Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@newbuddhist.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Florida Man Is Shot to Death for Texting During Movie Previews..30 minutes ago.

howhow Veteran Veteran
edited January 2014 in General Banter
Ok, maybe a little harsh for the previews but during the main show...totally get it.
I mean the gunman was assaulted with popcorn and was just defending his family.
sigh...
OK guns don't kill people, people holding guns kill people.
«1

Comments

  • Sounds like one unhinged dude. Obviously those of us a little more serious know that the bar for "legitimate lethal self-defense" is quite high.
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    edited January 2014
    Apparently all the training possible (retired officer of the law) can't protect one from the indignities of a popcorn assault, or stop an impulse to kill long enough to care about some bar for a legitimate lethal self-defense.

    It's not the guns that are the problem, it's the human condition packing that gun.
    David
  • I agree. But many police have proven themselves notoriously ill-trained in recent years such as the Empire State shooting a few years back when police shot almost a dozen bystanders while trying to shoot an armed man. Police only have to shoot occasionally to maintain qualification, and that typically only includes shooting at a stationary paper target.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    This, in he USA will cause public outrage and a national scandal. For half an hour, maybe.
    Nirvana
  • This shooting being in Florida, don't forget their laws mean if the man claims he was afraid for his life because in the dark theater he saw the guy reach into his pocket or something, he can get off without even being charged. Skittles or popcorn, either one might be mistaken for a deadly weapon.
    Nele
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Cinorjer said:

    This shooting being in Florida, don't forget their laws mean if the man claims he was afraid for his life because in the dark theater he saw the guy reach into his pocket or something, he can get off without even being charged. Skittles or popcorn, either one might be mistaken for a deadly weapon.

    But why would you take a gun when you go into a cinema? Don't go out if you are worried that someone is going to attack you in a cinema, rent the film from iTunes or something. This is just crazy!
    betaboy
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited January 2014
    anataman said:

    Cinorjer said:

    This shooting being in Florida, don't forget their laws mean if the man claims he was afraid for his life because in the dark theater he saw the guy reach into his pocket or something, he can get off without even being charged. Skittles or popcorn, either one might be mistaken for a deadly weapon.

    But why would you take a gun when you go into a cinema? Don't go out if you are worried that someone is going to attack you in a cinema, rent the film from iTunes or something. This is just crazy!
    Well, that's another issue that a certain minority of gun owners somehow feel strongly about. They want to be armed in case some deranged killer bursts into the theater and starts shooting. They have fantasies of returning fire and being the hero, like in the movies. Granted, they have a much better chance of hitting the big lottery than having someone start shooting around them, but that doesn't stop the dreams of blowing away the bad guy.

    Of course, given these people aren't totally grounded in reality to begin with, what we end up with instead is either a mistaken shooting (every month someone, somewhere shoots a family member coming home unexpectantly thinking it's a stranger breaking in) or pulling the gun in anger because the guy cut you off on the road or, in this case, texted during a movie. The guy could have moved to a different seat, but when you have a gun, you don't retreat.
  • I view guns not unlike fire extinguishers. Is it paranoid to keep a fire extinguisher in the home? The odds of burning my own house down seems almost outside the realm of possibility to me. But it's just possible enough that I take precautions. Human violence is like fire; uncontrollable, often indiscriminate, statistically unlikely, but still something I take precautions against.
  • Aren't guns and fire extinguishers built for different purposes?
  • Yes of course. My point being that a fire is statistically improbable like physical violence is. I don't think either suggests paranoia. When I was almost cajacked, it happened in broad daylight at a gas station. And yes, I carry a gun to the movies as well. Back in Georgia, my local theater was like Gangland in the parking lot.
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    :coffee:
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    All I want to know is which Buddhists sects have the equivalent of a 2nd amendment that encourages universal, unregulated possession of extremely easy to use deadly force. And which ones give the benefit of the doubt in murder to those who wield weapons. And have a fatalist attitude about the possibility of preventing any violence, anywhere ever with any sort of system of enforced rules (you know, the canard about "murders will always find a way")

    Importing the ideology of samsara into Buddhism wholesale isn't Buddhism, it's samsara.
  • I'd be fascinated to hear about that subject as well. Since religions predate firearms, perhaps there were precepts for arms in general for lay people?
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    That's inconsequential. Firearms are just a development as a result of conflict. The fact that religion (by your accounts) pre-dates firearms does not absolve the fact that religion does not pre-date conflict. Indeed, in many cases, the two are inextricably linked.
    The firearms question becomes redundant.
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    edited January 2014
    This is from the office for national statistics UK
    Deaths from fires in UK
    In 2010-11, there were A total of 45,000 fires in dwellings with 388 fire-related deaths in Britain.

