Here in Michigan thousands of deer are hit by cars every year. I have hit a deer right in the Lansing area. It did minor damage to my car and ran off. I was lucky. Many people are seriously injured or killed in deer collisions. I would much rather see hunters take the deer than cars. I personally do not think I would get much joy out of blasting Bambi, but I pay people to kill cows for me so who am I to point fingers. I'm glad there are folks who don't mind keeping the deer population down.
I don't see how killing another creature can be considered 'recreational'. To me, it seems to be mostly an ugly act. I can understand if you need food, but doing it 'just for the pleasure of it', I just don't see it!
I understand that young psyco-paths start with small animals, before they 'graduate' to large prey. In my experience, people that brag about killing things, get off on telling others about their cruelity, and often use threat as an attempt to obtain power over others.
Maybe killing animals is a rite of passage for young males in our culture. My father suggested that smoking, drinking, and killing things was the 'manly' thing to do. But when he killed animals for no other reason than to prove his 'power over' other creatures, killing a rattle snake as an example, I realized that there was a little more involved than necessity.
Here's the problem: You can say all day long how you feel or think or believe, it doesn't change the fact that you don't even remotely have any argument that objectively proves it's immorality. And, do you want to know the difference between hunters and "anti-hunters" I guess you can say? Hunters don't try to force those against it to hunt. Instead, they just hunt themselves, but people like you try to tell others what to do, when you argument has absolutely no foundation to stand on. Simply put, who cares how you "feel"? That gives you no added rights to tell hunters not to hunt, just as it doesn't give hunters the right to force you to hunt.
Many people try to them revert to belittling others by saying they're less evolved, but natural selection would never allow for someone so sympathetic to prosper. If it weren't for firearms and the use weapons in the past, you wouldn't be here. Evolution makes people strong, not sympathetic towards everything.
I'm not a sociopath or psychopath, but the killing of animals surely doesn't make one as such. Simply put, most people that I know who hunt, are very kind and caring people. I've read a few books on sociopaths, and it's purely BS in my opinion, as I know many people who would be considered a sociopath but aren't. It's natural to care for your own species over others. It's those who don't feel this way that are the true psychotics.
RE: "If it weren't for firearms and the use weapons in the past, you wouldn't be here" - I really hadn't intended to make more than the one comment on this thread, but this statement made me change my mind. If the firearms, and all of the weapons that originated with the Chinese invention of gunpowder, which, by extension, includes all of the forms of bombs that Mankind has developed, disappeared and left us with only rocks, I suspect that far more of us would be here, than are.
More likely that a lot of different people would be here rather than us.
So the concepts of negotiation and compromise totally escape you --?
Tell me why in the hell we should negotiate? All you want is to take my rights away, while keeping all of yours intact. Any "compromise" only affects hunters, but not you, hence why you're so adamant about one. Okay, lets do this, I'll shoot less deer, but you have to shoot at least one deer a year. Oh, hold on now, when it affects you, it's a little different, but let's compromise.. Simply put, hunters aren't trying to force you to hunt, so how about you quit trying to force hunters to stop? That's my problem with it. If you simply didn't like to hunt or didn't agree with it, but kept to yourself, I'd be fine, but you don't. You sir, are worse than a Christian.
RE: "All you want is to take my rights away" - apparently not all of them, you've still retained the right to be obtuse.
RE: "without the use of weapons, none of us would be here because we would probably be extinct. Its called natural selection. Without force, we would have lost."
When I asked what about negotiation and compromise, I wasn't talking about compromising and negotiating between hunters and non-hunters, I referred to the enemies we've had in the past, upon whom we have used our guns, and with whom, negotiation and compromise might have been preferable to killing.
Native Americans coexisted for over 13,000 years here without guns, they managed to spread from the tip of Alaska to the tip of South America without them.
And yes, I thought you were referring to wars when you said we owed our survival to guns - your statement followed my post regarding gunpowder, bombs and such, and it seemed to be in response to it.
Native Americans were mainly hunter/gatherers with some later turning to agriculture. They also waged a war, though war is usually the result of populations "bouncing" into each other and the pre-Columbian era saw a very sparsely populated Americas. The more densely populated Central America saw more war than the lesser so South and North America. Some of them also believed in human sacrifice for religious purposes.
Definitely not the cauldron of peaceful coexistence and general kumbaya-ness you seem to believe it to have been, later anti-Western propaganda notwithstanding.