alcohol. 5. Is it government's role to tell you who you should marry? If you marry a person of the same sex you could very well undermine the fabric of society. 6. What to listen to, watch or read? Ideas can be very dangerous. Some music may even be Satanic! 7. The government should have the right to determine if I have the ability to protect my life? What about the ability to protect myself from tyranny? That is why the second amendment was written. To expect governments or criminals to be kind and benevolent is naive. Our understanding of the role of govenment is obviously different.
Another thing we need to remember is the news doesn't headline the millions of gun owners in the USA who DO lock up their guns and store their ammunition. They're slogan is "if it bleeds it leads". Media is deceptive. You may hear about 3 cases of guns being mishandled, but when you look at all the stories that DIDN'T make the 6 o'clock news because they weren't 'news worthy' you'll find the number of 'accidents' and gun crimes are much less when seen on the scale.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
This is one of the Intelligence Squared debates that I posted about in another thread.
I just finished watching that Debate. I think it's well noted here that I am clearly pro-gun. With that said, I feel that they 'anti-gun' panel here wasn't as well represented as it could have been. IMO even those on the anti gun side were somewhat PRO gun. I think it would have been a better debate if the anti side had been more ANTI. I'm am interested in hearing the other debate they mentioned about Bush 43 being the worst president. lol. That sounds like fun! Have you listened to that one?
I knew picking up on Swing's abortion comment would generate more along that line. Let's not get into a debate about what defines "life", when the zygote or fetus is defined as a "life". sigh.
I knew you'd say all that, Swing. I tried to address your post pre-emptively when I said at the beginning of my previous post that things get out of control very quickly with a gun. All the other situations you outlined develop gradually. And the examples you cite refer to actions that affect oneself, whereas guns generally end the life of others, except in the case of suicide.
But the point raised by the new articles C_W posted raised is: do we need people carrying guns everywhere? Do we need armed minors? How far do you want to go with this? How about if we allow adults to have a gun at home, for protection against intruders. Would you gun owners be happy with that? (not addressing hunting, here, this is about handguns) Why is it when new legislation expands the allowance for where one can carry a gun, suddenly it's--oh, yeah, that's another civil liberty I want/need! And another! Oh, and I want my 14-year old son to enjoy a full range of civil liberties, too! Are you as enthusiastic about the borderline nut job having a gun in his car, and blowing people away on the freeway or at an intersection? I just read about a case like that.
Was it person, or Telly, who said he wanted to get a gun to have at home, to protect his family? OK, fine. Notice he wasn't saying he wants a gun to carry in his car to defend his family. He doesn't want a gun to take to the high school ball game or to the video arcade in order to protect his family. Or the park. Or the train or bus. (Already prohibited on airplanes, but you never know, the gun lobby may get that changed someday.) And now states that have decided minors shouldn't have guns, or guns shouldn't be carried outside the home can't control out-of-state visitors who have concealed weapon permits. So why should any state have any restriction on guns at all, then?
Where's @Mountains in this conversation??!! Get in here, you! You started all this with your Virginia Tech thread! :grumble:
When transporting a firearm in a vehicle it becomes tricky with the way the laws are set up. Say I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. That means I can carry a loaded gun on my person or anywhere in the vehicle. Now, if I am driving my husband around, who lets say does NOT have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, now I have to keep that weapon out of his reach. Which means I have to keep it either on my person, or unloaded with the bullets away from the gun. I can't simply put the gun in the glove box. Some states have reciprocity with others. A PA permit is recognized in FL. But not in NY. There are tons and tons of laws and restrictions around guns and permits. This is how a lot of people get into trouble. They think just because they have a permit they can do what ever they want and that isn't the truth. Once again it comes down to responsibility. If you're going to own a gun and get the proper permits then you need to know and follow the laws. You would probably be surprised just how many people DO carry guns all the time. I've had friends who carried their weapons everywhere (as allowed by law) into restraunts, grocery stores, work etc. etc. You would never even know they have it because it is CONCEALED. Unless you were specifically looking for it you would never know. Also, many places where you CAN'T carry a weapon are required to have a place where you can secure it. Such as a Federal Building. When checking in you simply have to make security aware you have a side arm, they will escort you to a lock up area where you unload your gun and store it in a locker. You are given the key and a number in order to retrieve it when you're business is completed. I believe the age for a concealed weapons permit is 21. And you are subjected to federal back ground checks when you apply for it.