    Deaths from Guns
    In 2011 England had 3,400,000 civilian firearms or 6.2 for every 100 people and was ranked 88 in the world for civilian gun ownership. There were 41 homicides by firearm or 0.07 per 100,000

    There are therefore nearly 10 times as many deaths from a fire in UK; it makes more sense therefore to own a fire-extinguisher in the hope of saving a life rather than owning a gun and risk taking a life. The logic cannot be denied Dr Watson. As ever you are right Holmes!


    EvenThird
  • VastmindVastmind Memphis, TN Veteran
    Shit!!
    I'm sick of angry people having access to guns!
    Just no respect for life.......

    May there be peace in the world.
    May there be peace in my community.
    May there be peace in me.
  • Apparently simple metaphor is lost on some. All I defend is my wanting to be prepared for terrible improbabilities. My city has terrible drug problems with lots of mentally unhinged and violent people who prowl about and occasionally inflict appalling violence on others. I have a duty to keep my family protected and will do so with force if the need were to arise. Though in reality, my wife was a junior Olympic competitor shooter and a much better shot than me. I should hand her the gun in an emergency. ;)
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    how said:


    It's not the guns that are the problem, it's the human condition packing that gun.

    I'm glad I don't live in a country where guns are freely available.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Vastmind said:


    I'm sick of angry people having access to guns!

    Yes, it's very scary.
  • Apparently simple metaphor is lost on some. All I defend is my wanting to be prepared for terrible improbabilities. My city has terrible drug problems with lots of mentally unhinged and violent people who prowl about and occasionally inflict appalling violence on others. I have a duty to keep my family protected and will do so with force if the need were to arise. Though in reality, my wife was a junior Olympic competitor shooter and a much better shot than me. I should hand her the gun in an emergency. ;)

    Why not consider moving your family to a safer environment? That is another way to protect them.
    Protect them from having to be raised with loaded weapons close by. Protect them from growing up to expect violence.
    I
    VastmindDavidDharmaMcBum
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    edited January 2014

    I'd be fascinated to hear about that subject as well. Since religions predate firearms, perhaps there were precepts for arms in general for lay people?

    I've been quoting the same sutra, too much so it's shows I'm still a new Buddhist, anyhow, Brahma net sutra (BNS), which is the Boddhisatva vows sometimes taken by lay followers & all Chinese Monks. The BNS has a different level of strictness than other sects of Buddhism, some are more lenient, some are stricter. And many have exceptions for national defense & the like (for example, the Thai military is Buddhist in outlook, Nichiren wasn't a pacifist and saw no problem with Samurai doing their job). And some sects are "precept-free", e.g. Japanese Shin (Pure Land)
    10. On Storing Deadly Weapons

    A disciple of the Buddha should not store weapons such as knives, clubs, bows, arrows, spears, axes or any other weapons, nor may he keep nets, traps or any such devices used in destroying life.

    As a disciple of the Buddha, he must not even avenge the death of his parents -- let alone kill sentient beings! He should not store any weapons or devices that can be used to kill sentient beings. If he deliberately does so, he commits a secondary offense.

    1. First Major Precept On Killing

    A disciple of the Buddha shall not himself kill, encourage others to kill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall not intentionally kill any living creature.

    As a Buddha's disciple, he ought to nurture a mind of compassion and filial piety, always devising expedient means to rescue and protect all beings. If instead, he fails to restrain himself and kills sentient beings without mercy, he commits a Parajika (major) offense.
    ref:
    http://www2.fodian.net/world/1484.html




  • Does the Zen school have a different take? I know there was a kerfuffle made years ago when a book called "Zen at War" documented the religious license given in some Buddhist strains to Japanese Fascism.

    It's certainly fascinating and though I disagree with it, admirable that a religious sect so fervently denounces any and all violence for whatever reason. Tends to leave a lot less wiggle room for holy war and burning witches.
  • My wife grew up with guns so it's nothing new to have them in the home. It's slightly more novel for me. I did as a matter of fact move from what looked like a set of "Escape from New York." A little higher in the mountains now with less crime, but occasionally the madness spills over.
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran

    Does the Zen school have a different take?

