• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should felons own guns?

Perhaps we could leave that to the ecologists then?
 
"Do hunters and other "true sportsmen" not want to kill the animal?"

That is a goal of hunting, but that's not what you stated above, which was "people in camoflage who just want to kill something," implying that was the ONLY reason for hunting. It's not!


"I thought that's what hunting was. Generally people hunt because they either want the fun of shooting a deer or the fun of eating deer chili that is in turn the product of shooting a deer."
Then you have a poor understanding of hunters and the hunting sport.

"I've never heard of anyone going hunting because of their duty over mother nature to control the growing population of deer."

And you still haven't heard that, because that's not what I stated or implied.
 
Well, help me understand hunting. You're killing a deer, not because you want to but... because you can? ...because you're good at it? Really I would like to understand. Being the hippy/pacifist I am, I could never put a cap in Bambi or Bambi's mom or Chewbacca. I just couldn't do it.
 
Try and realize that hunting is physically as well as mentally demanding. It's not as easy as it looks on the commercial videos. It's not just a matter of going to the woods and shooting an animal and going home and having a bowl of chili and a beer.

Rather than me trying to explain, might I suggest that you take a hunter education course, which most states offer free or at a very low cost. You will be under no obligation to ever hunt, but you will be exposed to many different people, whose ideas of what hunting is to each will vary but run along the same baseline.

I quit hunting years ago, other than accompanying (No firearm) my sons, and hopefully teaching them some respect for both life and death of everything living.
 
Where is the respect for life in killing an animal?
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Where is the respect for life in killing an animal?
Click to expand...
That's a bit of a can of worms statement there.

The problem is a bit complex here in Minnesota and Wisconsin. First off, the population of humans. They are contributing to the lack of natural habitat for wildlife. Not just for deer, but for deer's natural enemies such as the fox, mountain lion, and wolf. The deer are usually the ones that are able to blend into the changing environment better than their enemies and thusly, become more populous.

Now we've got the humans and their cars. And deer and their hopping onto roads. Some 150 people die each year in more than 1.5 million traffic accidents involving collisions with deer, according to an insurance industry-funded report released recently that puts the economic damage at $1.1 billion. So. We've got an issue where it's costly pecuniarily and lifewise in regards to deer.

Then we have the overpopulation of deer. Up here, where plentiful vegetation is not year round, the deer in overpopulated areas will starve to death in mass. So, instead of letting nature take its course and letting the majority of the deer starve to death, killing off a certain amount so that the other deer don't starve is the lesser of the two and results in sustaining an ecosystem with the deer.

_______________________________________________________________
Now, let's take another example that some might find a bit more distasteful. Cat hunting.

The proposal would allow licensed hunters to kill free-roaming cats, including any domestic cat that isn't under the owner's direct control or any cat without a collar, just like skunks or gophers -- something the Humane Society of the United States has described as cruel and archaic.

Every year in Wisconsin alone, an estimated 2 million wild cats kill 47 million to 139 million songbirds, according to state officials.

Even Karen Hale, the head of the Madison Audubon Society, one of the largest pro-bird groups in the country with 2,500 members, voted no. She said the proposal was just too controversial, even though wild cats have reduced the state's bird population.
Click to expand...

Now, who's life is more important, the songbird's or the cat's?
 
Where is the respect for life in killing an animal?

There are many answers to that question, I'll do an easy one with a question. Where is the respect for life in letting animals overpopulate, starve to death or die from acquired diseases. Even with advancing human encroachment, the deer population in this country is larger than when the pilgrims came over.
 
You find it more respectful to life to shoot a healthy animal rather than letting it die of overpopulation/starvation/disease?
 
Actually I find it more respectful not to waste a life, not even in death. Overpopulation, starvation, disease a lingering suffering death and a pollution of the gene pool is beneficial to who? Certainly not the species.
 
But picking them off as they go to get a drink of water is definetly not beneficial to the species.

And by your definition shooting a deer is for some reaon a life unwasted?
 
actually maintaining herd size at below the carrying capacity of an area is beneficial to the herd and the species.
 
I don't see that. I see the murder of an animal.

Live and let live.
 
Just out of curiosity, do you also see it as the murder of an animal when it is pen fed, forced down a chute, with other bellowing screaming animals, and a stun hammer is used on it's head while the next in line observes what is about to happen to him/her? Or is it only those who don't see it coming, and are killed quickly with a single well placed shot which offends you?
 
Well

We're eating those animals. I don't like the way they die, but meat factory reform is a topic I'm quite unfamiliar with. I've seen the PETA videos. I still love steak. We're on top of the food chain at the moment. Killing an animal THAT WE'RE GOING TO EAT doesn't strike me as barbaric. Killing for sport does.
 
So you believe that having two reasons to kill an animal, sport and food is repulsive compared to raising an animal, and keeping it confined until it is murdered for its flesh?
 
Yes.

Killing an animal for fun and killing an animal because the public wants a few hamburgers next week are two different things.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Yes but with restrictions.

Saying "no" would automatically be taking an amendment right away from an American citizen which, in my opinion, is worse than the felons actions.
Click to expand...

But we already do that. Felons are denied the right to vote.

So not only is it constitutional, but it WOULD stand up in court.
 
I haven't said anything about killing anything just for the fun of it. I believe I stated sport AND food.

It would seem that it should be considered a pitiful existance to be alive totally at, and for the pleasure of man to put between a bun.
 
Gandhi>Bush said:
Yes.

Killing an animal for fun and killing an animal because the public wants a few hamburgers next week are two different things.
Click to expand...

But the VAST majority of hunters don't just hunt to kill, they hunt and then eat the food.

What do you think about this: fishermen who catch fish, and then eat them, as opposed to those who fish for sport, then release the fish.

Is it better to catch, kill, and eat, or to catch, harm, wound, and then return?

I find that my friends here in the city who've never lived in the country don't appreciate the number of people who go hunting. I have numerous friends and family members back home who supplement or provide the majority of their food through hunting.
 
If you're going to eat the thing, I really don't have that much of a problem. I don't like the idea of someone exclaiming that they "Bagged me one!" and then putting a head on a wall. That's twisted. A hamburger, however, is delicious.

Right at NYU: I don't like fish.
 
What real difference does it make what one exclaims, or puts on a wall. A life has been taken, and many meals provided regardless.
 
Do you really not see a difference between boasting of your latest frag by sticking a head on a wall and ordering a Big Mac?

On one hand your saying, "yay. death."

On the other your saying, "yay. Cholestoral"
 
No difference from the guy working at a slaughterhouse bragging that he set a record on the number of steers killed in one day, and sending the remains to a rendering plant.
 
I know a guy who's worked in a slaughterhouse. The last think on anyone's mind is how proud they are or how pleasant their day has been.
 
Around here we have many chicken farms and processing plants. When production records are set awards are given. But you are right, it doesn't necessarily mean the worker enjoyed his day, but the company sure appreciated his productivity. I guess if anyone shows their appreciation for killing, or the number of killings it somehow should taint the meat, the effort and the method/system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom