If everyone played chess would there be less gun violence?

I just had this illuminating discussion with a "red neck" (self identified) about guns and hunting.  He's all for it, I think hunting for "sport" is just cruel unless you're actually using the kill for food.

It got me thinking, do you think that chess is a sublimation for our deepest aggressive nature?  If we could get all of the hunters and "red necks" to play more chess would gun ownership and/or use go down?  Is there any relationship?

Just fyi, live near Oakland and the idea that "Oakland" is "on fire", so to speak, is really not true.  It's really just a small area of the town where there is a lot of violence.  Most of Oakland is pretty posh actually.  Sort of like LA and "south central".

You'd have to get the deer to go along with the idea. I suspect they'd rather play chess.

Hannibal Lector ate who he killed.  Does that make you feel better about him.

Well, the constitution allows for gun ownership. Though a  variety of reasons have been put forth for this, the only one I think makes sense is as a deterrent against those who would harm you; government, citizens, and foreign invaders. So I think gun ownership has a legitimate purpose in that regard.

Reading others on chess forums describing chess, leads me to believe that one's agressiveness is not assuaged through playing the game at all.

I imagine if people wish to revere their own aggressiveness, then they may think highly of chess as an expression of it.

Finally, I see no necessary relationship between guns and chess in any way other than an imaginary one.

All joking aside, it bothers me a lot that chickens by the billions are stuffed into tiny little cages to live out their lives in misery in huge warehouses.  The same sort of thing with cattle and feed lots. But everything in the wild is already oriented towards killing and avoiding being killed.  Prey animals like deer and so forth have innate instincts towards avoiding being killed by predators.  Thus the sport.  Would they honestly care whether they were killed for their antlers rather than for food.

Animals themselves kill each other out of anger and for territorial reasons.  At least hunters don't kill animals because they're mad at them.  I'm not a hunter though.

Animals kill each other all the time without eating the body afterwards (even if it's relatively less common).  I'm not sure where this sense of moral obligation comes from, is it utilitarian or what?  Sounds an awful lot like the ends justifying the means... as long as it serves a basic need (food) then the act itself is permissible.  And if I kill something is the moral judgement on hold until I eat it?  Is intent to eat enough e.g. I get hit by a buss and the deer meat in my ford truck spoils?

Anyway no, chess has nothing to do with our "deepest aggressive nature."  It's a simply a skill like anything else e.g. the violin, swimming, cooking, horseback riding etc.  After you play the game enough you become disillusioned about all these contrived connections to intelligence, sophistication, aggression, logic, etc.  For example logic and intelligence in chess is purely chess specific and in my opinion is impossible to apply to every day life except in the most general of ways.  (Kasparov's book on the subject was for money, and is mostly fluff if you've read it).  In chess you have all the information and it's what you do with it -- life is completely different.

If this is a joke, sorry for taking it so seriously

I guess gun violence may go down, but sword and spear violence my soar.

Yes, if everyone played chess there would be less guns fired. Or you could just restrict gun use, might be more realistic.

Besides, guns don't kill people....REALLY FAST bullets do.

I grew up in an area of the country where hunting was not only tolerated, it was encouraged. Most of the hunters I know are very responsible and good stewards of the environment. They want to preserve nature becaue they enjoy it.

With respect to the cruelty of hunting, that is an issue everyone has to wrangle with for themselves. Whoever posted the comment about corporate farming practices put it in good perspertive.

Consider a species like deer that no longer has natural predators. When populations get too large for a given area, many will starve in the winter due to over competition for limited resources. If hunters reduce the population, the heard is healthier. 

I think that arming yourself for self protection has limited value. If someone wants to shoot you, they're not going to give you a chance to use your gun. Gun violence is a problem in areas where crime is a problem.

You hear people on radio talk shows talking about keeping drug dealers and other criminals out of their house with a gun. If you're in a neighborhood where a drug dealer wants to invade your home and you shoot him, what are you going to do the next day when his boss sends 10 guys to visit you? The only way to be safe if you're in that environment is to get out of it.

This is just awful reasoning. It's like a cross between National Geographic and Christianity. 'Murdering other beings helps, is enjoyable, and we, the shepherds of this flock know what's right!'

Horrible...

 Why not write to Faculty of Foresty and Environmental Management at any given University and explain to them how awful that reasoning is.  You could make an fool of yourself with them too.

Not at all. If there are no predators to keep a population down, then hunters can serve that function. Its neither Christians nor the National Geographic that monitor these populations, its the DNR. Its more humane than allowing mass starvations.

As far as your "shepheards of the flock" comment, consider the Native Americans. The Sioux had short bows with limited range, but they were great hunters because they were great trackers. They acclamated themselves with wildlife and killed only what they needed to survive. Hunting isn't senseless killing.   

 A friend of mine has a Master's degree in Environmental Management ...and he's a hunter! Come on, hunting and fishing are big business in Canada.

I have to concur -- some of the most ardent proponents of sustainability and environmental responsibility that I know are hunters.

There seems to be something about being in such close and continual contact with the natural world that seems to invoke a deep respect and sense of social responsibility regarding it.

no. End of discussion

Gun violence might go down, but chess violence would skyrocket!

Murdering animals to keep the population down doesn't make sense. What is not said is the population is resticted to a small area of control. This is not "natural", this is forced on the population, genius. Oh and don't forget to shove it