buying/using gun

[sentinel]

Shoot to wound or disarm may not suitable for an ordinary person without proper training . If you have option dont buy the gun to avoid commiting a killing by accident or get your self kill in defense situation .

[DooDoot]

after covid, i might be going to some country like israel and live for sometime where all citizens are recommended to own their own gun ..

1990 years ago, like you, it is said Jesus went from India to Judea to save the lost sheep of Israel & all sentient beings. Jesus never owned a gun or sword. If you take the Bodhisattva Vow, you can be the next Jesus and save the sentient beings in Israel, Gaza and even neighboring Lebanon, who seem to really need the help of a Bodhisattva. SteRo, CL & Holy Ghost.

[confusedlayman]

after covid, i might be going to some country like israel and live for sometime where all citizens are recommended to own their own gun ..

1990 years ago, like you, it is said Jesus went from India to Judea to save the lost sheep of Israel & all sentient beings. Jesus never owned a gun or sword. If you take the Bodhisattva Vow, you can be the next Jesus and save the sentient beings in Israel, Gaza and even neighboring Lebanon, who seem to really need the help of a Bodhisattva. SteRo, CL & Holy Ghost.

But jesus is not bodhisattva he was a puthujana ... by the way thanks for suggesting me a activity to do in free time if i go there after final confirmation

[[james]]

Using a gun to defend oneself is fine as long as it’s for self defence and to disarm/scare away. If there is a confrontation and the person dies from the gun shot there is no fault on the part of the person who shot them, as long as he did not intend to kill said person.

Other than scale, how does the intention of little ol’ you or me to threaten or scare away with a gun differ from the intentions of lesser or greater nation states to do the same with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction? Once the weapon is in hand situations arise in the fearful mind that call for its use. Acquiring a weapon for “self defense” is already the action, kamma, of a fearful mind. What reasonable expectation can there be that this same fearful mind will be cautious in the use of that weapon?

[Ceisiwr]

Using a gun to defend oneself is fine as long as it’s for self defence and to disarm/scare away. If there is a confrontation and the person dies from the gun shot there is no fault on the part of the person who shot them, as long as he did not intend to kill said person.

Other than scale, how does the intention of little ol’ you or me to threaten or scare away with a gun differ from the intentions of lesser or greater nation states to do the same with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction? Once the weapon is in hand situations arise in the fearful mind that call for its use. Acquiring a weapon for “self defense” is already the action, kamma, of a fearful mind. What reasonable expectation can there be that this same fearful mind will be cautious in the use of that weapon?

It’s the same principle. I’m fine with nuclear weapons. I think they have been, overall, a force for good. The Buddha said that rulers should have armies and protect their borders. I’m sorry if this clashes with your personal politics.

[Aloka]

after covid, i might be going to some country like israel and live for sometime where all citizens are recommended to own their own gun ..

1990 years ago, like you, it is said Jesus went from India to Judea to save the lost sheep of Israel & all sentient beings. Jesus never owned a gun or sword. If you take the Bodhisattva Vow, you can be the next Jesus and save the sentient beings in Israel, Gaza and even neighboring Lebanon, who seem to really need the help of a Bodhisattva. SteRo, CL & Holy Ghost.

[confusedlayman]

Using a gun to defend oneself is fine as long as it’s for self defence and to disarm/scare away. If there is a confrontation and the person dies from the gun shot there is no fault on the part of the person who shot them, as long as he did not intend to kill said person.

Other than scale, how does the intention of little ol’ you or me to threaten or scare away with a gun differ from the intentions of lesser or greater nation states to do the same with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction? Once the weapon is in hand situations arise in the fearful mind that call for its use. Acquiring a weapon for “self defense” is already the action, kamma, of a fearful mind. What reasonable expectation can there be that this same fearful mind will be cautious in the use of that weapon?

true

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

If you believe that a gun provides a deterrent, then buy a gun, but do not buy any bullets, or buy only blank cartridges. That way, you won't be able to kill anyone if you panic.

However, for a Buddhist it is more appropriate to rely on loving-kindness and mindfulness for protection.

[confusedlayman]

If you believe that a gun provides a deterrent, then buy a gun, but do not buy any bullets, or buy only blank cartridges. That way, you won't be able to kill anyone if you panic.

However, for a Buddhist it is more appropriate to rely on loving-kindness and mindfulness for protection.

yes bhante,,

[bodom]

However, for a Buddhist it is more appropriate to rely on loving-kindness and mindfulness for protection.

Bhante isn't there somewhere in the Vinaya that says a monk can fight off a would be attacker if need be?

[[james]]

It’s the same principle. I’m fine with nuclear weapons. I think they have been, overall, a force for good. The Buddha said that rulers should have armies and protect their borders. I’m sorry if this clashes with your personal politics.

The principle that ... we should let fear and paranoia guide our actions? What is the good in a life of fear of “Mutually Assured Destruction”?

No need to be sorry. I don’t have a gun.

[Ceisiwr]

It’s the same principle. I’m fine with nuclear weapons. I think they have been, overall, a force for good. The Buddha said that rulers should have armies and protect their borders. I’m sorry if this clashes with your personal politics.

The principle that ... we should let fear and paranoia guide our actions? What is the good in a life of fear of “Mutually Assured Destruction”?

No need to be sorry. I don’t have a gun.

All self defence involves some level of fear, which is to say aversion. For kings and states it is right that they have arimes. If the army can act as a deterent without needing to go to actual war, even better. Personally I do not live in constant fear or nuclear war. I don't know anyone who does.

[bodom]

Answered my own question.

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

“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 K/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.”

(Pratimoksa, Vinaya Pitaka), Rule 74.

[Ceisiwr]

Answered my own question.

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

“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 K/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.”

(Pratimoksa, Vinaya Pitaka), Rule 74.

[Mr Man]

Answered my own question.

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

“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 K/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.”

(Pratimoksa, Vinaya Pitaka), Rule 74.

And the rule is only in relation to striking a bhikkhu. It is a lesser offence to strike a non-bhikkhu (even in anger and not in self-defence).

I wouldn't take the exceptions to the rule as an endorsement of violent self-defence.