If everyone played chess would there be less gun violence?

Sort:
Avatar of TheOldReb
trysts wrote:
Reb wrote:

I would like to point out that the word " murder " is a legal term and it means the illegal taking of a HUMAN life. Ask any attorney. Therefore a human cannot "murder" an animal. FYI  As for the threat to animals their habitat destruction is a far greater threat to them than the ever dwindling number of hunters.


Murder is unnecessarily taking life. But I am going to call my attorney and find out if killing you is considered an environmental necessity or euthanasia.


 A few things I want to point out here.  First many people would construe this as a threat, is that how you intend it ?  Second , if you think all unnecessary killing is murder then this means every bug/insect you kill is also murder, by your above definition . Is this really what you believe ?! 

I grew up a hunter and have killed many animals in my life but I didnt murder a single one, in fact its not possible.

Hunters do more to help animals than most of the people who attack them for hunting, as others have pointed out in this thread. The attitude of some seem to indicate that they have watched Bambi far too many times.......

Avatar of bigpoison
trysts wrote:
EnterTheDragon wrote:
trysts wrote:
electricpawn wrote:

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.

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.


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.


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


Do you have any idea of how many saplings are murdered by deer? 

You are, obviously, not a friend of the arbor.

Avatar of electricpawn
Gomer_Pyle wrote:
trysts wrote:
Gomer_Pyle wrote:


QFT

(Quoted For Truth)

Tryst, try keep an open mind about what electricpawn is saying. He appears to have a much better grasp of the facts than you.


There are few things more annoying than when someone puts forth the proposition of murdering animals out of love of nature. One such statement, is when I voice opposition to such absurdities, somebody rings in with the cliche: 'Keep an open mind.' If you have an argument, state it. I'll be more than happy to elaborate on anything you're confused about in my position. But save your cliches.


Ok, those absurdities you mention are facts. Populations of wild animals are too large to be sustained naturally in many parts of the country. You admit that fact, ridicule any solution, and do nothing but reiterate your emotional opinion.

Fact: Deer populations are exploding in many areas of the country and many states are trying to reduce their populations. Here's a link to a study done by Cornell University in the Twin Tier area of NY and PA. A notable quote from the study: "As in most areas of the state, hunting is still the most effective manner by which to control deer populations."
http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/Pages/default.aspx

Fact: In Pennsylvania, and possibly in many other states, hunters fund the majority of environmental projects. This means that hunters themselves are doing the most to promote a balanced and sustainable ecology. This link describes how hunters fund up to 75% of federally funded environmental projects. In addition, many state funded projects are also funded by hunters through license fees, taxes on sporting goods, etc.
http://ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2723&q=326164

So hunters are performing a task that most states welcome, fund environmental projects that everyone welcomes, and, in general, have deep reverance for nature and wildlife. You equate them to murderers and yet have probably done nothing yourself to promote a more balanced ecology.


 Well said, nicely documented.

Avatar of TheOldReb

Have you any idea how many insects you needlessly murder everytime you drive anywhere ? Probably billions are splattered every hour in the US alone ! No telling how many are murdered by exhaust and other pollution. < GASP >

Avatar of Conflagration_Planet

There would also be less people getting whacked over the head with chessboards if fewer chessboards were sold.

Avatar of trysts
Gomer_Pyle wrote:
trysts wrote:
Gomer_Pyle wrote:


QFT

(Quoted For Truth)

Tryst, try keep an open mind about what electricpawn is saying. He appears to have a much better grasp of the facts than you.


There are few things more annoying than when someone puts forth the proposition of murdering animals out of love of nature. One such statement, is when I voice opposition to such absurdities, somebody rings in with the cliche: 'Keep an open mind.' If you have an argument, state it. I'll be more than happy to elaborate on anything you're confused about in my position. But save your cliches.


Ok, those absurdities you mention are facts. Populations of wild animals are too large to be sustained naturally in many parts of the country. You admit that fact, ridicule any solution, and do nothing but reiterate your emotional opinion.

