Hunting

[member2686]

...i am a hunter yes, i do get excited when i kill somthing ill stop hunting when i dont...

Thank you, again, for validating my assertions.

...Learning how the ecosystem works, learning how to manage the land properly learning how and what the animals are going to do or how they live....

The irony! The same people who call anti-hunting people "tree-hugging pussies" (people who want to protect the environment - ecologists) say that their "sport" of killing animals is for the purpose of ecological management... Interesting. I guess that makes hunters tree-hugging pussies as well, or no?

Hmmm. That's something to think about, I suppose. :dunno: But then again, there's...

...i am a hunter yes, i do get excited when i kill somthing ill stop hunting when i dont...

:hatsoff: :2 cents:

 

[guide]

why is it that you and glk are going rounds you are a treehugging pussy and he is a bloodthirsty recneck big fucking deal. i dont think i would hunt if i didnt feel anything from it. would you watch porn if you didnt feel anything from it NO. wow i didnt think there would ever be such a debate on a porn forum. CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG.

 

[member2686]

What's up with the flaming, guide? You flamed a guy in another thread tonight/today (the STD thread you made) as well. Here:

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=690115&postcount=5

I actually have no personal problems with glk. He seems to be a decent, nice guy (I even made a sig for him back in the early days of my membership here), but we vehemently disagree on the hunting issue and I'm enjoying the discussion here with both him and other members.

THIS part of the message board (THIS forum), guide, is for general discussion of nearly anything, as long as it's not a rule-prohibited topic. If you're looking for porn and don't enjoy the general discussions here, go to the "Find Your Favorite Babe" forum or to www.freeones.com. This forum on the message board is for general dscussion.

You're new to the board. You might want to read the rules and look around and see how things work here before speaking to certain members as you've done tonight. Just my advice...

:2 cents: :hatsoff:

Sorry to go off-topic, but I felt this post needed to be addressed.

why is it that you and glk are going rounds you are a treehugging pussy and he is a bloodthirsty recneck big fucking deal. i dont think i would hunt if i didnt feel anything from it. would you watch porn if you didnt feel anything from it NO. wow i didnt think there would ever be such a debate on a porn forum. CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG.

 

[hmmhoyhoy]

I have been hunting for over 30 years now. It shouldnt be looked at as a sport. I feel its a way to experience nature, if no animal is harvested then oh well you still had the honor and privelage of being in some of the most beautiful and peacful places. I have hunted on 6 continents and wouldnt trade it for anything. During my hunting experiences I have made life long friends aswell as memories I will never forget. I have tried to instill this in my fam, I will always have the memories of my dad and grandad and hope that I have made memories for my fam to pass it on with there kids. Again, hunting for trophy alone is completely wrong. As a Sportsman I feel you need to have a love for animals. Know that your taking a life but be respectful, know that you are utilizing everything. Thats my take on hunting

 

[Imagine]

I think you just did it again! You label hunters who do it for sport as "bloodthirsty" not realizing that it has absolutely nothing to do with it. You have jumped to that conclusion, and that's why hunters get upset.

Like I said, I don't think there is a much better definition of the word than enjoying killing things. 3 out of 3 dictionaries I looked it up in described it as "eager for bloodshed". A person who enjoys killing something, whatever that may be under whatever scenario, is as far as I'm concerned bloodthirsty by definition. I could stretch it to include the possibility of psychosis if you'd prefer that instead. Unless you can prove to me that the definition is not true, I think you'll have to live with people using the word to (accurately) describe certain hunters. If a hunter goes out and shoot an animal because they truly believe that it's necessary or because they are after the meat, that's fine with me. If they go out to rack up some "frags" (i.e. kills for those unfamiliar with online FPS), I'd rather see them getting shot than the animal. God knows we need to keep the human population under control, I can barely leave my home without seeing one.

 

[4G63]

I have never looked down the barrel of a rifle at an animal, I guess I never saw the point. But I have looked down a rifle barrel at a human. I would trade all that I have to loose those memories.

