Should blind hunters be allowed to use laser sights?
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
What? Some 'legaly' blind people can still see fine, they just arent allowed to drive. They should not be allowed to hunt at all. I can see it now in the headlines...." Blind hunter shoots man , Mistook him for deer. But it was a clean shot!!!" HELL no
he clearly stated that all 'blind' hunters would be accompanied by a sighted guide. this guide would identify possible targets, and thanks to the laser sight, check that the blind guy is actually shooting that target.
if it wasnt for my moral objection to hunting then i would fully support this bill.
if it wasnt for my moral objection to hunting then i would fully support this bill.
You get up EARLY in the morning. You drive many miles to a deserted area. You haul whatever it takes to kill a defenseless animal into the woods (quietly). Then you wait, and wait and wait..... Finally an animal wanders in range. You shoot it. You chase it. You gut it. You skin it. You haul all the bits and pieces plus the equipment you used back to the pickup truck* and drive back home. Finish butchering and cooking and then enjoy the meat. :bugeye:
or.......
drive 5 min to the grocery store, buy beef and take home and cook.
You cannot tell me that venison tastes THAT much better than beef. No way. That means that the only reason for going through ALL that is because you are bloodthirsty and will not be happy until you kill something yourself and eat it.
By the way, anyone who goes into the forest with an armed blind person (laser sight or no laser sight) deserves everything they get.
*[size=-2]what else would they be driving?[/size]
Ever have it ?
It sorta makes beef seem like eating cardboard, IMHO, anyway.
I was quite surprised.
FINALLY! after an entire page, someone got it right!
what if you enjoy hunting, and something blinds you (Accident or illness), but you have a yearly hunting trip with your sons. who am I to say someone can't do that? they, by virtue of the spotter and laser sight, wont shoot people or wrong animals, so whats the big deal?
also, yes Venison does taste better than beef.
also, WTF are we supposed to do with the overpopulation of deer? its bad for the environment to have so many deer. if blind people want to help the environment, let them.
I hate all the mambi-pambi jerkoffs who want to legislate morality. shut up and let decisions be made about safety and ecology, not whether or not you like the idea of killing something.
Vinny: What about these laser sights I got on? You think they're okay? Oh!
Mona Lisa: Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the clear blue water... BAM! A FUCKIN' BULLET RIPS OFF PART OF YOUR HEAD! YOUR BRAINS ARE LAYIN' ON THE GROUND IN LITTLE BLOODY PIECES. Now, I ax ya. Would you give a fuck what kind of sight the son of a bitch who shot you had?
adapted from "My Cousin Vinny"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/My_Cousin_Vinny
Last edited:
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Then youve got extreme issues that need sorting out.
Deers arnt overpopulated atall, compare the human population and damage done to the environment by human beings with the number of deer and their relative damage to the enviornment to get a better perspective.
Time to hunt/cull humans instead maybe?
Eh? morality has been a legalised aspect of society for hundereds if not thousands of years, nothing new atall here.
In a way, you are right. My problem is that in today's PC world we are trying to make everything and everybody equal. Well, we aren't. The whole point of hunting is lost on a blind man. What, the guide later would describe to him,: he went down fast, man! It was a perfect shot, straight through his heart!
Hell, did I say I shot the deer? My nephew did, and my mother in law brought it over. We only had to cook it.
1. How would you know, until you actually tried it?
2. It tasted better.
3. It also tasted better because it was fucking FREE!!!!!!
Do you know how much meat you can get for free if you have a vegetarian hunter friend??? (not that my nephew is vegetarian)
People should educate themselves before they start to mouth off on messageboards.
In certain areas the deer overpopulation is so bad and there are so few hunters, that the state allows 2 or even more deer to be shot per hunter per season.
When in doubt, Google is your friend!
Here you go lazy ass:
http://naturetourism.allegheny.edu/essay_deeroverpopulation.html
Deer cause 34 000 driving accidents per year just in the state of Pennsylvania.
sysgyz said:
I have tried venison, and it's very good. I would eat it again and as soon as the local market stocks it I will buy it. I does NOT taste so good that it is worth all of that trouble to get it. And it is buy no means free. Gun, bullets, gas, hunting gear, hunting license.... all cost money. My original point is valid. It does not taste SO good to justify all that trouble unless you are bloodthirsty and enjoy killing.
I would also be willing to argue that people have more of an overpopulation problem than deer do.
Sure, but not for me. Also people hunt as a hobby and they consider the 'free" meat as an extra.
I agree, but until I taste humans, I don't advocate of hunting them for food... For hobby, that is another question...
deer are very overpopulated. ask any ecologist or wildlife manager. also, just because one animal is hurting the environment, it makes it ok for another?
yes, but morality with reason behind it. when you get into something that is completely subjective, and start going on peoples feelings, then you should not legislate it.
if you want to invoke the morality argument, then you first have to prove that deer deserve more moral consideration than the countless plants and animals adversely effected by their overpopulation.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
I believe you missed the entire point of my post, over-population is entirely relative. It is only from a human perspective that deers are over-populated.
People really should read between the lines before jumping the gun and assuming a lack in knowledge.
Deer dont cause road accidents, humans cause road accidents by building roads through a deer's natural habitat.In certain areas the deer overpopulation is so bad and there are so few hunters, that the state allows 2 or even more deer to be shot per hunter per season.
When in doubt, Google is your friend!
Here you go lazy ass:
http://naturetourism.allegheny.edu/essay_deeroverpopulation.html
Deer cause 34 000 driving accidents per year just in the state of Pennsylvania.
People have the precise chain of cause and effect all wrong on this, you can use google to pull up figures but it wont help you to look at a situation from a different vantage point (which is all inviting you to do).
Last edited:
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
See my post above, over-population is a sujective quantity, which usually offen relies on a soley self-involved perspective.
By the same token if youre for redressing some kind of ecological 'balance' then you have a hell of a problem yourself trying to gauge which animal has more value in comparison to another and then atempting to cull in accordance, this is ham-fisted 'ecology' at its worst.
Well said Helio, I'm in total agreement.
I see 2 solutions for your approach:
1. We stop using cars, since people cause car accidents with deer, not deer.
2. We start killing people instead of deer, because overpopulation is relative.
I guess the 2 together would be perfect for the deer.... :bugeye:
overpopulation is not, intrinsically, subjective. if one plant or animal is disproportionately numbered, it will cause the ecological system to change. moreover, that change is usually considered bad because it means the destruction of food webs that take hundreds, thousands, or maybe even millions of years to rebuild (if ever).
I don't have to give value to the animals/plants. like I said above, the entire ecosystem can rest on a single species, why destroy food webs unnecessarily when you can preserve them by keeping a single animal in check? I may not know which animal is deserving of more value, but I know the entire ecosystem may be very important.
overpopulation is based on maintaining an ecosystem. if the ecosystem is threatened by a certain animal being very abundant, then it is considered overpopulated with that particular animal. you are right that the value of an ecosystem is subjective. but when we depend on the ecosystem for a healthy environment for ourselves, it is something that most people can agree, subjectively, that we should value. some may argue that human life is of less importance than other animals, but that is also subjective. when you get down to it, you can't really have any value based judgment without it being subjective. I value my life, that is subjective, but that does not mean my opinion is wrong, or should not be considered.
p.s. your argument is essentially that value is subjective, and that subjective values are without meaning. welcome to the world of ethical nihilism.
google said:
Last edited: