Ignorant Anti-Hunters Freak Out Over Woman Who Legally Killed a Lion

[NoDak]

Ahh. So us using a gun, which provides a much quicker, humane death as opposed to an arrow makes us ignorant. Or idiots. You do know how an animal dies after being hit with a broadhead, right? Buy either bleeding to death, dying of asphyxiation, or drowning in it's own blood. Yeah, a bow and arrow is MUCH more humane than a bullet is.

Still waiting on which animal it is that can outrun an arrow, btw.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

Who says they don't? Animals would attack and kill people all the time as soon as they have the chance.

It's just that we almost always win because we are a superior species.

When does "human hunting season" officially open for animals, schmitty? It doesn't. Animals hunt humans because we enter their territory and they're defending it or because they view us as food. Our reasons to hunt are dramatically different now than they were generations ago. Yes, a lot of people eat what they hunt; and that's a good thing. But, many don't. Hunting for pure sport, and not for food or population control, is absurd. I get the fact that issues like deer populations (as an example) need to be controlled. They can be a serious nuisance. But like I said, use a bow and arrow. If we're that superior, then we shouldn't need anything else. I've read the excuses, and I don't give a shit.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

Ahh. So us using a gun, which provides a much quicker, humane death as opposed to an arrow makes us ignorant. Or idiots. You do know how an animal dies after being hit with a broadhead, right? Buy either bleeding to death, dying of asphyxiation, or drowning in it's own blood. Yeah, a bow and arrow is MUCH more humane than a bullet is.

Still waiting on which animal it is that can outrun an arrow, btw.

Where did I say anything about the humanity in killing something? I don't care how the thing dies. I just ask for a level playing field in the manner in which the death is administered. If something is being hunted, death is the expected end result. How it happens, in my opinion, is moot. I derive no greater comfort in knowing it didn't suffer as much from the bullet as it would from something else. That doesn't mean anything to me.

And when did I talk about out-running an arrow? My point was that an animal can charge at a human and take him down long before he has the chance to reload a new arrow into the bow, where that problem does not exist with a gun. That's the lopsided advantage. I didn't realize I had to dumb it down for you that much, NoDak.

 

[jsmith6919]

When does "human hunting season" officially open for animals, schmitty? It doesn't. Animals hunt humans because we enter their territory and they're defending it or because they view us as food. Our reasons to hunt are dramatically different now than they were generations ago. Yes, a lot of people eat what they hunt; and that's a good thing. But, many don't. Hunting for pure sport, and not for food or population control, is absurd. I get the fact that issues like deer populations (as an example) need to be controlled. They can be a serious nuisance. But like I said, use a bow and arrow. If we're that superior, then we shouldn't need anything else. I've read the excuses, and I don't give a shit.

You're acting like it's a given anyone can do it, unless it's a canned hunt you can't just pick up a rifle & get a deer knowing nothing about hunting, there is skill involved & I'd bet on the deer if it was you trying for him

 

[Plan9Misfit]

You're acting like it's a given anyone can do it, unless it's a canned hunt you can't just pick up a rifle & get a deer knowing nothing about hunting, there is skill involved & I'd bet on the deer if it was you trying for him

I don't hunt, jsmith, so I'd bet on the deer getting away as well. And that's because I have no skill with a bow and arrow and won't fire a gun at any living creature unless it's in defense of my person or my family.

 

[NoDak]

Where did I say anything about the humanity in killing something?

You're talking about caging animals, and harvesting them for meat. As opposed to an animal living in the wild and being hunted. I'd say there are some humanity issues there when considering a wild animal as opposed to a domesticated one.

And when did I talk about out-running an arrow?

In my opinion, real hunting involves a bow and arrow, not a gun. There's no "sport" in shooting something which can't outrun a bullet.

Remember this gem? If you're not inferring they could outrun an arrow here, what point were you trying to make with that 2nd sentence? Do you even know?

My point was that an animal can charge at a human and take him down long before he has the chance to reload a new arrow into the bow, where that problem does not exist with a gun. That's the lopsided advantage.

You really don't know anything about guns, bows, or hunting in general do you? It doesn't take long at all to grab an arrow from your quiver and notch it. Probably comparable to working the lever of a bolt action rifle, and then re-acquiring your target visually in the scope or iron sights. And I'd say that most if not all animals will be running AWAY from you if you fire and miss, regardless of what weapon you're using. The flight is much stronger than the fight instinct, unless they are already wounded, cornered, or defending their young. To include bears and big cats.

I didn't realize I had to dumb it down for you that much, NoDak.

The only thing you've managed to dumb down here is your own argument. It's getting worse the longer you wade around in it. Pay attention, there are far more people agreeing with my stance as opposed to yours. There's a reason.

All you're proving here is you don't know a single thing about what you are attempting to talk about here.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

NoDak, I'd bet my life on the fact it takes a longer period of time to reach into the quiver, grab a new arrow, notch it, aim, and shoot it, compared to bolt action rifles. I've shot many bolt action rifles, and it doesn't take long to work the lever and aim again.

 

[NoDak]

I didn't say it was faster. I said comparable. And unless you're a complete novice, it doesn't take long at all to notch another arrow.

Noticed you conveniently forgot about everything else and focused on a throwaway point, tho'. Cool.

 

[Plan9Misfit]

I didn't say it was faster. I said comparable. And unless you're a complete novice, it doesn't take long at all to notch another arrow.

Noticed you conveniently forgot about everything else and focused on a throwaway point, tho'. Cool.

Actually, my point is that I'm against hunting with guns. I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[Smitty]

When does "human hunting season" officially open for animals, schmitty? It doesn't.

You are generally a smart poster but this is literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

It's called all the time. Animals don't have a "hunting season" because they are too fucking stupid to coordinate such a thing. Any animal would kill a human for self gain if it had the chance, and that includes for obtaining food and territory. That's what animals do, they fight and kill and hunt each other. They don't respect humans any more than we respect them. Actually, we generally, as a species, have begun to treat animals with a lot more respect, including giving consideration to sustaining their populations, than they would ever give to us.

Animals hunt humans because we enter their territory and they're defending it or because they view us as food. Our reasons to hunt are dramatically different now than they were generations ago. Yes, a lot of people eat what they hunt; and that's a good thing. But, many don't. Hunting for pure sport, and not for food or population control, is absurd. I get the fact that issues like deer populations (as an example) need to be controlled. They can be a serious nuisance. But like I said, use a bow and arrow. If we're that superior, then we shouldn't need anything else. I've read the excuses, and I don't give a shit.

So you're saying hunting as long as you aren't gonna simply mount the carcasse and it's ok? I think that's what everyone is saying.

And that there is no reason that a bow and arrow is more humane or better than a gun.

 

[Smitty]

And when did I talk about out-running an arrow? My point was that an animal can charge at a human and take him down long before he has the chance to reload a new arrow into the bow, where that problem does not exist with a gun. That's the lopsided advantage. I didn't realize I had to dumb it down for you that much, NoDak.

So a human, who is hunting for meat and sustenance, should give up the evolutionary-ingrained advantage he has over the animals, just to make it more fair? Why? You just want more humans to die while they are hunting for food? You think it would be better if animals could take out more humans along the way? Stupid.

Newsflash, humans can't compete physically with large animals. Our advantage is brains, which translates into technology.