A deer is, pure, it has no hate, it take only what it needs, and live in holy peace with it's surroundings. To sit a hundred hards away and play god with it's life, is sooooo weird to me. I won't stop anyone from hunting, but I will always say I find it repulsive.

 

[member2686]

Ditto, 4G63. It's repulsive to me because it's not necessary. To call it "sport" is to admit that it's a game and unnecessary, just as playing basketball is a sport - some sort of competition.

It's certainly entertaining to those who enjoy it, but we could go without it, and MOST IMPORTANTLY no one or nothing ends up intentionally dead in the "game" of basketball. In hunting, that's the goal - killing something. It's not for food for survival, although responsible hunters DO get food from their "game." That's why it's CALLED "game" meat.

:2 cents:

...I won't stop anyone from hunting, but I will always say I find it repulsive.

 

[Member2019]

Fense Sitting is Responsible

Prof - honestly I'm not looking to argue (believe me, I've had my fill this week, and that enough for me).

And I was agreeing with you. I was saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with "fence sitting." I'm personally (as well as even professionally in areas outside of my education and experience) ignorant of a great number of things, so I don't even bother trying to give any opinion in those matters.

But when it comes to hunting and gun ownership, neither of which I do or own, respectively, I do have an opinion. And it's not just an opinion based on hunters or gun owners, but also based on park rangers and policy officers, respectively. Again, even going back to the NASA thread, I always recommend people who are not directly knowlegeable of a particular concept or view to ask those they do trust, who do see and deal with it everyday.

So, again, that's why I am "defending" hunters here. Not so much because of hunters, but because of the professional Park Rangers I know.

As I said in my first post, I got into a serious debate about fox-hunting some time ago and got my head handed back to me, when a friend who used to lived in the countryside took issue with my "townie" attitude towards the "poor" fox. Suffice to say, it was a humbling experience.

Many times people show what seems to be innocent concern, not realizing they are insulting the responsibility or professionalism of others.
I know you're not being judgemental, but sometimes when people show that concern, they actually do make a judgement.
You're man enough to lower your pride and see past that, and that makes you a very enlightened individual.

There are a lot of 20-somethings on this board, and that often drives many of the views around here.
When I was in my early '20s, I often commenting on things from a standpoint of naivity or ignorance, not realizing I was insulting the experiences and professionalism of others.

Now I have to admit that Americans have a very different view of how to deal with matters in their own country than those of many European nationals.
Although some of the staunchest pro-game/wildlife and pro-gun ownership Americans I've ever met have been former (or even current!) British citizens.
I'll never forget one dinner event in one company I worked for where one of our key (and formerly Russian) scientists started questioning why the 2nd Amendment existed.
It wasn't the American that started defending the 2nd Amendment, but a current British national (who was our VP).
His viewpoints provided such insights into why gun control doesn't work in general, as well as especially in the US, in a way most Americans would have never considered.

As I've said in other threads, even though I'm an American, half of the people I work with are not American-born.
Some have even retained their citizenship, but choose to work and live (although some have a foreign home as well) in the US.
And their thoughts always remind me of viewpoints I would have never considered as an American.

You're right though - on hunting I don't fully know the hunter's viewpoint or the farmer's viewpoint - so I'll keep a neutral stance.

And that's actually very responsible, honorable and don't let anyone pressure you into thinking you're wrong for doing so.
As I said, I'm ignorant on a great number of things too, and you won't see me debating in those threads at all.

 

[Member2019]

true that but i bet you it would be some jackass that didnt understand firearms that would shoot before somone that did. :eek:

Oh man, you just touched on my favorite!

Q: Who's more likely to shoot their parents?
A. A kid who grows up with firearms, learning how to use (aka "respect") them?
B. Or a kid who grows up in a firearm-free household?

That's probably the greatest source of ignorance I've seen on gun control.
Because most people assume A, when it's actually B (by a wide margin).

Safety locks and triggers are useless, locking the things up is what you do when the kids are young.
And there's nothing wrong with keeping them loaded, because everyone in the house respects that if they point and pull the trigger, it will fire.
Otherwise, the whole concept of "home defense" with keeping them unloaded and/or with trigger locks is rather self-defeating.

