Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During the latest debates on gun control, I've made an observation that frequently what boils down to the gun restriction vs. gun proliferation crowds is a sense of person and their sense of self in the greater whole.
Frequently, folks who favor more gun restriction see guns as a very lethal tool that does more harm to the group than brings it benefits. In other words, they see the big picture and believe that fewer guns around would inherently bring more safety through having the big picture change the dynamic at the individual level. Top-down, in other words.
On the other hand, folks who prefer gun proliferation see guns as a personal tool to increase personal safety, and the belief that more guns would necessarily mean a more secure whole. Bottom-up, in other words.
In situations like these, I tend to agree with the gun restriction crowd, but not outright banning it.
A Buddhist inherently hates anything that is violent, but given that banning guns is not likely nor would it be pragmatic, the most pragmatic thing to do in this case is to prevent it, as much as possible, from falling into the wrong hands.
And in this I see hope for killing two birds with one stone.
People who are mentally unstable should not be allowed to buy guns or ammunition for it, that much is certain, and I could see a means of moving forward with comprehensive mental health reform in this country could be the beginning of both solving this issue, reducing the probability of such disasters from happening again, and also treating the millions of Americans who suffer mental illness every day, from everything from alcoholism to genetic disorders.
Thoughts? Would comprehensive mental health reform and tying it to a recurring test to allow gun ownership be a potential means of reducing the probability of such tragedies in the future?
I think that if someone is declared mentally incompetent, then they should be institutionalized and kept under the care of a doctor. if that person is under the care of a doctor and was convicted of a crime, then when the doctor declres them sane and metally able to care for themselves, they should serve their sentence in a prison.
should we also have a criminal background check and a mental health exam in order to vote?
When voting booths start killing people we should. The vast majority of law enforcement agencies require said screening prior to issuing officers weapons, why should a random quack on the street not face the same standard?
During the latest debates on gun control, I've made an observation that frequently what boils down to the gun restriction vs. gun proliferation crowds is a sense of person and their sense of self in the greater whole.
Frequently, folks who favor more gun restriction see guns as a very lethal tool that does more harm to the group than brings it benefits. In other words, they see the big picture and believe that fewer guns around would inherently bring more safety through having the big picture change the dynamic at the individual level. Top-down, in other words.
On the other hand, folks who prefer gun proliferation see guns as a personal tool to increase personal safety, and the belief that more guns would necessarily mean a more secure whole. Bottom-up, in other words.
In situations like these, I tend to agree with the gun restriction crowd, but not outright banning it.
A Buddhist inherently hates anything that is violent, but given that banning guns is not likely nor would it be pragmatic, the most pragmatic thing to do in this case is to prevent it, as much as possible, from falling into the wrong hands.
And in this I see hope for killing two birds with one stone.
People who are mentally unstable should not be allowed to buy guns or ammunition for it, that much is certain, and I could see a means of moving forward with comprehensive mental health reform in this country could be the beginning of both solving this issue, reducing the probability of such disasters from happening again, and also treating the millions of Americans who suffer mental illness every day, from everything from alcoholism to genetic disorders.
Thoughts? Would comprehensive mental health reform and tying it to a recurring test to allow gun ownership be a potential means of reducing the probability of such tragedies in the future?
Along with limiting the amount of ammo that can be purchased and loaded into a gun. Limiting the types of guns. Additionally I would like to see ammo be marked in such a way that it can be determined who bought the ammo.
It's doesn't matter what you title your thread, people will argue over the same old points . . .
In this case, I personally think the Buddhist perspective is more evolved - NOT KILLING anything for any reason is the highest moral and ethical standpoint a person can take . . .and if you believe in karma, you would not WANT to kill . . .
Of course if you are obsessed with guns and need a phallic symbol to make you feel secure it's a whole other dynamic at work . . .
It would be awesome if people would run their beliefs through the lens of their spiritual beliefs (or religions) and see if they are in alignment . . .even the Judeo-Christian stance, as violent as the history has been with the Crusades and Inquisition and the nightmare in the Middle East - the holy books still have a COMMANDMENT "Thou Shalt Not Kill," which religious followers conveniently ignore. I honestly don't know how these gun fanatics think they can justify their stances from a spiritual/religious perspective - do they think "God" is going to forgive them for SHOOTING TO KILL when the COMMANDMENT says THOU SHALT NOT KILL? There is no fine print that says you can kill when convenient or when you think it makes sense.
In this sense, the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist doctrines are similar, but you would never know it by the acts of the latter "followers" (I use the term loosely because they "follow" loosely) . . .
When voting booths start killing people we should. The vast majority of law enforcement agencies require said screening prior to issuing officers weapons, why should a random quack on the street not face the same standard?
but also some dont require anything at all except a simple state backgorund check. I do not agree with doing anything or making laws against a right.
if you feel like screaming fire in a theater, good luck, as your actions might cause people to get hurt or get killed. then you pay the price for having your freedom of speech. if you cause murder with a firearm, then the same should happen to you.
but it is not the responsibility of goverment to make law against a Constitutional right.
I understand your viewpoint, and your logic is certainly refreshing, but this view can be problematic as well. India, where Buddhism originated, has a very gun adverse culture (at least compared to the USA), and that proved deadly in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. In Mumbai, few officers carried firearms, and those that did, carried old outdated pistols and bolt action rifles. The attackers, on the other hand, were armed with fully automatic AK-47 rifles (yes, those are already illegal in the US, and India), and far outgunned the police. Even more problematic, the officers with guns didn't really know how to use them properly. Eventually the military was called in the situation was resolved, but the police lost key gun battles in the early fighting that could have saved many lives.
It's doesn't matter what you title your thread, people will argue over the same old points . . .
In this case, I personally think the Buddhist perspective is more evolved - NOT KILLING anything for any reason is the highest moral and ethical standpoint a person can take . . .and if you believe in karma, you would not WANT to kill . . .
Of course if you are obsessed with guns and need a phallic symbol to make you feel secure it's a whole other dynamic at work . . .
It would be awesome if people would run their beliefs through the lens of their spiritual beliefs (or religions) and see if they are in alignment . . .even the Judeo-Christian stance, as violent as the history has been with the Crusades and Inquisition and the nightmare in the Middle East - the holy books still have a COMMANDMENT "Thou Shalt Not Kill," which religious followers conveniently ignore. I honestly don't know how these gun fanatics think they can justify their stances from a spiritual/religious perspective - do they think "God" is going to forgive them for SHOOTING TO KILL when the COMMANDMENT says THOU SHALT NOT KILL? There is no fine print that says you can kill when convenient or when you think it makes sense.
In this sense, the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist doctrines are similar, but you would never know it by the acts of the latter "followers" (I use the term loosely because they "follow" loosely) . . .
if guns were a phallic symbol, then no man would ever own a revolver with a 2 inch barrel. instead it tends to be a very good choice for CCW.
I dont believe in karma.
having talked with a rabbi before on the 10 Commandments, he has told me that the 6th Commanment of "thou shall not kill" is actually "thou shall not commit murder". it is just that the translations have gotten mixed up with all the translations. so I am not committing murder, but instead I am doing self defense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
