should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: No because we are walking a path of peace (supposedly)
Again, that is your opinion. I prefer my opinion. Because I own a gun and I use it occasionally to put holes in tin cans does not mean I am not established in walking a path of peace.
I doubt you know what my opinion is.
You have been repeatedly voicing it here.
and I will stick with the Buddhas option not my own preferences
Your opinion as to what that is.
Visakhuposatha Sutta wrote:"'For all their lives the arahants dwell having abandoned killing living beings, refrain from killing living beings, they have laid down their staffs, laid down their weapons, they are conscientious, sympathetic, compassionate for the good of all living beings;
That certainly would apply if I pointed my gun at living beings with the intent to kill them, but since I do not, it certainly does not apply, and no one here has made a definitive, unassailable argument that it does apply, though you have voiced your opinion on the matter of this text. The context is quite clear, having to to do with killing, which I do not do.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by rowboat »

Visakhuposatha Sutta wrote:
"'For all their lives the arahants dwell having abandoned killing living beings, refrain from killing living beings, they have laid down their staffs, laid down their weapons, they are conscientious, sympathetic, compassionate for the good of all living beings
:goodpost:
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by rowboat »

Ben wrote:Hi Tilt,

Certainly where I work, some nights we have a local (licenced) shooter who comes on site controlling feral animals.
I think you mean to say he is killing the animals. Please don't employ euphemisms that trivialize or attempt to conceal violence.
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
Doshin
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:01 am

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by Doshin »

tiltbillings wrote:
Doshin wrote:
-So imagine a real life situation: ...
tiltbillings wrote:And if I don't have a gun, the enemy soldier kills me and everyone else in the tent. I'll go with Gandhi on this.
Soldiers are trained to instinctively kill every threat. So if he sees you reach for a gun, he would kill you before thinking (that's his training). If he sees doctors uniforms and you with your hands up, he is much less likely to kill you. I don't think you stand a chance against a professional soldier pointing a gun at you, if you are a doctor reaching for a gun.

Even if you get the chance to kill him, he probably just is one in a big group of enemy soldiers; and their next step would probably be to just throw some handgrenades into your tent.
These things such this imagenary stuff are absurd. ...
Never the less, you made your point on this imaginary setup.
tiltbillings wrote:... In the real world there have been 1-AO status individuals who have served for moral/religious reasons as unarmed medics who have in dire situations picked up a weapon to protect their wounded compatriots and themselves against an attacking enemy. The Vietcong was not big on taking prisoners during heavy firefights.
I'm not sure what you want to state by this. I only wanted to express my belief that reaching for a gun in the imaginary setup, I find it most likely to bring more killing/harming, then if one where to take a more mindfull approach.
Knowing about dhamma, does not imply knowing dhamma
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by tiltbillings »

Doshin wrote:I'm not sure what you want to state by this. I only wanted to express my belief that reaching for a gun in the imaginary setup, I find it most likely to bring more killing/harming, then if one where to take a more mindfull approach.
Except, you do not know that. You can only hope that that would be so.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by rowboat »

That certainly would apply if I pointed my gun at living beings with the intent to kill them, but since I do not, it certainly does not apply, and no one here has made a definitive, unassailable argument that it does apply, though you have voiced your opinion on the matter of this text. The context is quite clear, having to to do with killing, which I do not do.
You shoot at thin aluminum cans with a .22 rifle. The bullets either strike the cans and pass through them or they fly past the cans. You have no real way of knowing whether the bullets are in fact harming small creatures just beyond the range or your targets.
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by Ben »

Hi Mr Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Ben wrote:
Target shooting! Target shooting is a wholesome pursuit and Olympic sport!

Hi Ben
What do you think about the idea of owning a gun like a glock 19 for self defence purposes?
Its not something that I would ever consider, to be honest.
Perhaps for some people gun ownership makes them feel more secure - but does it actually make them more secure?
I don't know - I'm just asking the question.
And, no doubt, there are people who will have a real need for owning a hand-gun for their own protection. Having known some ex-patriot South Africans I have been told of some very scary incidents. I am thankful for living in a country and society where there is a high-degree of gun control.
kind regards,

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by tiltbillings »

rowboat wrote:
That certainly would apply if I pointed my gun at living beings with the intent to kill them, but since I do not, it certainly does not apply, and no one here has made a definitive, unassailable argument that it does apply, though you have voiced your opinion on the matter of this text. The context is quite clear, having to to do with killing, which I do not do.
You shoot at thin aluminum cans with a .22 rifle. The bullets either strike the cans and pass through them or they fly past the cans. You have no real way of knowing whether the bullets are in fact harming small creatures just beyond the range or your targets.
Not knowing a thing about the set up I use, you have not a clue as to what you are talking about.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by Cittasanto »

Ben wrote:Hi Cittasanto,
Cittasanto wrote: Yes, there is only so much one can do, and that does sound responcible, however, what is the need to use, or have a devise which only has a destructive purpose as a practicing Buddhist?
Target shooting! Target shooting is a wholesome pursuit and Olympic sport!

