Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #54)
Thu Mar 6, 2014, 10:57 AM
Star Member Le Taz Hot (16,838 posts)
56. Or . . .
you people could just go to the grocery store or farmers markets like everybody else and allow wild, free things to live. And yes, you people DO derive pleasure from killing. It's why you buy your pew pew toys and, in order to use them, something must die in the process.
I've no respect for anyone who does what you do. None.
Wow... so much stupid in one reply. If the wild, free, things you love aren't hunted by the highest predator on the food chain (like it or not, we have hunted most of the predators that can kill a deer to almost exctinction in the 19th century) i.e. human beings, then the wild animal stocks will have overpopulation. This will lead to animals starving in the wild, a long, slow death.
While I do not hunt personally, I do understand the purpose behind it. To not let people hunt, will cause the populations of deer (for example) to explode exponentially. And they will move where they can get food easily and not worry about what few natural predators may be out there... the suburbs.
That means you will be running over the dear you love so much Le Taz Hot. Which is more humane? getting a well placed shot from a 175 grain projectile and dying quickly? Or being hit by a car by an idiot like yourself and left to die slowly and painfully on the side of one of our roads while causing damage to your precious hybrid (I'm sure you have one you sanctimonious b**ch)?
Your ignorance of the Law of Unintended Consequences astounds me and amazes me.