The pro-hunting arguments I've heard so far are:
1.
I can.
This is the worst argument, so I'm not even going to spend any time on it.
2.
I want to, and it's a part of the natural order.
You are not in danger of going without meat or protein. We have plenty of farm animals that we've specifically raised for this purpose.
What's more, our technology has greatly outpaced evolution. No quarry has a chance against a decent marksman; they don't understand how a little moving blob on a hill a quarter of a mile away could possibly be dangerous. I do hold a begrudging admiration of people who hunt using more primitive techniques (such as atlatls). At least then, the quarry had a chance.
Maybe some day we'll have the rough equivalent of condoms for hunting (e.g. you can get the full psychological effect without having the bad effect). I would have no problem with simulations that allow people to sublimate their primal urges.
3.
The animals would starve and die a horrible death if the herds weren't culled.
By this reasoning, in areas of famine such as Ethiopia, the kind thing to do would be to drop in hunters and reduce the locals so that they can find death faster and more humanely.
Most of us agree that a government that says, "I know what's best for you, so let me manage you" is to be resisted. The most personal and important individual right is the right to life. I think that making major, life-changing decisions for another living being is, at the very least, a little selfish. As such, this precept should be upheld as much as is possible.
4.
HarryCalahan1 said:
Your reasoning is the ammunition the anti-gunners are using to make inroads to take our guns.
Hunting doesn't have anything to do with the Second Amendment. If they're arguing that, they fundamentally don't understand it... which I think is something we already know.
5.
PETA crazies like animal rights... so anyone who thinks animals should be allotted certain rights are crazies, too.
This is the same ad hominem nonsense that anti's use against us along the lines of, "If you own a gun, you're obviously a fat, drunken redneck with undersized genitals who only wants to have the opportunity to shoot other people who break into your house." Based on what I've read and seen, PETA is a radical, crazy group of sad-sacks (that's about as high road as I can get with them -- sorry). They do
not represent everyone who thinks killing something capable of suffering should be avoided.
The underlying goal of my posts were only to get people to consider how they would react if they were in situations where they were being stalked by an opponent against which they had almost no opportunity. There's a black line that most people draw between "people" and "animals" which I don't think is so well-defined and somewhat arbitrary. This mentality was used, in years past to justify xenophobia and racism; the idea that our certain in-group is inherently different and better than another, so it doesn't matter how we treat the other (outside) group who is just as capable of suffering as we are. I was trying to foster the idea that before doing something to another animal, we should consider how we would like to be on the receiving end. Empathy is good.
At the very least even if you still disagree, I hope some of you realized that being anti-hunting isn't necessarily illogical.
as he browsed a 26 inch mossy oak pump-action. He just looked at me with his grin and said, "now this'll get you a deer". Whatever. Fudds.
).