    I haven't read the book about Zen & WW2, it's on my to-do list.

    Chinese Chan = Zen and the Shaolin Monastery of Kung-fu fame was a Chan monastery.

    The monks would meditate standing in horse stance & grew incredibly strong legs, so it was much harder for ruffians and thugs to push them around (literally). And thus starts the Asian tradition for unarmed self defense. Some styles are very pacifist judo-- throw them gently on the ground, aikido-- deftly get out of the way, some aren't tae-kwon-do, kick their a$$ and karate (knock 'em out in one punch)

    As for Zen and archery, and swordsmanship, one version of the story says in ancient times, upper middle class Japanese sent their kids to the Zen monastery to learn what they needed to learn-- which included sutra reading, calligraphy, but also tea, archery and swordsmanship)-- this is more akin to Catholic schools teaching algebra-- not because Algebra is all that Catholic but because Catholic parents expect algebra. Later on, Japanese intellectuals defending Buddhism from Modernism said, "Hey, don't get rid of Zen, it's the source of the tea ceremony and archery!" This was just a mistake of history.

    Sorry I don't have the references.



  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    edited January 2014

    I'd be fascinated to hear about that subject as well. Since religions predate firearms, perhaps there were precepts for arms in general for lay people?

    I've been quoting the same sutra, too much so it's shows I'm still a new Buddhist, anyhow, Brahma net sutra (BNS), which is the Boddhisatva vows sometimes taken by lay followers & all Chinese Monks. The BNS has a different level of strictness than other sects of Buddhism, some are more lenient, some are stricter. And many have exceptions for national defense & the like (for example, the Thai military is Buddhist in outlook, Nichiren wasn't a pacifist and saw no problem with Samurai doing their job). And some sects are "precept-free", e.g. Japanese Shin (Pure Land)
    10. On Storing Deadly Weapons

    A disciple of the Buddha should not store weapons such as knives, clubs, bows, arrows, spears, axes or any other weapons, nor may he keep nets, traps or any such devices used in destroying life.

    As a disciple of the Buddha, he must not even avenge the death of his parents -- let alone kill sentient beings! He should not store any weapons or devices that can be used to kill sentient beings. If he deliberately does so, he commits a secondary offense.

    1. First Major Precept On Killing

    A disciple of the Buddha shall not himself kill, encourage others to kill, kill by expedient means, praise killing, rejoice at witnessing killing, or kill through incantation or deviant mantras. He must not create the causes, conditions, methods, or karma of killing, and shall not intentionally kill any living creature.

    As a Buddha's disciple, he ought to nurture a mind of compassion and filial piety, always devising expedient means to rescue and protect all beings. If instead, he fails to restrain himself and kills sentient beings without mercy, he commits a Parajika (major) offense.
    ref:
    http://www2.fodian.net/world/1484.html




    Does the Zen school have a different take? I know there was a kerfuffle made years ago when a book called "Zen at War" documented the religious license given in some Buddhist strains to Japanese Fascism.

    It's certainly fascinating and though I disagree with it, admirable that a religious sect so fervently denounces any and all violence for whatever reason. Tends to leave a lot less wiggle room for holy war and burning witches.

    Theravada does not have bodisattva vows.. Which im glad because that sounds very "though shalt not".. I prefer the panca sila of undertaking training rules to abstain.

    Also a parajika offense is from the vinaya, that has nothing to do with lay life.

    So yes Paratrooper there are many different types of buddhism that believe in different things. And of course there isnt a" buddhist country" on the planet that isnt bathed in some sort of violence or another.

    Does the ideal dhamma practitioner "live with rod laid down"... Yes they do... But history has proven this person to be extremely rare. The rest of us can just do our best to practice.

    It is easy to judge others... Much harder to resist judgment and worry about our own practice.
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    My school is Zen.
    It is not a different take, its conveniently not paying attention to the adjective preceding each spoke on the 8 Fold Path.

    Much f...wittery, past and present, has been called Zen by those wishing to excuse their own greed, hate & delusion. it is like calling the crusaders, Christian. Or not seeing that what one interprets as the need to protect ones attachments at all costs (self & family) is actually what endangers all families.
    Beej
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    Jayantha said:


    Also a parajika offense is from the vinaya, that has nothing to do with lay life.

