should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

[Truth_Seeker1989]

It would be rediculous to say it's immoral to own a gun, for a Monk, perhaps, for a Lay Practitioner, of course not! Not everyone is a Buddhist, not everyone practices love and happiness, in fact, it's quite the opposite when it comes to other religions/peoples. Think of your family, of your friends, and of your nation. There will be a time when you are given 'no other option' but to use violence to protect yourself, and your family.

To any who objects, I challenge you to meditate on it, on the scenario where your life, your families, and your friends lives are at risk, where the attacker is giving 'no option' other then to be a 'coward' or defend your own folk. It's so easy for people to sit there and say, 'Oh! Oh! It's so wrong! I would NEVER!", but then come the time where they are forced, really forced the choice, they would do the same, otherwise, IMO, that is a coward, someone who would let the lives of their loved ones be at risk because they are too afraid or even ignorant, to stand up and fight for the continuation of those who want nothing more then peace and harmony. Am I saying to not feel bad for the death or hurt to the attacker? No. I am saying use your logic and common sense.

The Smith family had just recently moved into their new home in the suburbs of New York City. Mrs Smith, a lovely woman and homemaker is tending to the house and three children tonight while her husband is off at work as a regular accountant for the Bank Of America. She is doing the dishes when she sees three men peeking into the window, and screams immediately. The attackers waste no time and quickly find the back door made mostly of glass, kick it in and rush after the Wife as she had just ran upstairs to get her children. She remembers the gun in her husbands office, only a room a away, and quickly takes it out of the case before returning to her children in the room of little Morigan, her youngest, at only ten years old. The sound of the mens footsteps as they come up the stairs can be easily heard, "You see that pretty little thing?! Ohhh, I can't wait to have fun with her!" "I saw her too! You cut the phone lines, right?" "You bet! There will be no help for this one..."

The three men, friends who had recently gotten out of prison, where they had met, months apart from eachother. Weeks ago they were drinking at the bar and came up with an excellent plan for some quick cash, robbing the homes of innocent folks. Two were convicted of grand theft, while the other, of multiple rape.

This is a very real scenario. Try going online, and looking at newspaper clippings/stories, of these very real scenarios, and tell me it's wrong to own a gun and defend yourself. The Buddha was a man of logic, of understanding. And he would understand a situation like this, would he be sad that it had to happen in the first place? Of course, but he would understand.

[Cittasanto]

Do these support or hold the possibility to support the continuation of consciousness or the development of consciousness that leads to unskilled states of mind?

I think we need to take responsibility for our own state of mind. You could ask a similar question regarding driving a vehicle (a car can be used as a weapon), and developing knife skills as a chef.
kind regards,

Ben[/quote]
Hi Ben,
sorry for the late reply I had to go to work.
Yes, this is true we do need to take responcibility here hence I quoted the cetana sutta, but with the first thing I said "lay down the stick and club" ((despite the misrepresentation one person has made) which was a mis-memory for a pericope found in regard to the first precept of "They have laid down the club & blade" (MN40.7; AN8.41 for examples)) in mind this shows the laying aside of instuments used for punishment and death, which a gun is, its primary design function is death & harm.
if you look at a gun, you don't think someone is going to do something other than shoot, many things can be used/misused to kill, or harm, but a gun/rifle isn't being misused for such purposes (otherwise the armies, police forces, & hunters need informed) the use of targets be they clay pigeon or in a range is primarily to hone this skill in a controlled way.

but this is my opinion, based on my readings, the main one being mentioned, if someone has a gun that is their decision.
Cittasanto

[Mr Man]

There will be a time when you are given 'no other option' but to use violence to protect yourself, and your family.

[daverupa]

There will be a time when you are given 'no other option' but to use violence to protect yourself, and your family.

If attacked, the Vinaya allows the fourfold Sangha to strike back without fault, but never with the intent to kill.

I can see all manner of non-lethal self-defense methods being employed, everything from stun-guns to riot gear, but what sort of training is required before a gun-user can confidently declare a greater likelihood to wound, rather than kill, in the press of heated assault?

[Truth_Seeker1989]

There will be a time when you are given 'no other option' but to use violence to protect yourself, and your family.

If attacked, the Vinaya allows the fourfold Sangha to strike back without fault, but never with the intent to kill.

I can see all manner of non-lethal self-defense methods being employed, everything from stun-guns to riot gear, but what sort of training is required before a gun-user can confidently declare a greater likelihood to wound, rather than kill, in the press of heated assault?

They can train themselves at a gun range, or in their backyard. If that's not possible, I suppose none. And it would not be their fault they had no training, or that they killed their attackers. Maybe the person never wants to pick up their gun until absolutely necessary. They would be blameless. It was the attackers 'choice' to enter their home and threaten the lives and well being of their family, in essence, their choice to get shot, injured and/or killed. The attacker forced the choice upon the defender, hence, chose to die.