 

[Member2019]

Like I said, I don't think there is a much better definition of the word than enjoying killing things. 3 out of 3 dictionaries I looked it up in described it as "eager for bloodshed". A person who enjoys killing something, whatever that may be under whatever scenario, is as far as I'm concerned bloodthirsty by definition. I could stretch it to include the possibility of psychosis if you'd prefer that instead. Unless you can prove to me that the definition is not true, I think you'll have to live with people using the word to (accurately) describe certain hunters. If a hunter goes out and shoot an animal because they truly believe that it's necessary or because they are after the meat, that's fine with me. If they go out to rack up some "frags" (i.e. kills for those unfamiliar with online FPS), I'd rather see them getting shot than the animal. God knows we need to keep the human population under control, I can barely leave my home without seeing one.

Sigh, you did it twice in that post. I won't respond to you further, you have already psycho-analyzed the sport and won't listen to any logic anyone could present to the contrary. It fits what you want to believe, not what is reality.

 

[Member2019]

I have never looked down the barrel of a rifle at an animal, I guess I never saw the point. But I have looked down a rifle barrel at a human. I would trade all that I have to loose those memories. A deer is, pure, it has no hate, it take only what it needs, and live in holy peace with it's surroundings. To sit a hundred hards away and play god with it's life, is sooooo weird to me. I won't stop anyone from hunting, but I will always say I find it repulsive.

And once again 4G63, your experiences cause you to think in a way a hunter does not. I feel for you man, but understand there is a peace that many hunters know.

In fact, many people who were soldiers do not enjoy hunting, especially snippers And that is completely understandable, because they cannot have the peace that men (and women) who have never killed do. Understand that.

 

[member2686]

...Q: Who's more likely to shoot their parents?
A. A kid who grows up with firearms, learning how to use (aka "respect") them?
B. Or a kid who grows up in a firearm-free household?...

B - with no guns in the house, the accidental death rates of children, and adults, would be significantly reduced. Voluntary, intentional deaths such as a 13 year-old going into his dad's closet and pulling out the ole "trusty" shotgun, waiting for his parents to come home from work and them blowing them into guts-stuck-on-a-wall would also be more limited if no guns were kept in the family's home.

It takes a very concerted effort for most children to get a gun on the street. In certain segments of society they're even sold to children on the street by thugs, but saying that gun deaths of parents by their children won't be reduced by keeping a gun-free home is simply unfathomable. That's like saying that fewer parents are intentionally drowned in their family pools by their children than in families who don't have pools.

Ridiculous. :2 cents:

Here's an article for information, and I normally hate long copied & pasted articles in posts:

Statistics, Gun Control Issues, and Safety
Gunshot wounds inpact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S.

In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231.(CDC, 2004) This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, but has since declined steadily.(CDC, 2001) However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2004).

The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females. (CDC, 2004)

Firearms Death Rate (per 100,000, age adjusted) for Selected Countries in one year between 1990 and 1995 (Krug, Powell and Dahlberg, 1998)

Gun Control Issues, Public Health, and Safety
The number of firearms injuries remains high in the United States, compared with most of the rest of the world. Firearm suicide rates are strongly impacted by the rate of gun ownership. (Kaplan and Geling, 1998) There is a positive correlation between homicide rates and availability of guns in developed nations. (Hemenway and Miller, 2000) The number of firearms in the hands of private citizens continues to grow each year at a rate far exceeding that of the population as a whole. It might even be said that Americans live in a "gun culture" based upon traditions and behaviors well-entrenched in our society. This is reflected in our constitution, whose second amendment guarantees that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Though the application of this amendment applied to maintenance of a militia, and not private gun ownership, the second amendment has been consistently interpreted to protect private ownership of many types of guns.