@Dakini I mentioned I had an interest in purchasing a gun for home protection, and no, I would not be carrying it outside of the house unless I was taking it to the range, in which case I would need to transport it in a locked case.
There are so many regulations and special permits required for carrying a weapon in Hawaii that it is pretty successful in keeping them off the streets, well for everyone except the criminals... regardless though,even though I dont have stats handy, I believe gun related crimes are pretty low in Hawaii, I just don't hear about many, so this may say something for strict regulations.
Some states have reciprocity with others. A PA permit is recognized in FL. But not in NY.
According to the articles linked in C_W's post above, this is no longer true. A new vote by congress has superseded this. States no longer have the right to restrict anyone from another state with a more liberal law, as long as they have a permit from their home state.
Thanks, LittleMighty. Actually, I have read about little old ladies who carry guns in their purses, everywhere. That one sounded like a good idea. Every little old lady should be issued a gun and permit to carry it anywhere, even the opera, when she turns 70.
There are so many regulations and special permits required for carrying a weapon in Hawaii that it is pretty successful in keeping them off the streets, well for everyone except the criminals... regardless though,even though I dont have stats handy, I believe gun related crimes are pretty low in Hawaii, I just don't hear about many, so this may say something for strict regulations.
Thanks, Telly. It's helpful to hear about experience in different states and countries.
Lol. Actually, there was a story awhile back about an old lady who held an intruder into her home at gun point until the police arrived. They played the 911 tape on the news and she was very calmly explaining to the operator that she had an intruder in her home and that she was holding him at gun point. I don't recall her exact age.
Pretty surprised nobody has brought this up, but samurai were practicing Buddhists and carried two swords with them at all times.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited September 2013
Gloria: But Daddy, don't you know how many people are shot by guns every day?
Archie: Well gee, little girl... Would you prefer they was pushed outta widows?
(I think that was the only good comeback Archie ever gave)
You're all wasting your time. At this point there will be no significant gun legislation due to the politics.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I really don't like guns or the idea of guns but if one was at my foot and somebody was about to strangle a good person to death... If I knew they were better trained or were built of pure muscle... I want to say I wouldn't shoot them but I'd be lying.
Not to kill or anything, just to stop them from harming anyone else in the near future.
I used to love swords. Now I just don't know.
I've thought about tossing my nunchucks but they're too much fun.
I own a few firearms. A bolt-action rifle, a 12 gauge pump action, a single-action revolver, and a recently purchased WASR 10 semi-auto rifle. My bolt action and shotgun is for hunting. My revolver is for trick shooting down at the range. And finally my WASR 10 is a gun safe baby mostly, never leaving my home except to head to the range. However my WASR is my "shit has hit the fan" rifle as well. People question the motives behind owning a weapon for those purposes. But after my father told me stories of New Orleans during Katrina, how quickly things went mad. There'd be gangs of people looting homes, looking for supplies or valuables. People taking advantage of the utter lack of law enforcement, people being murdered over a palette of bottled water and the victim's family left with nothing to drink.
Considering how things can go real wrong, real fast, no matter where you are, it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Also Michigan's open carry laws are very lax. When I'm out in the countryside working on something, or simply hiking, I have my revolver with me on my belt. I can even walk around town with it like that (however, I don't. only rural areas) because here, we still have Bobcats, Cougar, Brown and Black bear, pissed off herds of wild boar, coyotes whom have lost their fear of humans (you don't see the ones who haven't) people on meth and/or bath salts, the list goes on.
I am well trained in the use of a firearm. I know how to keep my head in rough situations. And I also know that if you draw your weapon, you had better be prepared to kill, because simply brandishing the weapon can escalate the situation. I also know many other guns owners, as well as having met gun owners whom I do not know personally, and none of them are psychopaths.
I fully support the ability of a nation's populace to arm themselves. However I also firmly believe that before you are allowed to have a gun, you need to undergo a training course akin to what police officers have to go through. So you know how to practice gun safety, when to draw your weapon, when to shoot to wound, or when to shoot to kill. I also feel the training course will weed out those unfit to own a firearm.
And of course, all gun laws do is effect people who respect the law. The illegal weapons trade in any country is an entirely different animal, and cannot be stopped.
@Zayl I am sorry that you live in a place where you feel the need to be armed to survive. I do wonder how many of your neighbors survive without firearms and what are the fear levels in life of a group that are armed compared with those who are not? & has the" land of the free" become the" land of the fearful"?
