Do You Need a Gun?
I don't. I hope never to find myself in a situation where I would have needed one to protect my life--though I concede that this is a dire possibility in a country where guns seem so prevalent. They are designed for only one purpose: to kill. And I myself am enough in tune with Buddhist teachings to believe that the taking of life is wrong in any circumstance--and, yes, that includes the saving of my own. I'm not naïve enough to believe that I wouldn't resort to violence in order to preserve my life, but I would not prepare for that contingency with the purchase of a gun.
In this context, I find it strange and profoundly unsettling that in all the news media reports on the recent senseless killing sprees in Nebraska and Colorado, I have heard virtually nothing about the guns that were used. If anyone has been speculating about how a deadly assault weapon ended up in the hands of a teenager who was well known by authorities to be mentally unstable and a young man whose rage and hatred were already on record, I have not heard or read it.
I'm ready to stick my neck way out here and say that I find it incomprehensible and disgraceful that this sad history should have been allowed to repeat itself yet again in a country that suffers the evident delusion of being civilized. It's incomprehensible and disgraceful that the question is not in the headlines of the media and on the tongue of every presidential candidate.
And has anyone given any thought to how sad it is that a church should need to employ armed guards in this "Christian" country? Apparently the Colorado case is confirmation of the need for such protection, since the assassin was killed (in a timely fashion, true) by a woman security officer. We can be grateful to this brave woman that many lives were spared, and at the same time rue the fact that her presence was necessary.
Is this not yet another piece of evidence that what we are pleased to tout to the rest of the world as our "democracy" is, at best, a malfunctioning oligarchy, at worst, a mere plutocracy? Are we not ashamed that a small minority of fanatics should be able to intimidate our leaders and our representatives into continued support for a policy that the vast majority find loathsome? How could anyone in their right mind believe that those who authored the founding documents of this country intended that fire power be readily available to morons and maniacs alike ("militias," anyone?)--let alone weapons of a destructive power that would have been unimaginable to those good men?
I am perplexed. Here is candidate Rudy Giuliani, formerly a rational proponent of gun control to stem the violence in the city of which he once was mayor, now doing a volte-face in order to escape the displeasure of the National Rifle Association and its followers. There is a row of Republican candidates confronted with an absurd and hostile UTube question from a pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-hands yahoo, rushing to surrender simple good sense to political contingency.
As for the Democratic candidates, check this out: Senator Biden "does not have a policy on gun control." Senator Clinton "does not have a policy on gun control." Senator Barack Obama "does not have a policy on gun control." Same with Edwards, Of the whole bunch of them, only Sen. Mike Gravel even has a statement: "While Senator Gravel fully supports the 2nd Amendment," it reads, "he believes that fundamental change must take place with regards to gun ownership. The senator advocates a licensing program where a potential gun owner must be licensed as well as properly trained with a firearm before they may own one." Well, bully for him. But what a weak-kneed, milquetoast qualification. (Dennis Kucinich, I'm happy to say, was rated "F" by the NRA, but I could not find a policy statement on his site.)
So where is sanity? When do we begin to recognize that not every American citizen needs, or has a right to an assault weapon to protect his home, his family, his person. As for those who choose to hunt deer, or bears, or rabbits, or squirrels, or whatever other of God's creatures they like to assassinate, are shotguns and rifles not weaponry enough for their valiant efforts?
Actually, I'm beyond perplexed. I'm outraged. And no, I don't need to go our and buy a gun for my defense.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"let alone weapons of a destructive power that would have been unimaginable to those good men"
Yet, "those who authored the founding documents" figured that cannons ought not be confiscated by the government. And those cannon had more destructive power than a 30cal semi-auto rifle.
On April 19, 1775, General Gage's men marched to Concord to take cannon that were owned by some folk of that town. Men stood up to the strongest army in the world and fired the "shot that was heard around the world."
We're just lucky that there weren't many Buddhists in Lexington that day.
As a Buddhist, I can say that what Clothier says is certainly NOT Buddhism! Buddhism abhors violence in self-defense, but is OK with *force* in self-defense. The difference is clear. Violence in self-defense means shooting someone when they are no longer a threat, ie. shooting or maiming someone when they have ceased their aggression. Force in self defense means shooting only until the threat has ceased, then calling for assistance to preserve your attacker's life if possible.