Thus, the laws of our Federal government as well as the states do not as yet severely restrict the manufacture, sale, and use of firearms by ordinary citizens. "Gun control" is a sensitive issue that evokes strong emotions in persons both for and against control. Politicians find it difficult to deal with this issue. There is disagreement as to whether a reduction in access to or numbers of firearms will have a measurable effect upon crime. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in 1994 in the U.S. established a nationwide requirement that licensed firearms dealers observe a waiting period and initiate a background check for handgun sales (but the law does not apply to secondary markets). So far, this law has not been associated with overall reductions in homicide rate or suicide rate.(Ludwig and Cook, 2000) Perhaps our attitudes--and our tolerances--are reflected in the high visibility of firearms and firearms-inflicted injuries that are portrayed in the media: newspapers, magazines, books, films, and television. (Price et al, 1992) One thing remains certain, despite laws for or against gun control, a lack of love toward one's fellow human beings, whether in war or through domestic violence, will continue to promote firearms injuries.

Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)

The table below indicates mode of death for firearms injuries in the ten countries with the most reported deaths from firearms for children less than 15 years of age. (CDC, 1997)

Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000

In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children (Patterson and Smith, 1987). Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occured in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. (Morrow and Hudson, 1986) A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded. (Miller, et al, 2005)

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every [one] time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). It would appear that, rather than beign used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in this country and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing. (Huiras, et al, 1990) A study in Sweden indicated a rate of 0.074/100,000 and that, when hunting big game, most accidents resulted from a mistaken target. When hunting small game, accidents occurred most frequently as a result of mishandling the gun. Hunting accidents did not increase with increasing gun ownership or numbers of hunters. (Ornehult and Eriksson, 1987)

Source

 

[Peter Gazinya]

Thank you, again, for validating my assertions.



The irony! The same people who call anti-hunting people "tree-hugging pussies" (people who want to protect the environment - ecologists) say that their "sport" of killing animals is for the purpose of ecological management... Interesting. I guess that makes hunters tree-hugging pussies as well, or no?

Hmmm. That's something to think about, I suppose. :dunno: But then again, there's...

I love how you quote and comment on the things others have written that support your argument. You high five them, slap 'em on the back, and welcome them to the club of "the only ones that get it". Yet the many cogent, reasonable, logic points made that support responsible hunting by well intentioned, respectful individuals all seem to be ignored.

It's as though you aren't even reading any of the logical, meaningful arguments and if you are, they seem to be completely dismissed or deemed beneath the intelligence of the higher thinking humans that only eat massed produced food.

Last one, I'm out. If you wanna discuss this any further then start a new thread explaining just what the hell kind of hunting accident happened in your childhood.:dunno:

:hatsoff: :2 cents:

 

[Peter Gazinya]

B - with no guns in the house, the accidental death rates of children, and adults, would be significantly reduced. Voluntary, intentional deaths such as a 13 year-old going into his dad's closet and pulling out the ole "trusty" shotgun, waiting for his parents to come home from work and them blowing them into guts-stuck-on-a-wall would also be more limited if no guns were kept in the family's home.

First of all, you've NOW hijacked this thread into one about gun control, I'm just wondering what took so long. Second, alot of hunters keep their guns and rifles locked up out at the hunting lodge. Your bandwidth may not have been wasted but it was certainly wasted on anyone with a genuine desire to learn more about the good and evils of hunting, i.e. it was completely irrelevant.

You know, with no cars on the street, the rate of children and adults dying in car accidents would be significantly reduced. Now what?

 

[Member2019]

B - with no guns in the house, the accidental death rates of children, and adults, would be significantly reduced. Voluntary, intentional deaths such as a 13 year-old going into his dad's closet and pulling out the ole "trusty" shotgun, waiting for his parents to come home from work and them blowing them into guts-stuck-on-a-wall would also be more limited if no guns were kept in the family's home.

And what do you think the percentage of those occurances are compared to kids who learn and grow up with guns?!?!?!

It takes a very concerted effort for most children to get a gun on the street. In certain segments of society they're even sold to children on the street by thugs, but saying that gun deaths of parents by their children won't be reduced by keeping a gun-free home is simply unfathomable.

I said far less likely when the parents are responsible and teach their children to respect guns! That's the repeat omission even your study did!

Ridiculous. :2 cents:

No, it's IGNORANCE.
The statistics are used to push an agenda with kids, not realizing it's kids who are never taught to respect a gun that kill people by a wide margin.