@How All I'm saying is, if things *do* happen, I am capable of handling them. I don't walk around armed all the time. Nor do I horde piles of weapons, swooning over them, praying for something to go wrong so I have an excuse to use them. What about the people who own medkits, though? are they living in fear? no, they have them tucked away, not paying them much mind at all until they need them. They might carry them out into the wilderness when there is zero chance of police or medical help being anywhere nearby, and the only person they can rely on is themselves.
But you keep on being passive aggressive, because that is definitely what this discussion needs.
The simplest of mind; the most fearful of soul; the most fearful of change will always seek the simplest of solutions. The most lost; the most ignorant; the most shallow will always seek another for protection. Until we ease the mind and the soul; until we dishonor the dishonorable will there be people who seek those who show an imposing shadow. Until these are accomplished, the love of the gun and the gun slinger will always dominate.
@Zayl I don't have answers, just queries related to how far would I go to protect,,,,,whatever. I wonder about the broader psychic effects of assuring my own safety at all costs. Much of it, I approach with suspicion because often what I have really been protecting, was my own Ego. Letting go of that protectiveness seems to have allowed a freedom to flourish for me where my fear formally held sway.
The "passive aggressive" label surprised me until I saw why my "land of the free" reference would quite reasonably elicit more of a defensive response than the contemplation I had hoped for. My Bad!
The simplest of mind; the most fearful of soul; the most fearful of change will always seek the simplest of solutions. The most lost; the most ignorant; the most shallow will always seek another for protection. Until we ease the mind and the soul; until we dishonor the dishonorable will there be people who seek those who show an imposing shadow. Until these are accomplished, the love of the gun and the gun slinger will always dominate.
:wave: In the tantric tradition it is not uncommon to have Buddha statues filled (amongst other things) with weapons. So for example a decommissioned gun may be included to represent overcoming our fear and tendency to harm ourselves or others. We are not empowered by the ability to protect, inflict or suppress. We are empowered by our ability to be independent of the need to carry attachments. However not all of us are free in mind, body or emptied gun closet . . .
@how guess I read your post wrong (or rather, gave it the wrong "tone" in my head) so, my apologies.
The way I see it, in my case anyway, is that I have taken precautions to protect myself and others should things go south. Thus, I don't pay it much mind anymore. I keep a few supplies tucked away, my rifle being one of them. I don't look at the kit as "some supplies and a gun" I just see it as "some supplies" if that makes any sense? IF something does happen I know I am in a position to handle it. Until then, I live my life normally.
Of course, there are plenty of people out there who really do horde weaponry and spend their lives in fear of some coming disaster. I couldn't live like that, I'm under enough stress as it is just trying to get into a good college! I mean, have you seen that one show eh, what's it called. Doomsday Castle? It's a "reality" TV show that follows a family that takes emergency preparedness way too far. It dominates their lives daily. If I was one of the kids in that family I would have ran away as soon as I was able.
The simplest of mind; the most fearful of soul; the most fearful of change will always seek the simplest of solutions. The most lost; the most ignorant; the most shallow will always seek another for protection. Until we ease the mind and the soul; until we dishonor the dishonorable will there be people who seek those who show an imposing shadow. Until these are accomplished, the love of the gun and the gun slinger will always dominate.
:wave: In the tantric tradition it is not uncommon to have Buddha statues filled (amongst other things) with weapons. So for example a decommissioned gun may be included to represent overcoming our fear and tendency to harm ourselves or others. We are not empowered by the ability to protect, inflict or suppress. We are empowered by our ability to be independent of the need to carry attachments. However not all of us are free in mind, body or emptied gun closet . . .
In the U.S. slightly more people kill themselves with guns than are victims of shootings. A surprise are the number of people killed by gun through a law enforcement action.
From a Dharma perspective. having a gun carries with it only a very small intention of killing since the condition for using it to kill may never arise. If it is used to kill and I put hunting loosely in this action [karma] then motivation enters into the karmic consequence. The motivating factors, samskara, is the key link. In the Mahayana tradition, the paramita of generosity includes protection. We might remember the story of the bodhisattvas on a ferry:
A Buddhist story tells of a ferry captain whose boat was carrying 500 bodhisattvas in the guise of merchants. A robber on board planned to kill everyone and pirate the ship's cargo.