(I am well armed, but I do not hunt, of course. Hunting violates ahimsa. I am a vegetarian.)
If a lethal attacker comes at me, and I shoot him, has he not done violence to *himself* resulting in his death? I would not have shot him otherwise!
Secondly, does ending the life of an attacker that intends to kill you not reduce the karmic consequences for *him*, by preventing him from doing further harm to others?
"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-- The Dalai Lama
"If we feel we cannot avoid maiming or killing [in self-defense], we can at least try to do it… with regret at having to cause another pain. If our intention to cause harm is weak, the karmic effect of the act will be less.”
-- Buddhist Union, Oct. 96: 7
The reason that corrupted versions of Buddhism like Mr. Clothier's exist is because of Buddhist sects having to concede to various totalitarian governments that they will not forment any resistance to oppression by incorporating complete pacifism into their theology.
Armed resistance to those that would cause you death or harm is a profound service to one's own Buddha-nature.
Namaste.
(apologies if this is a repeat; previous attempt seemed to fail)
A pacifist woman might choose not to try to scratch out the eyes of the man who is raping her. But a woman who holds down the arms of a woman being raped to prevent her from scratching out his eyes is not a pacifist -- she is a violent aggressor.
The forced imposition of pacifism upon others is violent aggression, and Mr. Clothier violates Buddhist principles when he works for laws that do just that.
Mike Gravel is the only candidate honest and forthright enough to actually come out and attempt to confront what is a nationwide epidemic of gun violence.
Unfortunately, too many in this country are of the "pry it out of my cold, dead hand" mentality to even try to approach this problem with any sensibility.
How many more Columbines, Virginia Techs, or other mass casualty tragedies will it take before we realize that we don't need guns to protect us from the British Army anymore, as our otherwise very wise founders intended?
Nice example of elitist, social bigotry by a "weak-kneed, milquetoast." He doesn't need to own a nasty gun, because those scary police officers who do carry the icky things will come instantly to his call and save him from the peasant savages. Shoot the rapists and murderers if you must, as long as he doesn't have to do it himself. Just leave the dirty work to the working class, don't you know.
Some thoughts resulting from reading your post.
If one lives in an upscale neighborhood with a well-financed police department - I suppose one can conclude that they don't 'need' a firearm. SCOTUS explicitly ruled on the role of the police wrt providing protection from crime. Briefly, their only obligation is to respond to a call for assistance in good faith IF you can successfully communicate a request. We have over 1 million citizens in the midwest, isolated due to weather - no one can provide for their protection except themselves.
As for the weapons used - if not stolen they may have been illegally possessed at any rate. Consider the simple shotgun. Using standard hunting rounds the damage done at Va Tech and these other events would have been much worse. The typical #4 - 000bk rounds launch 12-15 pellets or more with severe consequences for each shot. At the ranges involved there is no advantage using other weapons. So much for banning these weapons without banning 'standard' hunting firearms and 'standard' hunting loads. The founding fathers would have no difficulty understanding shotguns.
Israel has no problem with ownership of standard weapons at locations of worship. Maybe time to shake the religious ideal of 'victimhood'.
The rest of the world has a way to go before they can say anything about this society and 'violence'. For example, we bailed out Europe twice and must keep tens of thousands of troops there lest they go back to killing each other by the tens of millions.
Politically, all the candidates know the 'gun issue' is a loser. Reference Pres. Clinton's writings re gun laws and the mid 90s transfer of congress.
Licensing and certification for firearms ownership will not stand in the courts and will be misused to restrict a basic right. Remember 'literacy tests'?
Kucinich wants a complete ban on civilian ownership of handguns.
What you call 'assault weapons' are very good for home defense. Easy to aim and shoot. Shotguns are much more deadly, dangerous and problematical wrt home defense. Overkill and collateral damage due to projectile spread are significant issues.
Thanks for a breath of sanity, westwind!
Do I NEED a gun?
