The last time I fired a weapon was almost 40 years ago.
My decision to not ever fire a weapon again since has been resolute. A blog post I wrote nearly four years ago explains why. But there's a more fundamental
reason for me to not own a gun.
Owning a gun means I have formulated the intention to
kill. I may never kill anyone or anything while owning a gun, but the intention
would be there, for why else would anyone own a gun?
First, let me clarify something. I do not begrudge people
who hunt, nor do I view them with any form of disdain, and nor will I attempt
to take their opportunities to hunt away from them. Having said that, hunting
involves killing, regardless of the purpose, or, more precisely, the intent.
The Buddha teaches that nothing occurs without consequence - "when this is, that is ... when this isn't, that isn't" - and that all
actions are preceded by an intention. This is the core of his teaching on
kamma.
But while kamma has everything to do with cause and
effect, it is not linear; rather, it's more like loops of feedback that occur
in our lives because we always have the opportunity to eliminate our kamma with
the creation of every new intention and subsequent action. The Buddha's
teaching about The Salt Crystal is pertinent here. As the Buddha teaches, if you put a
teaspoon of salt into a glass of water, the water will taste salty; but if you
put a teaspoon of salt into the Ganges, the water will not taste salty. So a
single act within the greater context of your lifetime - or multiple lifetimes
- holds negligible consequence because of all the other actions you can
take to "dilute" the salt's presence.
That's important to remember, that we can
"dilute" our actions, but we can never eliminate what has already
happened; the salt does not disappear, it just cannot be tasted.
Hunting, to me, is like the teaspoon of salt in a river,
but even that depends on the reasons behind why a person hunts. A person who
hunts to provide food for his or her family creates kamma different from the
person who hunts for sport.
Killing another person? That's a tablespoon of salt in a
glass of water. Even with saying that, however, all homicides are not equal and
the kamma created will be as varied as the intention behind the act. The point
is, no one is immune from the consequences of killing, regardless of intent.
Which is why I will not own a firearm. Particularly a
handgun. There is no other purpose for a handgun other than to kill another
human. Even if self-defense, owning a handgun is done with full knowledge that
it may be used to kill another person. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding
him or herself.
And this is why I believe that Michael Dunn is guilty of
murder, plain and simple. I have seen some comments on Twitter following the
jury's verdict wondering how difficult it will become in the future to prove
intent behind premeditated murder when it comes to self-defense. For me it's
quite simple. Michael Dunn had formed the intention to kill someone long ago,
and I suspect his intention was to specifically kill a black youth. All Dunn
was waiting for was the right opportunity.
That is why I will not own a firearm of any kind.
A person unknowing:
the actions performed by him,
born of greed, born of aversion,
& born of delusion,
whether many or few,
are experienced right here:
no
other ground is found.
So a monk, knowing,
sheds
greed, aversion, & delusion;
giving rise to clear knowledge, he
sheds
all bad destinations.
Nice point. One could probably follow back to a certain instance in his life as well that proceeded the gun purchase.
ReplyDelete