Fact: Deer populations are exploding in many areas of the country and many states are trying to reduce their populations. Here's a link to a study done by Cornell University in the Twin Tier area of NY and PA. A notable quote from the study: "As in most areas of the state, hunting is still the most effective manner by which to control deer populations."
http://wildlifecontrol.info/deer/Pages/default.aspx

Fact: In Pennsylvania, and possibly in many other states, hunters fund the majority of environmental projects. This means that hunters themselves are doing the most to promote a balanced and sustainable ecology. This link describes how hunters fund up to 75% of federally funded environmental projects. In addition, many state funded projects are also funded by hunters through license fees, taxes on sporting goods, etc.
http://ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2723&q=326164

So hunters are performing a task that most states welcome, fund environmental projects that everyone welcomes, and, in general, have deep reverance for nature and wildlife. You equate them to murderers and yet have probably done nothing yourself to promote a more balanced ecology.


Since land is used by many different Beings, both transcient and residential, dispute for the use of the land has been a cause of violence, imprisonment, and relocation. This appears to be the situation concerning deer and humans in some parts of the U.S. When the population of deer decreased tremendously by humans hunting them a century ago, deer were reintroduced into the environment and given some protection from hunters in some designated land areas. But since the human population has soared, commercial land grabbing soared, and industrialization has destroyed more and more of the environment, the deer population are being more and more confined to smaller areas, while roadways, highways, and cities continue to spread into the areas where the deer have been relegated. Of course another aspect of the senseless "overpopulation" claims about deer, is the continual loss of the arboracious in favor of cement, therefore while humans continue to destroy the environment, they begin to notice the few trees they have put aside will be used by other Beings such as deer. Thus the inexcusable and myopic blame rests on the deer.

Avatar of trysts
Reb wrote:
trysts wrote:
Reb wrote:

I would like to point out that the word " murder " is a legal term and it means the illegal taking of a HUMAN life. Ask any attorney. Therefore a human cannot "murder" an animal. FYI  As for the threat to animals their habitat destruction is a far greater threat to them than the ever dwindling number of hunters.


Murder is unnecessarily taking life. But I am going to call my attorney and find out if killing you is considered an environmental necessity or euthanasia.


 A few things I want to point out here.  First many people would construe this as a threat, is that how you intend it ?  Second , if you think all unnecessary killing is murder then this means every bug/insect you kill is also murder, by your above definition . Is this really what you believe ?! 

I grew up a hunter and have killed many animals in my life but I didnt murder a single one, in fact its not possible.

Hunters do more to help animals than most of the people who attack them for hunting, as others have pointed out in this thread. The attitude of some seem to indicate that they have watched Bambi far too many times.......


Of course Reb, that was a joke and not a threat. I do not even like to think of violence let alone be capable of making violent threats.

 

But now I will be serious and say, to you and all those who would hunt and murder Beings for sport, I can only wish next time to go out to partake in that horrible endeavor, I truly hope you don't come back.

Avatar of Gomer_Pyle
polydiatonic wrote:It got me thinking, do you think that chess is a sublimation for our deepest aggressive nature?

Hi polydiatonic,
  First I want to apologize for helping hijack your thread. Hunting and conservation are topics I'm passionate about and I tend to get carried away.

 Humans seem very predisposed to aggression. I suppose it comes from ancient territorial instincts associated with the ownership and protection of sources of food and shelter. Those instincts have carried over into other areas so that we're competitive in almost everything we do.

 So, my answer to your question is both Yes and No. I think chess can be viewed as one example of sublimating our aggressive natures but also can be seen as a healthy expression of those same aggressive natures. I don't believe gun ownership would go down. I've owned and used firearms my whole life (I'm 52). Playing chess for the last forty years hasn't dampened my enthusiasm for firearms or shooting sports in the slightest.

If I may digress a little, no normal person enjoys killing. People can enjoy the challenges of hunting, they can enjoy being outdoors in all types of weather, they can even enjoy the fruits of the hunt as food, but no hunter I know, or want to know, enjoys the actual killing of an animal. A shepherd or rancher must thin his flock/herd so it doesn't outgrow his available resources. Wild animal populations need the same care to remain healthy.

Avatar of Gomer_Pyle
trysts wrote:
Since land is used by many different Beings, both transcient and residential, dispute for the use of the land has been a cause of violence, imprisonment, and relocation. This appears to be the situation concerning deer and humans in some parts of the U.S. When the population of deer decreased tremendously by humans hunting them a century ago, deer were reintroduced into the environment and given some protection from hunters in some designated land areas. But since the human population has soared, commercial land grabbing soared, and industrialization has destroyed more and more of the environment, the deer population are being more and more confined to smaller areas, while roadways, highways, and cities continue to spread into the areas where the deer have been relegated. Of course another aspect of the senseless "overpopulation" claims about deer, is the continual loss of the arboracious in favor of cement, therefore while humans continue to destroy the environment, they begin to notice the few trees they have put aside will be used by other Beings such as deer. Thus the inexcusable and myopic blame rests on the deer.