The captain, a bodhisattva himself, saw the man's murderous intention and realized this crime would result in eons of torment for the murderer. In his compassion, the captain was willing to take hellish torment upon himself by killing the man to prevent karmic suffering that would be infinity greater than the suffering of the murdered victims. The captain's compassion was impartial; his motivation was utterly selfless.
Nevertheless, violence is a symptom of deep anger, greed, jealousy, attachments and ignorance, symptoms of the five poisons we can say. This is samsara. Dharma practitioners are at all level of transformation. Violence, sometimes glorified, certainly as a habitual theme of American culture is prevalent. I have no solutions. I do not own a gun. If you want to own a gun this country allows that. I have issues with availability of guns in open markets and access to mental health treatment and so forth, but my overriding concern is the intention behind your gun, Buddhist or not.
Comments
I say keep on keeping on! To me inconstance, not-self, the 4NT's, the 8 fold and karma are the essence, they are utterly practical, reasonable, make sense and fit into this life. For me alot of the other stuff is just conceptual baggage and does nothing for my life. I think I'll go have a steak, a beer, maybe shoot a gun later knowing none of this (or lack of it) defines me. We have complete freedom my friend unless we allow our minds and concepts to fence us in.
I don't know what the answer is, but I think it's important to ask questions.
But who's going to protect us from ourselves? What about kids who get into their parents' gun collection?
That is where we need to take responcibility. For ourselves and our actions. For what ever Karma comes of our choices. I keep my guns and ammunition seperate and hidden where my son (and no one else) and get into it, under lock and key. When he is old enough I plan to teach him about it, properly. It's use, it's dangers, how to handle it properly, so on and so forth. 'Accidents' happen because of 'ignorance' and 'lazyness'. I spilled the juice on accident. Well, it happened because the lid wasn't screwed on tighly enough. So, yes it was an accident. But, it was avoidable, because if the time had been taken to pay attention and properly secure the lid, it ultimatly wouldn't have spilt. You can't just say "The lid is on". You have to take responcibility for it. The lid is on. It is secure. The container isn't sitting on the edge of the shelf."
I think Knowing the answer is a matter of perception. Everyone's is going to be different. And it is a good question to ask, and to discuss.
@compassionate_warrior,
That comes down to being responsible. You shouldn't leave easily accessible, loaded gun collections to little children. And they should only be permitted around guns if they are extremely familiar with them.
A lot more children die from drowning in household pools than children who die from guns of their parents.
"[T]he Tibetan exile community is seeing such a disproportionately high number of people turning to vegetarianism that this trend could be called a vegetarian revolution or explosion of sorts. In recent years, many prominent Tibetans have also become vegetarians and 2004 was observed as Tibetan Vegetarian Year. His Holiness who has been a steadfast supporter of vegetarianism also recently 'turned to a vegetarian diet.'" http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=11991&t=1
Some other Tibetan teachers also emphasize vegetarianism; Chatrul Rinpoche, for example, won't take students unless they're vegetarian! A singular approach, perhaps, though historically, Tibetan teachers (Shabkar Tsodruk Rangdrol, Jigme Lingpa) have written and taught urging their students to avoid killing animals for any reason.
In Hong Kong, many Buddhists and Buddhist monks were vegetarian, and to this day (imho) Hong Kong has some of the best-developed veggie dishes around. There are many vegetarian restaurants as a result of the high number of Buddhist vegetarians. At the same time, Hong Kongers and other Cantonese have a reputation for eating anything that moves; so, just as in Tibet, laypeople are more likely to be meat-eaters than monks and nuns are.
Well, after all that I'm hungry now, lol. Back to the Christmas cookies.
Either accept there is a real (although minor and reduced with responsible ownership) threat that if you have both children and guns, there is the possibility of the child getting hurt by the gun. If you own a gun, there is a possibility of someone getting hurt by accident by your gun. If you don't own a gun, there is no possibility of someone getting hurt by your gun.
I'd kill him 10,000 times to save my girlfriend once. I'd kill the Buddha 10,000 times to save her once. I like to think that the Buddha would be happy with that set-up, too.
Most opposition to gun ownership comes from well-meaning but simultaneously arrogant and naive people who have never had to face the reality of violence. Sometimes it develops into a really ugly, authoritarian impulse to control the lives of the 'ignorant other'. Not cool at all.
I thought the numbers were a little higer than that, say on the order of 40 million.