[jason c]

It would be rediculous to say it's immoral to own a gun, for a Monk, perhaps, for a Lay Practitioner, of course not! Not everyone is a Buddhist, not everyone practices love and happiness, in fact, it's quite the opposite when it comes to other religions/peoples. Think of your family, of your friends, and of your nation. There will be a time when you are given 'no other option' but to use violence to protect yourself, and your family.

To any who objects, I challenge you to meditate on it, on the scenario where your life, your families, and your friends lives are at risk, where the attacker is giving 'no option' other then to be a 'coward' or defend your own folk. It's so easy for people to sit there and say, 'Oh! Oh! It's so wrong! I would NEVER!", but then come the time where they are forced, really forced the choice, they would do the same, otherwise, IMO, that is a coward, someone who would let the lives of their loved ones be at risk because they are too afraid or even ignorant, to stand up and fight for the continuation of those who want nothing more then peace and harmony. Am I saying to not feel bad for the death or hurt to the attacker? No. I am saying use your logic and common sense.

The Smith family had just recently moved into their new home in the suburbs of New York City. Mrs Smith, a lovely woman and homemaker is tending to the house and three children tonight while her husband is off at work as a regular accountant for the Bank Of America. She is doing the dishes when she sees three men peeking into the window, and screams immediately. The attackers waste no time and quickly find the back door made mostly of glass, kick it in and rush after the Wife as she had just ran upstairs to get her children. She remembers the gun in her husbands office, only a room a away, and quickly takes it out of the case before returning to her children in the room of little Morigan, her youngest, at only ten years old. The sound of the mens footsteps as they come up the stairs can be easily heard, "You see that pretty little thing?! Ohhh, I can't wait to have fun with her!" "I saw her too! You cut the phone lines, right?" "You bet! There will be no help for this one..."

The three men, friends who had recently gotten out of prison, where they had met, months apart from eachother. Weeks ago they were drinking at the bar and came up with an excellent plan for some quick cash, robbing the homes of innocent folks. Two were convicted of grand theft, while the other, of multiple rape.

This is a very real scenario. Try going online, and looking at newspaper clippings/stories, of these very real scenarios, and tell me it's wrong to own a gun and defend yourself. The Buddha was a man of logic, of understanding. And he would understand a situation like this, would he be sad that it had to happen in the first place? Of course, but he would understand.

hey bodhisvasti,

we should not focus our minds on the NEWS, better to look at your own neighborhood, in our own backyards. the NEWS is full of poison, full of hate, full of violence, this will only lead to fear.
Hanzee seems to come from an area full of violence, and he is suggesting not to own a gun, that not owning a gun has kept him safe from the violence as no one fears him. this seems like very wise advice. I may one day be put in the situation where my families life is in danger, i will face this situation without a gun, and i will live with the consequences. if harm comes to a member of my family i will use my energy to care for them. i will not use my energy to get revenge(those days are over for me). no good can come from that.
if a fire is burning and you want it put out, do not add more wood. if the fire is out and you don't want it to reignite, remove the wood.

metta,
jason

[Mr Man]

Bodhisvasti where I live (London. UK) there is no reason to own a gun for self defence and no possibility to own a gun for self defence (legally). If there was the need or a possibility I would move.
---

Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth.
Dhp 223

[Ben]

Hi Cittasanto,

Hi Ben,
sorry for the late reply I had to go to work.
Yes, this is true we do need to take responcibility here hence I quoted the cetana sutta, but with the first thing I said "lay down the stick and club" ((despite the misrepresentation one person has made) which was a mis-memory for a pericope found in regard to the first precept of "They have laid down the club & blade" (MN40.7; AN8.41 for examples)) in mind this shows the laying aside of instuments used for punishment and death, which a gun is, its primary design function is death & harm.
if you look at a gun, you don't think someone is going to do something other than shoot, many things can be used/misused to kill, or harm, but a gun/rifle isn't being misused for such purposes (otherwise the armies, police forces, & hunters need informed) the use of targets be they clay pigeon or in a range is primarily to hone this skill in a controlled way.

but this is my opinion, based on my readings, the main one being mentioned, if someone has a gun that is their decision.
Cittasanto

No worries. I understand and appreciate your point of view.
kind regards,

Ben

[Truth_Seeker1989]

Whoa. I am not talking about just any news, I am talking about facts. You can go to your local library, or on the internet for local news, and see the kind of people that are out there.The fact that there are individuals 'everywhere' who might commit heinous acts against your family, and always will be, allows a Buddhist the choice of owning a gun without blame, or being called 'immoral'. What fire exactly are you feeding with wood when the attacker has no idea who you are, but just wants to bring harm to you and your loved ones? And yes, that is your choice not to own a gun, but I certainly hope you are not going to try and talk to the psociopath or rapist who invades your home, the thief who will use any tool, murder included, to get his pockets full of cash, because that would end very badly, with your life, and the life of your family at risk. And it 'would' be your fault, should any of them suffer, because you decided talking, and lack of preparation, would be the best option, when really, it was no option at all. This also has nothing to do with revenge, that is something for the Law to take care of.

