4 ms·
He does actually. He mentions specifically a hunting scenario and the need to use a powerful weapon and also the ability to quickly issue a follow-up shot if t
by DKnoll 10y ago
He does actually.
He mentions specifically a hunting scenario and the need to use a powerful weapon and also the ability to quickly issue a follow-up shot if the animal is only wounded, which is a humane action.
Just clarifying the point of the author, please don't project his views on me and mob me.
- jpgvm 10y agoHe didn't need to go hunting any more than I needed to go to the cinema last night. The difference being that my going to the cinema doesn't impact the inherent safety of our society. He wanted to go hunting. He wanted to use a powerful weapon while doing so. I understand the desire to want things. I too think it would be cool to have a powerful weapon. However I am also rational enough to understand that laws can't exist that grant me a powerful weapon and deny it to 100% of nutjobs. So given the option between having a cool gun and living in a world where I may get shot to death in a cinema or club vs just not having the gun.. I choose to not have the gun and I think any truly rational person would come to the same conclusion.
- DKnoll 10y agoHunting is more ethical, cheaper and also more convenient for those living in remote locations than purchasing meat at a supermarket. Consider the cost of airlifting food to remote communities in Nunavut and you will understand the need. http://nunavutfoodprice.tumblr.com/ http://nunavutfoodprice.tumblr.com/
- jpgvm 10y agoThat is a beyond tiny subset of society that actually applies to. For 99.9% of more of people that go hunting it's a luxury.
- DKnoll 10y agoCan you back up that figure please? I truly doubt 99.9% of hunters worldwide (you didn't qualify it) or even in the west hunt for 'luxury.' How long have you spent in a rural locale?