Buddhism & Guns?

[gregkavarnos]

A quick Dharma commercial break:

Are you suffering from the eight worldly dharmas? The hope of/for happiness, fame, praise and gain? The fear of suffering, disgrace, blame and loss?

Well we have the answer for you: Ego-away™!

Guaranteed to rid your mind of all attachment, aversion and ignorance!

And if you call right now we will also throw in, absolutely free of charge, a bottle of Suffering-vanisher™.

Completely destroys all three types of dukkha in seconds flat!

Ego-away™ and Suffering-vanisher™, as used by all non-regressing Arhats.

Disclaimer: May not have the desired outcome for individuals of little faith!

[David N. Snyder]

I asked what the position of Buddhists owning guns for self defense is; that is all I asked. I did not ask for your personal evaluation of me as a person and so it is not relevant or welcome. Perhaps you should look inward and ponder why you feel the need to analyze others when they aren't asking for your opinion on such matters.

And that is all the answers should focus on.

In my opinion, nothing wrong with self-defense. See: http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Self-defense

In the Vinaya, Suttavibhanga, the 92 pacittiya (rules entailing confession), number 74 states:

74. Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, give a blow to (another) bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.

The factors for the full offense here are three.

* 1) Object: another bhikkhu.
* 2) Effort: One gives him a blow
* 3) Intention: out of anger.

Non-offenses: According to the Vibhaṅga, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow "desiring freedom." The Commentary's discussion of this point shows that it includes what we at present would call self-defense; and the Commentary's analysis of the factors of the offense here shows that even if anger or displeasure arises in one's mind in cases like this, there is no penalty.

Summary: Giving a blow to another bhikkhu when impelled by anger, except in self-defense, is a pācittiya offense.

And another important point to the above is that that is the rule for monks. How much more leeway might lay people have? Not to kill of course, but certainly protect for self-defense.

[David N. Snyder]

I am former law enforcement and I own guns. I enjoy using them for sport-target practice and self-defense and I am pretty good at shooting too, being a marksman.

I would recommend taking a gun safety class to familiarize yourself with guns, their safety, and use.

The classes are very good and show how it is never appropriate to use to defend property, just life and serious bodily injury.

A small handgun would probably be best that way you can conceal it better and have it ready for use when needed. There are permits you can get after taking written and proficiency tests for carrying them concealed with you at all time.

Other options of alarms and dogs are good too, but guns tend to be the most effective. Taser guns are good too, they shoot volts of electricity (no killing) through darts, but have a limitation of about 15 feet and usually only have one shot.

Stun guns and knives are terrible and usually small people and women get overpowered by the attacker and then the attacker uses those weapons on the victim.

See also: http://www.zenpistol.com/

[Sönam]

I am former law enforcement and I own guns. I enjoy using them for sport-target practice and self-defense and I am pretty good at shooting too, being a marksman.

I would recommend taking a gun safety class to familiarize yourself with guns, their safety, and use.

The classes are very good and show how it is never appropriate to use to defend property, just life and serious bodily injury.

A small handgun would probably be best that way you can conceal it better and have it ready for use when needed. There are permits you can get after taking written and proficiency tests for carrying them concealed with you at all time.

Other options of alarms and dogs are good too, but guns tend to be the most effective. Taser guns are good too, they shoot volts of electricity (no killing) through darts, but have a limitation of about 15 feet and usually only have one shot.

Stun guns and knives are terrible and usually small people and women get overpowered by the attacker and then the attacker uses those weapons on the victim.

See also: http://www.zenpistol.com/

From a non-American point of view it's simply unbelievable ... even the interpretation of the dharma to justify that cow-boy culture. Sorry David, but something is certainly wrong in the empire of the United States.

Sönam

[Sönam]

The Commentary's discussion of this point shows that it includes what we at present would call self-defense; and the Commentary's analysis of the factors of the offense here shows that even if anger or displeasure arises in one's mind in cases like this, there is no penalty.

Summary: Giving a blow to another bhikkhu when impelled by anger, except in self-defense, is a pācittiya offense.

I'm not sur that this point of view could be accepted as such from a vajra point of view.

Sönam

[gregkavarnos]

74. Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, give a blow to (another) bhikkhu, it is to be confessed...
Summary: Giving a blow to another bhikkhu when impelled by anger, except in self-defense, is a pācittiya offense.

I think you will find that this rule applies to giving a blow using a part of ones body (ie kicking, punching, slapping, etc...) not to a blow dealt out by using a weapon and certainly not to blowing somebody away with a glock.

There are rules that forbid monks to even teach to somebody that is carrying a weapon.

It is sad to see a Buddhist using legal niceties to defend their penchant for tools of destruction.

[Sönam]

Someone comes and try to steal you or even try to have a sexual relation ... he has no weapon. What do you do ... killing him, and then think you were right?
If you do so you would become a criminal, and the dead guy would have only be a thief or a rapist. Be sure you will "blow" in Hell.

Sönam

[ronnewmexico]

Padme

TRaining or not..most can just not consider the implications of shooting someone with a gun in the US....the criminal and civil implications are astounding.

YOu may as well just write the person who is attempting to kill or maime you a check for 100K and be done with it.
If you escape criminal issues that is. Civil has no strict legal requirement as the person in a civil context is not innocent until proven guilty.
It is different conceptually. How much could you have avoided this thing, what percentage, a one in ten chance for instance..10% then liable, then 10% of that persons anticipated income for the rest of their life and medical bills.
That is a brief example.