An utterly irrelevant question. My Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is no more contingent on my NEED for a gun (or for a whole house full of .50 caliber machine guns, next door to a nursery school and a children's hospital) than your right to free speech is contingent on your NEED to say something.
The unspeakable evil of murder is not the fault of the right to keep and bear arms, it's the fault of the evil people who commit the murders, and citizen disarmament will only create more helpless prey for said evil people.
Why are you "happy to say" Kucinich was was rated F by the NRA? What do you know about them besides what the media reports? Can you tell me what an "assault weapon" is Is it very spiritual to denigrate 4 million people based on what they hold dear?
Listening to people twist logic to show why everyone should have a gun, or at least be allowed to own the biggest most destructive gun ever created, would be amusing if it wasn't so dispiriting. It's always easier to break down than to build, to destroy rather than create. People like that live in fear, although they would never admit it, probably even to themselves.
Instead of working to build a world in which gun violence is an aberration, these people have a vision of a world where everyone carries heat, all gun violence is answered by a hail of bullets from similarly armed 'good guys', and revenge is just a pull of the trigger away, heedless of that quaint old concept called justice. Who needs courts, education, policing, rehabilitation, and a society which is equitable enough to take away the cause of most gun violence, when we have Charles Bronson wannabees ever alert to prove their prowess at destruction?
I have never owned a gun and never will, despite having lived a large part of my life in an African city with one of the highest murder rates in the world. People may think that having a gun gives them security, but instead it radically raises the chance of accident or suicide, drains the spirit, and increases paranoia.
Well Pete, the government is armed to the teeth, and many of us are not sure the government has the best intentions towards it's citizens and their right to dissent. We are headed towards a police state funded by homeland security money. Also, If more citizens had guns maybe some of these mass shootings could be stopped quicker. Every issue of American Rifleman magazine has 5 or 10 instances a month of people successfully defending their lives and property with guns. Like Hunter S. Thompson, I believe the ACLU and the NRA are needed to protect our constitutional rights. I don't believe animals should be assassinated either, even if they are public figures, and the assassin has a political motive. Your outrage, profound unsettlement, perplexity, sadness, and incomprehensibility, are really uncalled for. Get a grip man.
What about tasers? It seems to me that there are safer devices available that people could use if they need to feel safe.
Well, Pete, that you can see no distinction between violence and self defense only shows how metaphysically, epistemologically, and morally corrupt you are. No wonder you’re confused and perplexed!
Violence is an act of physical force initiated by a criminal against another person in violation of their rights. Self defense is an act of physical force by a lawful citizen in retaliation against violence. The two are polar opposites, not corollaries.
If saving the lives of “God’s creatures” ranks high on your list, then why do the lives of innocent lawful citizens mean nothing to you?
If you think gun control is the answer, please explain why all these high profile multiple victim shootings keep occurring in places where guns are completely banned like this mall and schools?
England banned handguns in January 1997, but since then gun crime in England and Wales has nearly doubled in seven years from 1997 to 2004. In that same time frame, crime has soared by 88%, armed robberies by 101%, rapes by 105%, and homicides by 24%. Where’s the peaceful society gun control was supposed to bring?
Guns are not the problem. Guns have been around for hundreds of years, so why is this type of violence only recent?
In view of the last seven years, I don't just want a gun, I want a effing arsenal!
Yes, I was once like you. Happy to be gunless and carefree. That was pre-Bush. Now I have had a change of heart. Like all things Bush, he has taken an issue and forced a solution based on his policies. It used to be that a gun was not needed for protection. The police could do a decent job of protecting you and your family. Now, with budget cuts so that the 'war' can be continued indefinately, police departments are strapped and no longer ever pretend to persue property crimes. It will not be much longer before they give up on protecting people also. So now I must get a gun. A big gun that hold lots of bullets. Strangely enough not to protect me and my family from criminals,no, to protect me an my family from roving gangs of 'security contractors' that will be patrolling the streets of the USA after Bush declares martial law just ahead of the 08 elections. I have come the the conclusion that Bush intends not to remake Iraq in the image of America, but to remake America in the image of Iraq. For that, I will need a gun. AAMF, I will need lots of guns. Good thing I live in Texas. They pass 'em out in grade school here.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