    Yes, these are Bodhisattva vows which the BNS explicitly says are available to the lay follower. I tracked down one reference about what a parajika offense would mean for a lay follower in the Mahayana system:
    "An offense that merits casting out -- being cast out of the sea of the Buddhadharma ... The second meaning of Parajika [is] 'an offense that brings about a fall'. That is, if one commits a Parajika Offense, one falls into the Three Evil Destinies"
    Three Evil Destinies being the realm of animals, hungry ghosts and the hell realm. So the penalty for a lay person is Karmic and not institutional.

    http://www.ymba.org/books/brahma-net-sutra-moral-code-bodhisattva/glossary



  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran

    Jayantha said:


    Also a parajika offense is from the vinaya, that has nothing to do with lay life.

    Yes, these are Bodhisattva vows which the BNS explicitly says are available to the lay follower. I tracked down one reference about what a parajika offense would mean for a lay follower in the Mahayana system:
    "An offense that merits casting out -- being cast out of the sea of the Buddhadharma ... The second meaning of Parajika [is] 'an offense that brings about a fall'. That is, if one commits a Parajika Offense, one falls into the Three Evil Destinies"
    Three Evil Destinies being the realm of animals, hungry ghosts and the hell realm. So the penalty for a lay person is Karmic and not institutional.

    http://www.ymba.org/books/brahma-net-sutra-moral-code-bodhisattva/glossary





    Hmm, thanks for the information. There is still much i dont know with the mahayana.
  • Florida Man Is Shot to Death for Texting During Movie Previews
    I believe a zero tolerance for mobile phone use in cinemas would be welcome by some patrons, call me old fashioned . . . However alternatives may be more humane . . . :crazy:
    TheswingisyellowBhikkhuJayasara
  • lobster said:

    Florida Man Is Shot to Death for Texting During Movie Previews
    I believe a zero tolerance for mobile phone use in cinemas would be welcome by some patrons, call me old fashioned . . . However alternatives may be more humane . . . :crazy:

    Indeed. More of a paddling offense than a shooting offense if you ask me.
  • @JohnG well said. AS an experienced cop and martial arts instructor you will know the greatest skill is not allowing ones fear to hurt the violent 'client'. Practicing violence, whether Hapkido, ancient sword work or softer arts such as Tai Chi Chuan increases our self discipline. Anger and aggression in males in particular, needs better outlets than shooting pop corn throwing taunters . . .

    I guess we all knew that . . .
    :buck:
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    lobster said:


    I believe a zero tolerance for mobile phone use in cinemas would be welcome by some patrons, call me old fashioned . . .

    In the UK they have quiet carriages on the train, but only one carriage per train. But I think all carriages except one should be quiet, so the mobile phone addicts would all be crammed together in one carriage shouting to be heard. :p
    anatamanDharmaMcBum
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Hear Hear @Spinynorman
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    edited January 2014
    just reading the story I saw that the guy who shot the guy was not just some random citizen or a "crazy gun nut" ... the person was a retired POLICE OFFICER...who of course is legally allowed to CCW(carry concealed weapon).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/florida-man-is-shot-to-death-for-texting-during-movie-previews.html?_r=0

    even if we banned all guns this person would still of died. This is obviously a mental health issue not a gun issue(as most shootings are).

    oh and also something I haven't seen brought up. In 40 states in the union regular citizens are allowed to apply for and CCW legally. People say " if everyone had guns it would be the wild west!" yet they never realize how many people legally carry guns on their person daily all over the country. It's never law abiding citizens that do these sorts of things, it's criminals or those with mental health issues(which imo is one of the biggest issues in the country right now that is swept under the rugs)

    You also NEVER hear about the stories where people who CCW have saved themselves and others, mostly without ever firing a shot. it happens every day but the news will never report it. There are websites on the internet devoted to collecting these stories since the main stream media never will.

    It is a hypocrisy to have the feelings of " the police are the only ones who should have guns", because history has shown that when the government has the guns, it's much easier for the people to be subjugated. This is actually the whole reason for the 2nd amendment in the first place, to keep the government in check, and secondarily for self defense.