The person you deny, may one day, have been the person to save your life.
I imagine I would hurt myself if I attempted using a buzz saw because I don't know anything about it. I am reaponsible for learning how it works. The same principle applies with any dangerous equipment, especially guns.
More states are allowing concealed weapons, and are expanding the field of their use. For example, public parks and in restaurants. (Do you want a guy with a gun, drinking beer or wine with dinner, in the same restaurant with you?) "In most states, people don't need a permit to keep a firearm at home. Although some states allow guns to be carried in public in plain sight, gun rights advocates have mostly focused their efforts on expanding the right to carry concealed handguns." (Why? What's in it for them? More sales?)
"More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors over a 5-year period, the Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees, ... including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. ... In addition, nearly 900 permit holders were convicted of drunken driving, a potentially volatile circumstance..."
In "about 20 states ... anyone with a valid concealed handgun permit can buy firearms without the federally mandated criminal background check."
"Ricky Wills, 59, kept his permit after recently spending several months behind bars for terrorizing his estranged wife and their daughter with a pair of guns and then shooting at their house while they, along with a sheriff's deputy, were inside. 'That's crazy, absolutely crazy', his wife said in an interview when told that her husband could most likely still buy a gun at any store in the state."
"...the question becomes whether allowing more people to carry guns actually deters crime, as gun rights advocates contend, and whether that outweighs the risks posed by the minority who commit crimes. Gun rights advocates invariably point to the work of John R. Lott, an economist who concluded in the 1990's that the laws had substantially reduced violent crime. Subsequent studies, however, have found serious flaws in his data and methodology."
An editorial discusses a recent vote by Congress to disallow states from applying their gun laws to visitors from out of state. For example, states with a minimum age requirement for carrying a gun must allow minors to carry guns who are from states with no age restriction. Proponents of the measure say it will "make it easier for law-abiding Americans to protect themselves no matter where they travel." Yeah, I guess we need more law-abiding teens packing heat. Protect themselves from what? Is the entire US the Wild West now? And who are these "gun rights advocates" and "proponents of [various gun-related] measures? Gun industry lobbyists? Sounds like it, judging by the language. "Law-abiding Americans" must be able to protect themselves, anytime, anywhere. That's spin, people!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/more-concealed-guns-and-some-are-in-the-wrong-hands.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/opinion/reckless-disregard-for-gun-safety.html
Most pro-gun people on our gun threads here have said they want to be able to have a gun at home to protect their family. These measures being passed by states and by Congress are aimed at allowing guns anytime, anywhere. What's that about? Clearly the gun industry has taken control of Congress. The question is, as Mountains and others keep reminding us: will this make America safer?
Say you're out with your family, gun safely holstered under your jacket. Some nut shoots you all in the back. What good did your gun do you? Or suddenly, from around a corner, an armed gang appears, holds you & family up, demanding you hold your hands up and unbutton your jacket, so they can take your gun. They wouldn't have to be armed with guns. They could have knives, grab your wife and/or kids, and threaten them until you hand over your gun. They could shoot you with your own gun, then go on a spree and shoot others, with your gun.
Did you hear the story today about the mother of a 3 month old in Oklahoma (I believe) who called 911 NYE because someone was breaking into her house? She told the dispatcher she had a gun and asked permission to shoot the intruders if they managed to get in before help arrived. Long story short, she killed one of the men breaking into her house. Protecting not just herself, but her home and her baby. Hadn't she had that gun....
There was more than one intruder? What happened to the other one?
According to one of the articles posted above, state and fed authorities often don't remove guns from people who have already acted irresponsibly with them. Anyone who uses their legal firearm to endanger others should lose their right to have it. That doesn't happen often enough. Some states allow minors to have guns. What's next, marketing guns to middle school kids to protect themselves in case a student goes on a shooting spree with a gun?
What about those cases where high school students have gotten hold of a parent's gun, and killed other students? In those cases, had the guns they took from the home been under lock and key? If so, how difficult was it for the teen to find the key?
Why don't the French, the Brits, the Italians, the Scandinavians worry about their civil liberties being denied them, guns being denied them? Europeans aren't marching in the streets for gun rights. These articles tend to confirm my suspicion that the American public is being manipulated by marketing ploys implemented by the gun industry.