And here is your Heather Fell (Silver medalist)
fellshooting.jpg
Not very destructive, unless you consider the perforation of paper targets destructive!
kind regards,

Ben
so with no modification (of use or power) the gun could not turned on a person and not cause (at least) injury?
although in this case as you are describing on a range, like I said that is (in my opinion) up to the person, but will only point to my earlier post quoted also. for my having a weapon (its design & purpose) while on the path is antithetical.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by rowboat »

tiltbillings: Not knowing a thing about the set up I use, you have not a clue as to what you are talking about.
Do you shoot your .22 rifle at thin aluminum cans indoors? Or do you shoot your .22 rifle at aluminum cans outdoors?
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by Ben »

rowboat wrote:
Ben wrote:Hi Tilt,

Certainly where I work, some nights we have a local (licenced) shooter who comes on site controlling feral animals.
I think you mean to say he is killing the animals. Please don't employ euphemisms that trivialize or attempt to conceal violence.
I don't condone what he does and I don't employ him. "Controlling feral animals" is not a euphemism - it is what it is.
kind regards,

Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by tiltbillings »

Cittasanto wrote:so with no modification (of use or power) the gun could not turned on a person and not cause (at least) injury?
although in this case as you are describing on a range, like I said that is (in my opinion) up to the person, but will only point to my earlier post quoted also. for my having a weapon (its design & purpose) while on the path is antithetical.
With no modification one's large butcher knife can be used to stab someone to death. Without any modification one's cricket bat can be used to bludgeon another to death and on and on.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
rowboat
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:31 am
Location: Brentwood Bay

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by rowboat »

Ben wrote:
rowboat wrote:
Ben wrote:Hi Tilt,

Certainly where I work, some nights we have a local (licenced) shooter who comes on site controlling feral animals.
I think you mean to say he is killing the animals. Please don't employ euphemisms that trivialize or attempt to conceal violence.
I don't condone what he does and I don't employ him. "Controlling feral animals" is not a euphemism - it is what it is.
kind regards,

Ben
I'm glad you don't condone the killing. You are wrong about that euphemism. Replacing language that has to do with death and killing with a euphemistic word like control is the quintessential example of euphemism.

eu·phe·mism/ˈyo͞ofəˌmizəm/
Noun:
A mild or indirect word or expression for one too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
Last edited by rowboat on Fri Jun 08, 2012 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it.
Ud 5.5
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: I doubt you know what my opinion is.
You have been repeatedly voicing it here.
and you have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said from the start. so I highly doubt you know you do.
Visakhuposatha Sutta wrote:"'For all their lives the arahants dwell having abandoned killing living beings, refrain from killing living beings, they have laid down their staffs, laid down their weapons, they are conscientious, sympathetic, compassionate for the good of all living beings;
That certainly would apply if I pointed my gun at living beings with the intent to kill them, but since I do not, it certainly does not apply,
It says "they have laid down their staffs... weapons" it doesn't say anything about continued use of such weapons after.
and no one here has made a definitive, unassailable argument that it does apply, though you have voiced your opinion on the matter of this text. The context is quite clear, having to to do with killing, which I do not do.
the context is actually widened to more than just killing alone, or is "conscientious, sympathetic, compassionate for the good of all living beings" only about not killing, and not about other forms of ahimsa?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: should a practicing buddhist own a gun?

Post by Cittasanto »

tiltbillings wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:so with no modification (of use or power) the gun could not turned on a person and not cause (at least) injury?
although in this case as you are describing on a range, like I said that is (in my opinion) up to the person, but will only point to my earlier post quoted also. for my having a weapon (its design & purpose) while on the path is antithetical.
With no modification one's large butcher knife can be used to stab someone to death. Without any modification one's cricket bat can be used to bludgeon another to death and on and on.
Actually that would be a modification of purpose. I have highlighted the relevant line you missed!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Locked