Though I have guns as these here state they do, and carry with me in wilderness always a gun(for bear mainly)....to use a gun on a person...is most stupid in any context. Not to mention karmic influence of killing. Any gun class you go to will say...take you gun out of holster only if you reasonably intend to use it. And when taken out and used, use it to kill always. Always keep that in mind. Guns with peoples are used to kill not wound.
Police are taught to kill with guns not wound...other things wound not guns, taser mace and others.

Buddhism as many have stated does not strictly abhore the notion of carrying a gun. Killing a person...in some schools yes, in others not necessarily, depends upon the context of the killing.

Cowboys use guns to shoot varmints not peoples..

[gregkavarnos]

There is no such thing a a varmint. There are only sentient beings all of which have been a mother to me at some point in my infinite cycling through samsara.

[ronnewmexico]

Tell that to a bear with rabies.....

[David N. Snyder]

Someone comes and try to steal you or even try to have a sexual relation ... he has no weapon. What do you do ... killing him, and then think you were right?
If you do so you would become a criminal, and the dead guy would have only be a thief or a rapist. Be sure you will "blow" in Hell.

Steal, no problem, let them take.

Sexual relation, no it's called rape and many kill the victim when they are done. What do you suggest, let the attacker have his way and kill the victim?

Guns can be used for self-defense. That does not mean they ever have to be actually used against a person. I have owned guns for over 30 years. I have destroyed many paper targets, but never once shot at a person or animal. Sometimes just the fact that someone knows you have one prevents the crime or an attack. In the best case scenario, a gun owner never uses it, never needs to.

[ronnewmexico]

Guns can be a reason for a attack or break in as well. Due to gun laws in the US they are the easiest thing to sell and use, and are the thing most criminals will look for in a home. First in...they go to the master bedroom as that is where the guns are kept. Hardly ever going to a childs room.

Concealed guns serve not at all this purpose, and walking around with one unconcealed well that is just a bit odd. People will look at and treat you as a odd person.

A ex police officer... I say...they should have that thing, it makes sense, second nature a gun becomes. Other person as described...go run and get my gun someone is breaking in a drunk person is at my door I must have my gun in hand or on me..they will take your gun away from you.
Gun for police or similiar.... is way different than gun for civilian. Like a professional truck driver is to a car driver..they are just not the same level of expertise and useage.

If they do not take it away then you shoot...court court court you will go and your attacker will be found to be a pillar of society with no faults a drunken person who wanted a ride is all and you shot him. Yes he broke your door down but drunks are inclined to break things, yes he pulled your shirt off but he wanted just your shirt to keep warm it was cold out(killed for that?) ..and on and on.

It will never end..such is a bit of the karma.

[Astus]

From a non-American point of view it's simply unbelievable ... even the interpretation of the dharma to justify that cow-boy culture. Sorry David, but something is certainly wrong in the empire of the United States.

Sönam

Indeed there is a big difference here between how American's view guns and how others where guns are not something just anybody can buy in a supermarket. That is a reason why I'm not really in the position of telling if it is OK to own a gun for self-defence in that particular case. Generally speaking, when one has to think of defending him/herself it is about fear, and fear is a source of lot of bad stuff.

"If even a hundred-thousand rapists came across me like this, I wouldn't stir a hair.
I'd feel no terror, and I'm not afraid of you, Mara, even alone like this.
Here — I disappear. I slip into your belly or stand between your eyebrows, and you don't see me.
I have mastery over the mind, have well-developed the bases of power.
I'm released from all bonds, and not afraid of you, my friend.

Then Mara the Evil One — sad & dejected at realizing, "Uppalavanna the nun knows me" — vanished right there."
(SN 5.5, Uppalavanna Sutta)

[ronnewmexico]

NO no...you have to go to walmart...not a regular supermarket

Joking because walmarts are virtually everywhere and open 24 hours to boot

[gregkavarnos]

Tell that to a bear with rabies.....

Justify it any way you want, the statement still stands true.

[ronnewmexico]

Yes it is absolutely true that would be a quite unwise thing...to not kill a rabid bear with a gun...instead letting him eat us.

Rabies is terminal....it will kill them anyway in a week or so.
HOwever if you want to do such a thing and feel so impelled I will not stand in your way.
Though I can think of at least one benfit from such a thing I compassionately ask you to rethink that

[David N. Snyder]

and walking around with one unconcealed well that is just a bit odd. People will look at and treat you as a odd person.

Yes, it's true; some of our non-American friends may find it hard to believe, but in many states of the U.S., especially out in the Wild West, such as Nevada where I live, it is fully legal to go around with open carry -- wearing your gun on a hip holster, shoulder holster, etc. I don't do that, I think that is going too far, sort of "asking for a fight".

[ronnewmexico]

Same in New Mexico..concealed carry is a bit of a joke. On the range, in wilderness and such, about every working person has a gun, even the forest service on horse will have a gun...that's the way it is.
Campers...hikers.. adults... about half I'd say.

[Sönam]

Sexual relation, no it's called rape and many kill the victim when they are done. What do you suggest, let the attacker have his way and kill the victim?

If the place where you live is so risky that you fear and think to have a gun, that is to kill ... then you better leave the place. Like I've said earlier it's the option took by HHDL. And that a true buddhist choice.
If your "being a buddhist" is not able NOT to take the risk to kill someone by accepting to leave "a nice place" then you miss something for sure ... and unlightenment is far away.

Sönam

[Sönam]

nice country you're living in ...



but you are not the only one ...