    There have been no studies that show gun control helps stop crime.. in fact it's been the opposite, and not from " right wing organizations" either , unless Harvard and the CDC are one - http://www.examiner.com/article/two-new-studies-confirm-gun-control-s-worst-nightmare-more-guns-less-crime

    According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 31,672 deaths from guns in the U.S. during 2010. Nearly 20,000 of those deaths were gun related suicides.

    Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are unaware of this decline in firearms violence. The Pew study found that 56% incorrectly perceive that gun crime is actually higher now than it was two decades ago.

    The Pew study utilized data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.



    If you believe all guns should be banned, then the government should destroy all of it's guns too(and all those nice tanks police have been getting as they've become militarized), lets not be hypocrites here and go all the way.

    most people outside the country, like brits, can never understand, just like most Americans can't understand the worship of a queen and royal family.
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    edited January 2014
    I am not a "gun nut" by far, nor have I ever killed anything with guns or even shot at anything living. What I AM however is someone who has a strong belief in the basic rights of people, the Libertarian concept of "the philosophy of liberty"




    I consider myself a rational person, nevet carried away with emotion, and ive yet to see any rational arguments for banning all guns being a benefit to society. Show me studies, show me proof, and ill have to change my views.

    Guns and video games are easy scapegoats when we want to ignore the real problems which are harder to deal with. Its like the Buddha's analogy of the dog and the lion... If you throw a stick the dog goes after the stick.. The lion goes right to the source, you.
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    Unless one lives in fear, I don't see the purpose in having a gun.

    In a violent neighborhood? Why not put effort into moving?

    Afraid the government is coming after you? Sorry but your guns will have no effect.

    I understand that taking guns away will end up with people killing each other with other things but at least most other means (except bombs) require some kind of skill.

    A knife is used for all kinds of things but the guns sole purpose is to kill.
    ChazrobothowVastmind
  • While it was a retired policeman who did the shooting, there was a sign at the entrance of the theater stating no weapons were allowed inside. Most private businesses still have the right to tell people they can't bring weapons onto their property.

    According to some news articles, something appeared to be wrong with this man, because now another woman has come forth saying this man followed her to the restroom and back when he spotted her also texting on another occasion.

    See, when some of us say people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to public events and places where people are crowded together, and that there should be a little more control over who gets to buy one, we're not saying nobody should be allowed to have guns. Gun rights people always try to claim that's our mission. Nor are we saying if we tighten the gun laws, it will magically stop all murders and shootings. That's another thing that keeps getting twisted in the debates.

    But it's not about logic. For one thing, a person can legally carry a concealed gun that shoots bullets, but if the cops catch you carrying a switchblade, you're charged with a crime. Where are the "knife rights" people pointing out that laws against knifes won't keep criminals from having knifes?
    Vastmind
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    Cinorjer said:

    While it was a retired policeman who did the shooting, there was a sign at the entrance of the theater stating no weapons were allowed inside. Most private businesses still have the right to tell people they can't bring weapons onto their property.

    According to some news articles, something appeared to be wrong with this man, because now another woman has come forth saying this man followed her to the restroom and back when he spotted her also texting on another occasion.

    See, when some of us say people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to public events and places where people are crowded together, and that there should be a little more control over who gets to buy one, we're not saying nobody should be allowed to have guns. Gun rights people always try to claim that's our mission. Nor are we saying if we tighten the gun laws, it will magically stop all murders and shootings. That's another thing that keeps getting twisted in the debates.

    But it's not about logic. For one thing, a person can legally carry a concealed gun that shoots bullets, but if the cops catch you carrying a switchblade, you're charged with a crime. Where are the "knife rights" people pointing out that laws against knifes won't keep criminals from having knifes?

    I am 100% for business and event owners who wish to ban guns on their property(among many other things and people) . The government forces businesses owners to do too many things as it is, they should have some rights left. Funny how its easy for some people to cry businesses rights when it suits their purposes.

    Both sides have varying degrees, on the left the far end of the spectrum is total ban, the far end on the right is no laws or licenses or restrictions at all. The rest o f us are somewhere in the middle.

    I live in the most gun restrictive state in the union, New Jersey, and the process was supposed to take 30 days for my license(which i dont mind), but my local pd took 6months. Whenever i buy ammo(which has been once in 3 years, its too expensive to shoot anymore) i have to sign a log that businesses are forced to have, which imo goes too far. There are a few common sense gun laws and many silly ones based out of emotions and ignorance, especially when politicians dont know basic gun knowledge and talk like they do. Meeting in the middle is hard to do.
    Cinorjer
  • Jayantha said:


    most people outside the country, like brits, can never understand, just like most Americans can't understand the worship of a queen and royal family.

