Firearms

What is this fascination with guns and killing defenseless animals for fun? 

You wouldn't understand, as you live in a country that doesn't allow you to experience it [and in the process possibly understand] what it feels like and what it means to hunt, at least not in it's free form like the non-gun hating countries enjoy. Don't mock something you can't understand, or try to stir up the gun debate if you happen to be the jealous sort that likes to poke at America and our gun freedoms. Maybe ask the question of "what is this fascination with bows and arrows and killing defenseless animals" if your question is truly one of those tree hugging "oh but the deer isn't able to shoot back!" type of ridiculous trips...

Unfortunately Nomad, your answer had the substance of a new born baby that's dropped it's dummy. It too does not understand it's over forseen ability of true need instead what it's really after is the want, the feeling of security and control. Both guns and dummy's, do neither. Just us stupid human beings that turn our wants into meaningful objects that do not and I repeat, Do Not have and never have had, nor ever will have a positive outcome here on the planet earth we all share.

So get that that up ya, u bloody idiot.

bang bang

kapow

I once had a firearm, took 2 guys to put it out. : )

I have never understood these type of questions.  So I am going to answer the best I can.  

Hunting has wildlife management benefits.  That's why it is and should be a regulated liberty.  Maintaining population that may be putting other species at risk or may put other species into extinction.  Can't blame say the farmer for wanting to get rid of say the coyotes from going after their lifestock.  The coyote is just as 'innocent'(if one wants to put abstract views that were created from human beings of what defines innocent or not innocent on another animal that is not as evolved as us) as the lifestock but that coyote can create havoc on the economy of one farmer.

So if a farmer can benefit from a hunter that wants to hunting for coyotes just because the he or she loves to hunt...so be it.  

Maintaining over population of specific species.  Prime example of that is with deer.  I have no problems hearing about hunters hunting deer if it means I would see a decreasing amount of deer lay devastated from behing hit by a vehicle or the animal being laid to waste due to modernization that constantly keeps occuring.  There are plenty of places that even the state gives an extra allowance to hunt due to over population, disease stricken animals.  

I do agree with the sentiment that hunting to kill for the kill is something I cannot comprehend but I would guess that is by far the minority of hunters who just go around killing animals for no reasons.  There is no justification for poaching.  

Hunting for sport is always going to be common for hunters but most hunters are law abiding hunters, who respect the weapon they own, who use the animal that was hunted for food or other productive means.  So the criticism of those who kill all those innocent animals only applies to a very small amount of people who hunt because more times than not those very same complainer have no problem giving money to a coporation who slaughters innocent animals so they don't have to do it to eat.  

However killing for sport is not a new phenomenon(legally or illegally).  Our modernization of how humanity 'hunts' I would argue is more new than say the fascination of hunting for the kill.  I would think there's more of an issue with how modern for profit companies handle animals and produce food on a large scale manner than being overly critical about a hunter hunting only for the sport.  I would guess that there are more innocent animals killed from the corporations than there are from hunters who hunt only for sport in our modern era.  

So who "maintains" the human species ?

You are welcome for sharing my views.

Yes, survival by not having a gun is an option.  Survival by a knife is an option.  Survival by hand to hand combat is an option.  Survival by luck or because law enforcement or a good samaritan saves you is an option.  Survival by being mindful of your surroundings and not putting yourselves in a volatile situation even if you have a carry and concel permit is an option.  Survival by having a weapon to use lethal force when your will to survive is threatened is an option.  Self-preservation has many ways of happening.  This doesn't mean guns can't be one way to ensure self-preservation.  This also means the populace should be mindful of who they elect into office...meaning, at least in my opinion, they should elect people who are willing to create harsh penalties for violaters of gun regulation. 

One thing I have to ask, are your stats in relation to hunting?  Species going into extinction is not an argument against guns.  s your stat based in modernization?  Industrilazation?  Global warming?  It is quite a big assumption that hunters in America are creating extinction that industrialization could do much easier, that modernization could do much easier.  Or is your stat a broad statement on the general topic of exstinction and you are trying to use it for the gun topic?

Do you know how many species that went extinct before we became the dominant species?  The argument of extinction is a pointless argument in relation to guns because there's too many other factors that can cause species going into extinction.  Too bad we don't have documents(none that I know of) that showed what happened after other major nations took over their occupied land.

I highly doubt that America's power and killing is unrivivaled.  All countries have a history that is soaked in power and killing and blood.  Is it easier to forget about it because gun crimes happen in Amerca or because of America's looser gun laws?

I don't believe guns are a neccessary evil either.  I don't attribute abstract moral code to guns.  The invention of the firearm wasn't based on 'vile' means.  It was an invention that will always be two fold because it was invented by humans being who have the equal capacity to do great good and great harm.  

Take care!

Humans.  At this point we have no objective proof of a higher being so the top of food chain 'maintains' the top of the food chain.  

Kind of obvious that we do.  We do it in a wild amount of ways too.  Thought it would be obvious.  

Let's look at some of our known actions(no matter the public acceptance of these actions or the public condemnation of these actions):

We procreate at will.  

Some countries regulate how many babies one can have.  

Our views of freedom and women to control how they procreate.  

We execute criminals.  

Humans self-terminate their lives.    

Humans live healthy lives to live long lives.

Birth control.

Abstinence.

Create political theory to maintain society.

Even religion has been used to maintain society.

We use medication to live productive lives.

We use other types of medication to deal with lives.

No need to go any further.  Evidently clear that humans maintain humans.  No matter if it is successful or unsuccessfully maintaining.  

Can't help existence is the way it is that other species have to be maintained by the higher species.  

Someday the Borg will assimilate us all so I wouldn't worry to much about it.

 Elvis Presley had an obsession with guns, too. Part of his collection:

Wasn't Elvis a DEA agent or something?

Tis a dam shame. Thanks for posting. : (