If everyone played chess would there be less gun violence?

Relocating millions of animals is as impractical as you can get!!!!!!!!! Silliest idea yet.

The "silliest idea yet", woodshover, is when your parents were irresponsible enough to get drunk the night you must have been conceived.

The "silliest idea yet", woodshover, is when your parents were irresponsible enough to get drunk the night you must have been conceived.

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?

I'm not talking about people hunting for food to survive, all animals do this. But people hunting for dietary supplement, sport, or to remove Beings from land claimed for profit, is morally sick. But not quite as sick as your masterpiece of logic:

"These animals aren't endangered, and what's the difference to the squirrel whether he's killed by a human or a coyote?"

But thank goodness you weren't done exhibiting your dissipating powers of reason, or else I wouldn't have your penetrating psychological summation:

"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?"

Your first question could possibly relate to the fact that I don't like people murdering Beings for sport. I know I must not have said anything remotely close to that in my comments. Secondly, the longevity of a tradition does not make it right. I know that must be difficult for you to understand. Third. My "pet deer"  does not exist, only my position on the subject of murdering deer does. Fourth. Wow! If I don't like murder, and somebody murders, I hate them because they disagreed with me, not cause they murdered. What an analysis!  Thanks, Freud.

 There is no where to put millions of deer so that they won't be hit by cars. The reasonable thing to do is have a controlled hunting season for those that wish to hunt. Those that don't want to don't have to hunt.

There's no place to put millions of people so that they don't get hit by deer, in their cars. Best thing to do is have a season where you hunt and kill people in their cars. But don't feel bad if you don't like killing motorists, you don't have to.

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?

I am getting popcorn for this thread.

 Me too!

As a gun owner, hunter, NRA member, chess player, and member of the International High IQ society, I feel extremely compelled to respond to this.

1.  There is no direct link between guns and violence as the post seems to imply.  I happen to live in a city that requires everyone to own a gun.  We have one of the lowest violent crime rates of any city of comparable population in the United States.  Owning a gun obviously does not make someone a violent person.  Using a gun to protect yourself or your family from a violent person intent on harming you also doesn't fit my definition of gun violence.  Violent people use whatever means necessary to commit violent acts.  This includes knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, automobiles and maybe even marble or slate chess boards.

2.  Playing chess instead of playing extremely violent video games or watching violent movies could potentially reduce violent behavior especially among teenagers and younger children, but it would be hard to prove.  I'm sure someone could get a government grant to study this though.

I'm not talking about people hunting for food to survive, all animals do this. But people hunting for dietary supplement, sport, or to remove Beings from land claimed for profit, is morally sick. But not quite as sick as your masterpiece of logic:

"These animals aren't endangered, and what's the difference to the squirrel whether he's killed by a human or a coyote?"

But thank goodness you weren't done exhibiting your dissipating powers of reason, or else I wouldn't have your penetrating psychological summation:

"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?"

Your first question could possibly relate to the fact that I don't like people murdering Beings for sport. I know I must not have said anything remotely close to that in my comments. Secondly, the longevity of a tradition does not make it right. I know that must be difficult for you to understand. Third. My "pet deer"  does not exist, only my position on the subject of murdering deer does. Fourth. Wow! If I don't like murder, and somebody murders, I hate them because they disagreed with me, not cause they murdered. What an analysis!  Thanks, Freud.

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.

 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.