Where does fear come into play here? Not every attacker will even know who you are, in fact most won't, when it comes to situations where a gun is necessary.

In the case of a Home Invasion, there is no fire to feed, there is only hate and ignorance at your door, inside your home, that cannot be spoken to, because they themselves are more then likely already going to be prepared.

Should a Monk own a gun? No, IMO. Should a Lay Practitioner own some kind of protection from against the outside world? Definately! It's common sense, logic. It doesn't have to be a gun, but preparation, a weapon of some kind, is a necessity. And when the attacker has a gun, anything that does not project a missile or bullet, will not suffice. That is logic.

[Truth_Seeker1989]

Bodhisvasti where I live (London. UK) there is no reason to own a gun for self defence and no possibility to own a gun for self defence (legally). If there was the need or a possibility I would move.
---

Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth.
Dhp 223

I wish it were like that here, Mr Man. But even there, and everywhere, there is a thing called illegal weapons trade. Just because there is a law making it illegal to own arms, does not mean that everyone is not going to have one, it just narrows down the types of people who would risk coming into your home and threatening your family.

[Cittasanto]

No more and no less than bowling.

Well bowling can not be used used in the same way for violence as it can for recreation.

A bowling ball can be -- and has been -- used as a murder weapon.

I never said it couldn't be used to kill. but were techneques a professional bowler uses to get that strike employed?

But you have totally, completely and absolutely not answered the point put to you.

Ben: What about the healthy pursuits of target shooting and trap shooting??

Cittasanto: Do these support or hold the possibility to support the continuation of consciousness or the development of consciousness that leads to unskilled states of mind?

And I stated: No more and no less than bowling.

Your replied: Well bowling can not be used used in the same way for violence as it can for recreation.

A bowling ball can be -- and has been -- used as a murder weapon, which, of course, does not answer the point raised. Ben and I were not talking about violence. Not in the least. Keep the context in mind when responding to the msg.[/quote]
please read what I say instead of what you want me to be saying
Like I was initially saying with that reply, a bowling ball used for violence is not used in the same way it is used for recreation.
just to demonstrate the point a vase has and can be used to kill, but its intended function & use is not death, that by any means does not mean it can not be used for such, just how it is used for the ceasing of life & how it should be used are different. this is the same with the bowling ball, its actual use and techneque of use is not going to of been employed.

but as you bring up context, the context of what I said regarding laying down the stick and club, is the first precept, I have in my last post corrected the misquote, within that context the Buddhas advise is clear, ahimsa, while being a practical teaching for followers of the Buddha is a big teaching within the teachings.

EDIT - I will add that the question is regarding practicing buddhists and the default here is what the Buddha taught, be that canon, or commentarial, I do not believe any of which say a practicing Buddhist should have weapons.

[jason c]

Whoa. I am not talking about just any news, I am talking about facts. You can go to your local library, or on the internet for local news, and see the kind of people that are out there.The fact that there are individuals 'everywhere' who might commit heinous acts against your family, and always will be, allows a Buddhist the choice of owning a gun without blame, or being called 'immoral'. What fire exactly are you feeding with wood when the attacker has no idea who you are, but just wants to bring harm to you and your loved ones? And yes, that is your choice not to own a gun, but I certainly hope you are not going to try and talk to the psociopath or rapist who invades your home, the thief who will use any tool, murder included, to get his pockets full of cash, because that would end very badly, with your life, and the life of your family at risk. And it 'would' be your fault, should any of them suffer, because you decided talking, and lack of preparation, would be the best option, when really, it was no option at all. This also has nothing to do with revenge, that is something for the Law to take care of.

Where does fear come into play here? Not every attacker will even know who you are, in fact most won't, when it comes to situations where a gun is necessary.

In the case of a Home Invasion, there is no fire to feed, there is only hate and ignorance at your door, inside your home, that cannot be spoken to, because they themselves are more then likely already going to be prepared.