Here's an article for information, and I normally hate long copied & pasted articles in posts:
Statistics, Gun Control Issues, and Safety ...
This is reflected in our constitution, whose second amendment guarantees that "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Though the application of this amendment applied to maintenance of a militia, and not private gun ownership, the second amendment has been consistently interpreted to protect private ownership of many types of guns.

This is bullshit.
It mentions militia, it does NOT mean it's the only reason.
Remember, the US States wrote the Bill of Rights, and the absolute #1 and #2 Amendments that the majority of states wanted before signing the constitution was to ensure against federal abuse on its citizens.
Those who put it in such a "oh, they didn't mean that" context are wholly ignorant of the entire reason for the Bill of Rights -- for which our Consititution would have never been passed by 9 of the original 13 states without it!

Furthermore, even the federal drafters instantly recognized this, and called for the submissions which were originally 91 and whittled down to 10.
Anyone who has read Franklin, Jefferson and others can quote many times where they have explicitly talked about private gun control post-revolution, and that it should never be outlawed.
Frankly is regularly quoted on the "myths" of what (and his words) "gun control" in the American society does not actually do.

And he did not put it in a context of "militia," other than the rights of states to organize a militia.
In actuality, that portion of the 2nd Amendment was largely voided in the civil war.
So if that was the case, why wasn't private gun ownership outlawed in 1861 then?

Child safety is an important issue. Firearms injury is the second leading cause of non-natural death in childhood and adolescence. (CDC, 2004) Accidental shooting deaths are most commonly associated with one or more children playing with a gun they found in the home. (Choi, et al, 1994) The person pulling the trigger is a friend, family member, or the victim. (Harruff, 1992)

Yes, and I quote ...

"children playing with a gun"

Children who are taught to use and respect firearms do not do this!
Parents who own guns and and to not teach their children to use and respect them are irresponsible!
In that case, yes, the parents should not own a gun!
I more than agree!

But the small number of children who use guns to hurt their parents would use other means if guns were not available.
The overwhelming majority of children who hurt other children or adults is due to "playing with guns" because they don't respect them.
And that's overwhelmingly because they were never allowed to use them and, therefore, respect them.

Parents who have guns need to teach every member in the house to respect them!
Everyone from the Libertarian party to the NRA will tell you that's issue #1!
Again, these studies don't point that out, and that's why they get quoted on "playing" rates instead of actual kids who know and respect them.

But thank you for making my case further, on the fact that it's "ignorance" more than anything.
Towns where gun ownership is a heafty percentage are actually some of the safest places to live, and where far more children respect firearms.
Larger cities tend to have crime in general, and outlawing guns will do little to stop them from being acquired by criminals.

 

[member2686]

I didn't hijack the thread, PG - it was Prof Voluptuary who mentioned guns in the home (a few posts above) and changed the thread's direction into a 2nd Amendment issue (see his post above mine here). Threads evolve on boards, as people should in the world, and hunting needlessly for "sport" should go away as part of that evolution since we no longer NEED to wander through forests looking for food in "developed" countries, IMO. Sometimes I question how developed we actually are. Damn.

As for me citing other people's words - hey, it's what THEY wrote. I didn't write it.

:hatsoff:

 

[Member2019]

First of all, you've NOW hijacked this thread into one about gun control, I'm just wondering what took so long.

It's been mentioned throughout, even I have.
I've related my colleagues who are Park Rangers to hunting as I have related my other colleagues who are Police Officers to gun control.

I don't hunt, because I'm too ignorant.
I don't own a gun, because I'm too ignorant.
As such, if I did either, I'd be damn irresponsible!
But you can't outlaw something because people are irresponsible.
Frankly is a keen insight on this, and I wish people would read more of such enlightened individuals.

Especially when they are labelled as "oh, that was 225 years ago" when the arguments they were having have not changed in over 2 centuries!

Thousands of children kill other children and adults each year because parents are too irresponsible to keep their kids away from guns when they are young.
Thousands of older children kill as well because their parents were too irresponsible to teach their entire family to respect them when each member is old enough.