    How about Mexicans? Do they understand?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/mexico-drug-war-seized-guns_n_876653.html
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    @Jayantha;

    I don't mean to sound like a dink but will you be taking a gun with you when you join the ranks of the monastics?

    Why or why not?
    Chaz
  • ZaylZayl Veteran
    edited January 2014
    Another cop killed someone?

    oh, sorry if I'm not surprised. Sort of reminds me of the recent case where a cop got acquitted in the case of beating a mentally ill homeless person to death. Or the sort of recent case in Chicago where a man was supposedly raped with a gun by police. Or even the case where a family called for help because they were afraid their mentally ill son was going to hurt himself. 70 seconds after arriving on the scene three cops had shot him dead, the kid did not have a firearm. And then there's the litany of cases involving the police and the ATF where they pushed mentally handicapped people repeatedly to sell drugs and weapons to them, and then arrest them. Never mind the fact that if the authorities had not pushed them to break the law in the first place, the mentally handicapped citizens would not have done it.

    And people wonder why people own guns. Ever hear hear that absolute power corrupts absolutely? that's more or less what the police and government agencies have. I mean if you see a police officer beating the shit out of some mentally retarded lady on a bus, what can you do? "oh quick! call the po- ...oh..." And that last example was a real goddamned example. Luckily someone had a camera and went straight to the press with it.

    There's being paranoid, and then there is simply being aware that incidents like that ones I have listed happen a lot more often than you goddamned think. Remember kids: you're eight times more likely to be killed by police, than a terrorist attack.
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    robot said:

    Jayantha said:


    most people outside the country, like brits, can never understand, just like most Americans can't understand the worship of a queen and royal family.

    How about Mexicans? Do they understand?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/mexico-drug-war-seized-guns_n_876653.html
    What does illegal activity have to do with legal gun ownsership? Do you know that only 1% of gun owners can own a fully automatic weapon in the usa, both the license and the gun prices make it so only the rich can do it. A gun that a criminal can get for 300 bucks would Cost the legal class 3 rich gun owner 15,000. Criminal activity is criminal activity.
    ourself said:

    @Jayantha;

    I don't mean to sound like a dink but will you be taking a gun with you when you join the ranks of the monastics?

    Why or why not?

    A silly emotionally driven comment, no offense. Will i be taking my computer and camera equipment and other things i own? We all know Monks own 8 requisites, half of which are clothing.
  • ChazChaz The Remarkable Chaz Anywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
    Jayantha said:

    There is still much i dont know with the mahayana.

    Then it might be wise to refrain from comments that pit your Theravedin leanings against Mahyana.

    You refer to the Bodhisattva Vows being a bunch of "thou shalts". Well, nothing could be farther from the tuth and even a casual study of the Vows as they apply today, would reveal that.


    On a different topic, what are you going to do with that gun when you go in the Monastery? I've never heard of any monk, even a Theravedin, who owned a gun of any sort. While I don't believe there's anything in the Vinaya that prohibits owning a weapon, it just doesn't seem right. Guns are meant to kill sentient beings. What would a monk be doing with such a thing?

    And for the record, I own a gun. It's an old, Spanish-made 16ga double-barreled shotgun. I haven't fired the gun in 20 years and won't in the future. I keep it for sentimental purposes; it's a heirloom of sorts. It was a gun my Dad bought for my Mom, who never used it herself, which was probably the whole idea in the first place. I hunted with the gun as I grew up and I brought it to Colorado after I moved here. I hunted pheasants, once, with it, cleaned it and put it away and there it's stayed since.
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited January 2014
    Jayantha said:

    robot said:

    Jayantha said:


    most people outside the country, like brits, can never understand, just like most Americans can't understand the worship of a queen and royal family.

    How about Mexicans? Do they understand?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/mexico-drug-war-seized-guns_n_876653.html
    What does illegal activity have to do with legal gun ownsership? Do you know that only 1% of gun owners can own a fully automatic weapon in the usa, both the license and the gun prices make it so only the rich can do it. A gun that a criminal can get for 300 bucks would Cost the legal class 3 rich gun owner 15,000. Criminal activity is criminal activity.
    ourself said:

    @Jayantha;

    I don't mean to sound like a dink but will you be taking a gun with you when you join the ranks of the monastics?