Should a Monk own a gun? No, IMO. Should a Lay Practitioner own some kind of protection from against the outside world? Definately! It's common sense, logic. It doesn't have to be a gun, but preparation, a weapon of some kind, is a necessity. And when the attacker has a gun, anything that does not project a missile or bullet, will not suffice. That is logic.

dear bodhisvasti,

it would not be my fault, if someone else harmed a member of my family. and it would not be my fault if i could not prevent this from happening.

metta,
jason

[Truth_Seeker1989]

Wouldn't it though? It depends on what you did to prepare, now knowing the risks to your family from the outside world. And what you did, how you acted. Did you try to talk to the man as he tied you up and raped and/or murdered your wife? Did you try to talk to the man as he took your hard earned belongings? A weapon doesn't even have to be used alot of times, because even if they themselves have a gun, the moment they see that you do too, there is a good chance that they will leave anyways, as to not risk their life.

People in the ancient days, even Buddhists, had some form of 'preparation', wether it was traps, or a weapon, etc, etc, they had some sort of preparation, because then, as it is now, there are always people out there who might threaten harm to you and your own.

[Cittasanto]

Hi Dave

There will be a time when you are given 'no other option' but to use violence to protect yourself, and your family.

If attacked, the Vinaya allows the fourfold Sangha to strike back without fault, but never with the intent to kill.

I can see all manner of non-lethal self-defense methods being employed, everything from stun-guns to riot gear, but what sort of training is required before a gun-user can confidently declare a greater likelihood to wound, rather than kill, in the press of heated assault?

I am sorry but I do not believe the examples you give are in line with the vinaya.

The allowance is for the Bhikkhus & Bhikkhunis (the vinaya is for them & novices BTW)
the possession of such deffencive precautions also predisposes one to the notion of being attacked so fear based, as the allowance is for while being attacked not pre-emptive or in a riot situation which the BUddha never mentioned what a king... should do, and as a result the person would be living in a state of fear (or false security) this seams to me to be against his teachings (in light of the vinaya allowance)

That being said, the Buddha did recognise that rulers did have to (by the nature of the job) make decissions which were kammically unskilful, like punish criminals, enforce laws, protect the realm....

[Mr Man]

I wish it were like that here, Mr Man.

Do you mean that you wish there was no possibility of legally owning a gun for self defence where you live?

[Truth_Seeker1989]

Cittasanto, do you honestly believe you are without risk from you and your family being harmed? Not everyone has the beautiful life you have. Most live in areas where this is a chance. Self defense is a logical conclusion. When there is no other choice, but to fight for your loved ones, you take it.

In the days when an entire village was about to be raided, the villagers, even if they were Buddhist, took up arms, so that their livelihood was not threatened/destroyed. If you were that one villager who hid beneath a cart, and watched his people suffer to the onslaught, to your people, you were a coward. You can't hide behind blind teachings that only taught generalities, not certain circumstances that happened, and still happen, in everyday life. Logic goes a long way.

When protests fail, and aren't even allowed, no option but to fight, you fight. When the attacker intends harm against you, leaves no option but to fight back, you fight. When you see your family being harmed, and 'knew' that should you have used violence to protect them, that they would be fine, and even the attackers themselves, yet you did nothing, your a coward.

The key phrase here is, "When you have no option but to fight..."

[Truth_Seeker1989]

I wish it were like that here, Mr Man.

Do you mean that you wish there was no possibility of legally owning a gun for self defence where you live?

I wish it were made so that guns were not allowed, yes. But so long as they are to the masses, I will happily own one to defend myself. And if it were like that here, I would have a bow, I would have a sword, I would have some form of protection. Traps and safe-nets set up in my home, possibly a safehouse. But I would be prepared, because no harm will come to my loved ones, can I help it.

Here it is different, with so many people who are poor, and so many people who are addicted to drugs, who will do anything for it, it might be best to not allow it to the general public. But you live with what you have, you aren't allowed firearms, so get a bow, get a blade.

[SDC]

hi SDC,
my wife has a car, we both use it to run errands, its great! i speak from experience as someone who has abused the car privelage,(drinking and driving, speeding, road rage, etc....) my past is not very shiny. do not feel i'm being judgemental with my postings, most of them come from my own life experience. if i hadn't found the dhamma i am quite sure i would have killed someone or myself. i'm lucky to have woken up.

Thanks for the clarification.

[bodom]

Sharon Salzberg tells a story about being attacked on a rickshaw in Bodh Gaya and the advice her teacher Anagarika Munindra gave her:

I went up to one of my teachers, Munindra, and I told him what had happened, and he said to me, “Oh, Sharon, with all the lovingkindness in your heart, you should have taken your umbrella and hit that man over the head with it.”

http://www.bodhitree.com/node/1266

[cooran]

Hello Bodom,

The main purpose of an umbrella is not to wound or kill.

with metta,
Chris