As I said your either for civil liberties or your not. It's about govenment intrusion and the rights of a free society. We are not Europeans, our histories and foundations are very different. The comparison is apples to oranges. Abortions kill people, though you right, doctors are not running around forcing them on people, but it's okay to end a life legally because of covienience but to have the means to protect myself is somehow anathema? It's either a free society or its not. Where does it end with government? Who determines that? Should our goverment tell you:
1. Who you should sleep with? Afterall it's potentially dangerous. You may end up sick with a disease. You may die.
2. You can't drink alcohol? It's entirely legal yet is responsible for countless deaths, disability, crime and neglect. Kids can get a hold of it too.
3. What drugs you should take? The same reasons for alcohol.
4. If you should smoke tobacco? Same as drugs and alcohol.
5. Is it government's role to tell you who you should marry? If you marry a person of the same sex you could very well undermine the fabric of society.
6. What to listen to, watch or read? Ideas can be very dangerous. Some music may even be Satanic!
7. The government should have the right to determine if I have the ability to protect my life? What about the ability to protect myself from tyranny? That is why the second amendment was written. To expect governments or criminals to be kind and benevolent is naive.
Our understanding of the role of govenment is obviously different.
Guns Reduce Crime
I'm am interested in hearing the other debate they mentioned about Bush 43 being the worst president. lol. That sounds like fun! Have you listened to that one?
I knew you'd say all that, Swing. I tried to address your post pre-emptively when I said at the beginning of my previous post that things get out of control very quickly with a gun. All the other situations you outlined develop gradually. And the examples you cite refer to actions that affect oneself, whereas guns generally end the life of others, except in the case of suicide.
But the point raised by the new articles C_W posted raised is: do we need people carrying guns everywhere? Do we need armed minors? How far do you want to go with this? How about if we allow adults to have a gun at home, for protection against intruders. Would you gun owners be happy with that? (not addressing hunting, here, this is about handguns) Why is it when new legislation expands the allowance for where one can carry a gun, suddenly it's--oh, yeah, that's another civil liberty I want/need! And another! Oh, and I want my 14-year old son to enjoy a full range of civil liberties, too! Are you as enthusiastic about the borderline nut job having a gun in his car, and blowing people away on the freeway or at an intersection? I just read about a case like that.
Was it person, or Telly, who said he wanted to get a gun to have at home, to protect his family? OK, fine. Notice he wasn't saying he wants a gun to carry in his car to defend his family. He doesn't want a gun to take to the high school ball game or to the video arcade in order to protect his family. Or the park. Or the train or bus. (Already prohibited on airplanes, but you never know, the gun lobby may get that changed someday.) And now states that have decided minors shouldn't have guns, or guns shouldn't be carried outside the home can't control out-of-state visitors who have concealed weapon permits. So why should any state have any restriction on guns at all, then?
Where's @Mountains in this conversation??!! Get in here, you! You started all this with your Virginia Tech thread! :grumble:
You would probably be surprised just how many people DO carry guns all the time. I've had friends who carried their weapons everywhere (as allowed by law) into restraunts, grocery stores, work etc. etc. You would never even know they have it because it is CONCEALED. Unless you were specifically looking for it you would never know.
Also, many places where you CAN'T carry a weapon are required to have a place where you can secure it. Such as a Federal Building. When checking in you simply have to make security aware you have a side arm, they will escort you to a lock up area where you unload your gun and store it in a locker. You are given the key and a number in order to retrieve it when you're business is completed.
I believe the age for a concealed weapons permit is 21. And you are subjected to federal back ground checks when you apply for it.
There are so many regulations and special permits required for carrying a weapon in Hawaii that it is pretty successful in keeping them off the streets, well for everyone except the criminals... regardless though,even though I dont have stats handy, I believe gun related crimes are pretty low in Hawaii, I just don't hear about many, so this may say something for strict regulations.
Thanks, LittleMighty. Actually, I have read about little old ladies who carry guns in their purses, everywhere. That one sounded like a good idea. Every little old lady should be issued a gun and permit to carry it anywhere, even the opera, when she turns 70.
Archie: Well gee, little girl... Would you prefer they was pushed outta widows?
(I think that was the only good comeback Archie ever gave)
Not to kill or anything, just to stop them from harming anyone else in the near future.
I used to love swords. Now I just don't know.
I've thought about tossing my nunchucks but they're too much fun.