    Why or why not?

    A silly emotionally driven comment, no offense. Will i be taking my computer and camera equipment and other things i own? We all know Monks own 8 requisites, half of which are clothing.
    Your response is emotionally driven but the question is quite sincere. Computer and camera equiptment aren't made for the sole purpose of harming sentient beings.

    If you believe it will be acceptable to have a gun with you at the monestery I think you are in for a surprise.


  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Much of this discussion is a waste of time. Get practical.

    As a no-gun person I figured out long ago the US is not going to outlaw guns. So despite my opinions, I've let go of that.

    So some of you preach letting go. Now, let go. You're totally spinning wheels on something that in any of our lifetimes is impractical.
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    ourself said:

    Jayantha said:

    robot said:

    Jayantha said:


    most people outside the country, like brits, can never understand, just like most Americans can't understand the worship of a queen and royal family.

    How about Mexicans? Do they understand?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/mexico-drug-war-seized-guns_n_876653.html
    What does illegal activity have to do with legal gun ownsership? Do you know that only 1% of gun owners can own a fully automatic weapon in the usa, both the license and the gun prices make it so only the rich can do it. A gun that a criminal can get for 300 bucks would Cost the legal class 3 rich gun owner 15,000. Criminal activity is criminal activity.
    ourself said:

    @Jayantha;

    I don't mean to sound like a dink but will you be taking a gun with you when you join the ranks of the monastics?

    Why or why not?

    A silly emotionally driven comment, no offense. Will i be taking my computer and camera equipment and other things i own? We all know Monks own 8 requisites, half of which are clothing.
    Your response is emotionally driven but the question is quite sincere. Computer and camera equiptment aren't made for the sole purpose of harming sentient beings.

    If you believe it will be acceptable to have a gun with you at the monestery I think you are in for a surprise.


    Im confused.. What does giving up something have to do with its purpose... Your comment makes little sense. You do know that monks give up ALL possessions right? There are many more things i need to give away besides my guns.

    You arent the first person to make a comment about me bringing a gun to a monastery, which is as silly as me bringing anything i own... Since im giving it all up.... I cant understand where that comment would even come from logically.
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    edited January 2014
    vinlyn said:

    Much of this discussion is a waste of time. Get practical.

    As a no-gun person I figured out long ago the US is not going to outlaw guns. So despite my opinions, I've let go of that.

    So some of you preach letting go. Now, let go. You're totally spinning wheels on something that in any of our lifetimes is impractical.

    @vinlyn
    If one chooses to peg the value of a posting on whether it would change USA gun control laws, then perhaps you'd have a point in thinking it's all a waste of time......
    But this is a web site that not only extends far beyond the USA borders but it applies mostly to Buddhists who find it's worth more to do with their own Dharmic explorations than with the securing of some political objective.
    &
    Letting go has little to do with avoiding the discussions which disappoint you but is instead the simple meditative practice of unleashing ourselves from our conditioning.
    It also functions more effectively as a personal practice than as an imperial demand.
    ChazVastmind
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    edited January 2014
    If it were just a simple chat, I would agree. But people get very intense and emotionally upset this topic. So I say, let go of what you have absolutely no power over. And if you can't let go of the status of a particular law, go out and do something real about it.
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    If it were just a simple chat, I would agree. But people get very intense and emotionally upset this topic. So I say, let go of what you have absolutely no power over. And if you can't let go of the status of a particular law, go out and do something real about it.

    @vinlyn
    I was discussing this with some friends the other night who thought that
    USA gun control could practically count as a religion in it's own right considering how fervently folks related to it.
    I am sure this was how it was with any other past cultural fixations when as much personal investments were at stake. Slavery comes to mind, as one example.

    Would you have remained silent about what you thought caused un nessesary suffering just because the subject caused folks to get very intense and emotionally upset over that topic?
    Do think that some might of counciled you to remain silent over a topic that you have absolutely no control over?

    Being willing to discuss something that is unpleasant to face is doing something about it.
    Not being willing to discuss something that is unpleasant to face is not doing anything about it.

    ChazThailandTom
Sign In or Register to comment.