Again, you offer no solutions. I agree with you that there are real problems but pointing fingers and shouting "Bad!" solves nothing. Hunters are actually working on solutions. If you don't like those solutions feel free to work on your own.

As far as your fervent wish that hunters die I can only ask "Who's really the bloodthirsty one?"

Avatar of trysts
Gomer_Pyle wrote:
trysts wrote:
Since land is used by many different Beings, both transcient and residential, dispute for the use of the land has been a cause of violence, imprisonment, and relocation. This appears to be the situation concerning deer and humans in some parts of the U.S. When the population of deer decreased tremendously by humans hunting them a century ago, deer were reintroduced into the environment and given some protection from hunters in some designated land areas. But since the human population has soared, commercial land grabbing soared, and industrialization has destroyed more and more of the environment, the deer population are being more and more confined to smaller areas, while roadways, highways, and cities continue to spread into the areas where the deer have been relegated. Of course another aspect of the senseless "overpopulation" claims about deer, is the continual loss of the arboracious in favor of cement, therefore while humans continue to destroy the environment, they begin to notice the few trees they have put aside will be used by other Beings such as deer. Thus the inexcusable and myopic blame rests on the deer.

Again, you offer no solutions. I agree with you that there are real problems but pointing fingers and shouting "Bad!" solves nothing. Hunters are actually working on solutions. If you don't like those solutions feel free to work on your own.

As far as your fervent wish that hunters die I can only ask "Who's really the bloodthirsty one?"


 You call mass murdering a solution? Long before that, relocation of both humans and animals are in order. Your solution is idiotic.

I just wish hunters get lost out there and disappear, or their guns would jam right after missing a shot at a Bear. Then maybe, if they survive that "sport" it will no longer be fun to go out and murder animals. And you even asking 'who is the bloodthirsty one', just tells me you don't really think too deeply about anything, the only thing you're passionate about is hunter's rights.

Avatar of Gomer_Pyle

Your solution is to relocate millions of humans and animals, and you call solutions advocated by many federal, state, and scholastic organizations idiotic? Okaaaay.

I've presented facts, I've presented working solutions. You have offered nothing but insults and personal opinion. I've had better discussions with my cat.

Avatar of LucenaTDB
Gomer_Pyle wrote:  I've had better discussions with my cat.

 

 


Perhaps true, but we don't know how bright the cat is.  This may be one amazing cat.

Avatar of MyCowsCanFly
Gomer_Pyle wrote:

You have offered nothing but insults and personal opinion. I've had better discussions with my cat.


 Interesting juxtaposition of sentences.

Avatar of cryptic_cave

I've heard of jail house chess players. I imagine that if chess became more prevalent in prisons it would give the inmates less time for weapons making and vendettas.

Avatar of TheOldReb
trysts wrote:
Reb wrote:
trysts wrote:
Reb wrote:

I would like to point out that the word " murder " is a legal term and it means the illegal taking of a HUMAN life. Ask any attorney. Therefore a human cannot "murder" an animal. FYI  As for the threat to animals their habitat destruction is a far greater threat to them than the ever dwindling number of hunters.


Murder is unnecessarily taking life. But I am going to call my attorney and find out if killing you is considered an environmental necessity or euthanasia.


 A few things I want to point out here.  First many people would construe this as a threat, is that how you intend it ?  Second , if you think all unnecessary killing is murder then this means every bug/insect you kill is also murder, by your above definition . Is this really what you believe ?! 

I grew up a hunter and have killed many animals in my life but I didnt murder a single one, in fact its not possible.

Hunters do more to help animals than most of the people who attack them for hunting, as others have pointed out in this thread. The attitude of some seem to indicate that they have watched Bambi far too many times.......


Of course Reb, that was a joke and not a threat. I do not even like to think of violence let alone be capable of making violent threats.

 

But now I will be serious and say, to you and all those who would hunt and murder Beings for sport, I can only wish next time to go out to partake in that horrible endeavor, I truly hope you don't come back.