Considering how things can go real wrong, real fast, no matter where you are, it is better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Also Michigan's open carry laws are very lax. When I'm out in the countryside working on something, or simply hiking, I have my revolver with me on my belt. I can even walk around town with it like that (however, I don't. only rural areas) because here, we still have Bobcats, Cougar, Brown and Black bear, pissed off herds of wild boar, coyotes whom have lost their fear of humans (you don't see the ones who haven't) people on meth and/or bath salts, the list goes on.
I am well trained in the use of a firearm. I know how to keep my head in rough situations. And I also know that if you draw your weapon, you had better be prepared to kill, because simply brandishing the weapon can escalate the situation. I also know many other guns owners, as well as having met gun owners whom I do not know personally, and none of them are psychopaths.
I fully support the ability of a nation's populace to arm themselves. However I also firmly believe that before you are allowed to have a gun, you need to undergo a training course akin to what police officers have to go through. So you know how to practice gun safety, when to draw your weapon, when to shoot to wound, or when to shoot to kill. I also feel the training course will weed out those unfit to own a firearm.
And of course, all gun laws do is effect people who respect the law. The illegal weapons trade in any country is an entirely different animal, and cannot be stopped.
I am sorry that you live in a place where you feel the need to be armed to survive.
I do wonder how many of your neighbors survive without firearms and what are the fear levels in life of a group that are armed compared with those who are not?
&
has the" land of the free" become the" land of the fearful"?
But you keep on being passive aggressive, because that is definitely what this discussion needs.
I don't have answers, just queries related to how far would I go to protect,,,,,whatever.
I wonder about the broader psychic effects of assuring my own safety at all costs.
Much of it, I approach with suspicion because often what I have really been protecting, was my own Ego.
Letting go of that protectiveness seems to have allowed a freedom to flourish for me where my fear formally held sway.
The "passive aggressive" label surprised me until I saw why my "land of the free" reference would quite reasonably elicit more of a defensive response than the contemplation I had hoped for.
My Bad!
In the tantric tradition it is not uncommon to have Buddha statues filled (amongst other things) with weapons. So for example a decommissioned gun may be included to represent overcoming our fear and tendency to harm ourselves or others.
We are not empowered by the ability to protect, inflict or suppress. We are empowered by our ability to be independent of the need to carry attachments. However not all of us are free in mind, body or emptied gun closet . . .
The way I see it, in my case anyway, is that I have taken precautions to protect myself and others should things go south. Thus, I don't pay it much mind anymore. I keep a few supplies tucked away, my rifle being one of them. I don't look at the kit as "some supplies and a gun" I just see it as "some supplies" if that makes any sense? IF something does happen I know I am in a position to handle it. Until then, I live my life normally.
Of course, there are plenty of people out there who really do horde weaponry and spend their lives in fear of some coming disaster. I couldn't live like that, I'm under enough stress as it is just trying to get into a good college! I mean, have you seen that one show eh, what's it called. Doomsday Castle? It's a "reality" TV show that follows a family that takes emergency preparedness way too far. It dominates their lives daily. If I was one of the kids in that family I would have ran away as soon as I was able.
From a Dharma perspective. having a gun carries with it only a very small intention of killing since the condition for using it to kill may never arise. If it is used to kill and I put hunting loosely in this action [karma] then motivation enters into the karmic consequence. The motivating factors, samskara, is the key link. In the Mahayana tradition, the paramita of generosity includes protection. We might remember the story of the bodhisattvas on a ferry:
A Buddhist story tells of a ferry captain whose boat was carrying
500 bodhisattvas in the guise of merchants. A robber on board planned
to kill everyone and pirate the ship's cargo.
The captain, a bodhisattva himself, saw the man's murderous
intention and realized this crime would result in eons of torment for
the murderer. In his compassion, the captain was willing to take
hellish torment upon himself by killing the man to prevent karmic
suffering that would be infinity greater than the suffering of the
murdered victims. The captain's compassion was impartial; his
motivation was utterly selfless.
Nevertheless, violence is a symptom of deep anger, greed, jealousy, attachments and ignorance, symptoms of the five poisons we can say. This is samsara. Dharma practitioners are at all level of transformation. Violence, sometimes glorified, certainly as a habitual theme of American culture is prevalent. I have no solutions. I do not own a gun. If you want to own a gun this country allows that. I have issues with availability of guns in open markets and access to mental health treatment and so forth, but my overriding concern is the intention behind your gun, Buddhist or not.