If you own guns in your home, you had better teach your entire family to respect them.
If you don't, you have no business owning them!
The problem isn't gun ownership or control, it's irresponsibility.
We have hundreds of thousands of deaths in the US due to that as well, far greater numbers than from guns (which is only #10).

Same deal with hunting.
People who don't respect it don't get it.
They don't see a need for it.
And that same ignorance would make them irresponsible hunters.

God forbid if they actually learned how to hunt and the world of game and wildlife.

If I die tomorrow because someone shot me, my question wouldn't be why do they allow guns.
It would be who was irresponsible and let that person get a gun.
The entire Brady Bill is poorly enforce in this age of technology not because it is not enforceable, but because there are political agendas at work.

And that's what pisses me off most.
Ignorant people having arguments about what they assume is the problem, but is not the actual problem!

 

[Member2019]

I didn't hijack the thread, PG - it was Prof Voluptuary who mentioned guns in the home (a few posts above) and changed the thread's direction into a 2nd Amendment issue (see his post above mine here).

Yes I did, because several people before me mentioned gun control as well!
The ignorance of the two are very, very related!

People fear what they don't know, and would be very irresponsible.
That's why they assume everyone else is irresponsible.

There's a reason why I'm a paying member of the ACLU (and EFF) and NRA.
You only hear about the 5% of non-sense they do.
You don't hear about the 95% of good they do in protecting the US 1st and 2nd Amendments.

But most Americans would be ignorant of those concepts anyway.
Especially when I read things like "hunting for sport is bloodlust" and "the 2nd Amendment is only for militia."
"Freedom of Speech" is yet another is see attacked, with 60% of Americans thinking the media -- or at least the portions of the media they disagree with -- should be controlled.

And yes, I just introduced another tangent.

 

[Imagine]

Sigh, you did it twice in that post. I won't respond to you further, you have already psycho-analyzed the sport and won't listen to any logic anyone could present to the contrary. It fits what you want to believe, not what is reality.

How convenient. All I'm asking you to do is prove that a word does not mean what I think it does. Of course I can't listen to logic, you haven't actually presented any for me to listen to yet.

Again, what does bloodthirsty mean if it doesn't mean looking forward to killing or wounding another creature? Or, if you'd prefer, why doesn't hunting in this context involve killing or wounding another creature (I wish you luck proving that one wrong).

Edit: Here, let me make it easy for you:
A) Hunting for sport = killing and deriving pleasure from it
B) Bloodthirst = killing and deriving pleasure from it
Therefore: Hunting for sport = bloodthirst.

 

[Member2019]

Argumentative games v. the greater issue

How convenient. All I'm asking you to do is prove that a word does not mean what I think it does. Of course I can't listen to logic, you haven't actually presented any for me to listen to yet. Again, what does bloodthirsty mean if it doesn't mean looking forward to killing or wounding another creature? Or, if you'd prefer, why doesn't hunting in this context involve killing or wounding another creature (I wish you luck proving that one wrong).

You are using it to demonize the concept to fit your agenda with word games.
That is your agenda and I will have no part of it, especially with the stretches that hunters actually enjoy violence and other acts.

You first did it by lumping all hunters into 1 category.
Then you tried to re-clarify by lumping all hunters into 2 categories.
I'm sure I could get you to down to 10 categories with a few more posts.
You'll just keep going, "oh, I meant these hunters, not those."
And when that's all said and done, you'll just say, "well, most hunters are in the 'bloodlust' category anyway."

Maybe you're doing it for entertainment, I don't know, but it's clear that you haven't bothered to read what I've repeatedly written.
I'm not upset with you in the least bit, if anything, I pity you like most Americans.

Now at this point I've posted enough, so I won't bother the thread with anything else.
I thank everyone for allowing me to post so much, but I'm passionate about the ignorance of others not taking away our rights -- even those rights I don't personally exercise.
I'm man enough to admit I'm ignorant, but that doesn't mean I'm assuming on things I have no personal interest in doing or being allowed to do myself.

Again, I invite people to re-read my posts and recognize the "greater issue" I'm actually addressing here.