 This is a very sad and sick sentiment imo. Tell me, were you like this before you fell in love with painkillers and alcohol ?  I get the feeling that you were jilted by a man who was a hunter at some point and now are bitter and full of hate for all who hunt. ( btw, quite a large number of women hunt too )  If you had some good venison steak or sausage I bet you would feel differently. You didnt answer my question concerning killing insects , is that murder to you too ? Where do you draw the line ? Are you one of those who think the planet would be better off without humans ?  Is that it ?

Avatar of MyCowsCanFly

I think a lot of problems would be mitigated with fewer people on the planet. There's about as much chance of that as discovering that getting people to play chess would reduce gun violence.  

Avatar of trysts
Gomer_Pyle wrote:

Your solution is to relocate millions of humans and animals, and you call solutions advocated by many federal, state, and scholastic organizations idiotic? Okaaaay.

I've presented facts, I've presented working solutions. You have offered nothing but insults and personal opinion. I've had better discussions with my cat.


Funny how murdering en masse, Beings that don't pay taxes(deer), is a better solution than the difficulties of relocation? Also hilarious is how you find special importance provided to your opinion because it is advocated by such esteemed examples of morality as Federal, State, and University legislators. Tragic comedy.

Your solution, that you are so proud of, is both the easiest and most hideously immoral one. Congratulations. You probably even despair thinking of how the reforms of Vlad the Impaler were misunderstood.

As far as insults, you began to speak to me by calling me a fool, so crying about how I accepted that way of speaking to you is laughable.

Avatar of trysts
Reb wrote:
trysts wrote:
Reb wrote:
trysts wrote:
Reb wrote:

I would like to point out that the word " murder " is a legal term and it means the illegal taking of a HUMAN life. Ask any attorney. Therefore a human cannot "murder" an animal. FYI  As for the threat to animals their habitat destruction is a far greater threat to them than the ever dwindling number of hunters.


Murder is unnecessarily taking life. But I am going to call my attorney and find out if killing you is considered an environmental necessity or euthanasia.


 A few things I want to point out here.  First many people would construe this as a threat, is that how you intend it ?  Second , if you think all unnecessary killing is murder then this means every bug/insect you kill is also murder, by your above definition . Is this really what you believe ?! 

I grew up a hunter and have killed many animals in my life but I didnt murder a single one, in fact its not possible.

Hunters do more to help animals than most of the people who attack them for hunting, as others have pointed out in this thread. The attitude of some seem to indicate that they have watched Bambi far too many times.......


Of course Reb, that was a joke and not a threat. I do not even like to think of violence let alone be capable of making violent threats.

 

But now I will be serious and say, to you and all those who would hunt and murder Beings for sport, I can only wish next time to go out to partake in that horrible endeavor, I truly hope you don't come back.


 This is a very sad and sick sentiment imo. Tell me, were you like this before you fell in love with painkillers and alcohol ?  I get the feeling that you were jilted by a man who was a hunter at some point and now are bitter and full of hate for all who hunt. ( btw, quite a large number of women hunt too )  If you had some good venison steak or sausage I bet you would feel differently. You didnt answer my question concerning killing insects , is that murder to you too ? Where do you draw the line ? Are you one of those who think the planet would be better off without humans ?  Is that it ?


I am always willing to discuss the philisophical questions of morality as applied to all living things. It has kept me up very late, many times, discussing those ideas amongst friends who are quite intellectually curious.

Avatar of TheYear9876

i used  to play a man i considered to be a redneck, believe it or not he insisted on being white.

Avatar of electricpawn

The responsible hunting of deer is not mass murder. Its part of wildlife management, as odious as you think that is. Many families supplement their diets with wild game. How is that different than buying chicken at the grocery store? My dad used to shoot squirrels and rabbits for us to eat. These animals aren't endangered, and what's the difference to the squirrel whether he's killed by a human or a coyote?

Man altered the ecosystem of North America centuries ago when he replaced forrests and grasslands with farms that provide the food that you and much the world have to eat. I'd love to see what America looked like before Columbus, to see heards of bison that were hundreds of miles long. Its not going to happen. We have to deal with the situation we have.

You've made it clear that you oppose hunting, and you've implied that you don't think animals should be eaten. I can respect a vegetarian point of view, but where's the practical solution to maintainig a sound environment for wildlife?

And where does all the anger come from? We're talking about things that have been going on for a long time. Its not as if one of us just shot your pet deer. Do you go ballistic any time someone disagrees with you?