Guns, vegetarians, hunters, and a divided America
Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:23 | rlp
Another crazy person has bought a gun and taken out his rage and frustration on innocent people. I read that Jim Adkisson bought his shotgun about a month ago and began planning his rampage at that time.
Gun ownership. It is a divisive issue in our country. How should guns be used? Who should own them? How shall we regulate their use and purchase?
I am not a hunter, but I come from a family of hunters. One of my grandfathers grew up in a poor family of sharecroppers. When he was a boy, his family hunted animals, killed them, and ate them. They didn’t buy much food from a store. They grew food or hunted for food. They were not picky about this; they couldn’t afford to be. I once asked my grandfather what kind of animals they used to eat. He said, “Whatever we could shoot.” That meant birds, possums, squirrels, rabbits, and whatever else was available.
My grandfather went to work for Exxon when the oil boom was big in Texas. After that he could buy food in stores, but he always preferred to grow his own food in his garden and hunt or fish for his meat.
My uncles and father hunted with my grandfather, but by that time hunting was no longer a necessity. It was something that they enjoyed. There were old rituals involved that reminded them of their roots and of the land and of our close ties to it. They chose to hunt and eat what they killed instead of buying all of their food from a store.
My father moved to the city, and I grew up in that environment. I went hunting with my grandfather, father, and uncles when we were visiting East Texas. It was something that men did together in our part of the world. I enjoyed being with the men, and I certainly wanted them to be proud of me. I wanted to be included in manly things. But I never liked hunting very much. It wasn’t that I had anything against it. But I would rather have played baseball or watched television. I stopped hunting about the time I left home.
My children know nothing of hunting, and they don't like the idea of killing animals. The oldest two are vegetarians, so you can’t catch them in the hypocrisy of eating animals that other people have killed for them. They've opted out of the whole eating animals thing, and I greatly respect their passion and commitment. I suppose my brother and I will be the last connection in our family to something that is old and honorable. Honest and careful hunting of the type that leads to frugal living, care for the land, and respect for what it means to take the life of an animal is a good thing. It’s a natural thing. It’s much better than dropping into a fast-food restaurant and eating meat that doesn’t cost much or cost you anything in time and trouble. The meat industry treats animals as things. They grow up in pens and cages, do not live decent animal lives, and are killed with no sense of compassion, stewardship, or conservation.
It seems ironic to me that city people who eat meat bought in stores would think that men like my father and grandfathers are cruel. The reality is, an animal that lives a natural life and then is killed cleanly and quickly by a hunter who eats what he kills and kills no more than he eats becomes a natural part of the great cycle of life.
It’s not the gentle vegetarians or the careful hunters who are the problem. The vegetarians have made their choice not to eat other creatures. And the careful hunter understands what taking a life means. He knows what it costs. And it costs him greatly in time and money to obtain meat in this old and classic way.
The problem lies with two other groups of people. The redneck fools who grow up in cities, drive huge pickup trucks for show, drink too much, then run around in the woods shooting anything that moves and eating nothing they have killed. (At least I’m assuming that Dick Cheney didn’t eat the last person he shot while hunting) They are a problem. And sentimental city people who dine in fine restaurants, delicately eating animals that were ground up in the meat industry, all the while looking down their noses at simple people in the country who hunt for food. They are a problem too.
The classic hunters and vegetarians are doing just fine. Their lives are good for the planet, good for their souls, and good for animals. And neither group cares much for what rednecks and fancy city people think anyway.
Unfortunately, most of the fighting over guns and about how guns should be regulated is done by the problem groups. Pseudo-hunters who think they need an assault rifle to hunt deer, militant survivalists who want to accumulate vast stores of weapons because they are afraid of the government, and city people who can’t seem to distinguish between honest hunters and rednecks. And as long as those two groups are making all the noise, fighting each other using fear as leverage, and making insane accusations, we will never have an appropriate level of gun control.
And we need gun control. Anyone who has ever fired a gun and watched an animal die knows that using a gun requires great care and wisdom. In the old days, a father taught his son or daughter about shooting. There were rituals involved. It was a big deal when my grandfather gave my father a gun. It was an event that was years in the making. And it was followed by years of careful training. These people don’t need or want to go to a gun show to buy a weapon they can shoot the same day. They are likely using a treasured gun handed down by their grandfather. People who know about guns understand that it is INSANE to allow people to buy them quickly and with no regulations.
The crazy people have drawn crazy lines and put us on opposite sides. And we’ve let them get away with it. They have drawn lines between gun owners and gun control supporters, as though those groups were mutually exclusive. They have drawn lines between meat eaters and vegetarians and claimed that one group cares for the planet and the other does not.
The lines should be drawn between people who think carefully, take the health of our planet and environment seriously, and are trying to be wise with those things, and people who do not. One wonders what would happen if classic hunters, simple country people who live close to the land, vegetarians, environmental activists, and smart city people who are paying attention to where their food and clothing come from were to get together in a big room. They might find they have a lot in common.
And their collective voice might finally drown out the insanity of the problem people. That would be so sweet. But it probably won’t happen because of another problem that I don’t have time to deal with here. It’s a thorny problem, and it lies at the very heart of the Christian spiritual tradition. And we can’t talk about it easily because we’ve allowed fundamentalists and militant atheists to draw lines between you and me as well.
Which is a shame. Maybe we’ll talk about that some other time.
rlp
Tags:
Well said brother
AMEN
You have it backwards. It is
You have it backwards. It is not the random gunmen of the world who are "Crazy" it is society that is insane. If you consider this statement carefully, with reason, and without emotion, you will find it to be true.
You think this is about, responsible hunters versus sentimental peacemakers? I don't recall the second amendment mentioning hunting at all.
When there is no longer ANY capacity for an individual to go out and cause havoc with a weapon, we will be at the edge of 1984 or Brave New World.
Hmm. Why don't you go ahead
Hmm. Why don't you go ahead and explain to us why it is society that is insane and not the gunmen. I mean, if that is so obvious that you feel confident anyone thinking about it will agree with you, it shouldn't be hard for you to explain. Because I may be slow, but I don't know what you mean.
I never claimed the constitution gave us the right to hunt. But I did claim that proper stewardship in hunting is a good thing.
Last, I'd like you to explain a little more about your last statement. "when there is no longer any capacity for an individual to go out and cause havoc." Under what possible scenario could that take place? Humans will freeze blades of grass to make shivs if they can't find a weapon and want to hurt someone. We'll always have weapons.
I think you'd probably have
I think you'd probably have to read V for Vendetta, and study Rorschach in Watchmen to understand. And 1984. And Brave New World. I mean, just look at the world around you.
People actually believe that voting will change anything. They all band behind their lesser messiahs hoping for "change" or "strength". Meanwhile their constant work for the ludicrous dream of peace, compounded by the activity of the powerful banks, corporations, and political weasels all congeal to rob the individual of his self direction. And ultimately that individual rebels and lashes out at the society which is indifferent to its own slavery.
Now, personally, I wish they would direct their firepower more, go take out the pentagon, or your local police station at least. We need militias more than we need lone-gunmen though.
When those last few freedom fighters are gone we'll have gone too far.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever"
Just so we're clear. V for
Just so we're clear. V for Vendetta and Watchmen, those are comic books, right? Well, graphic novels. I mean no disrespect - truly I don't - I think Sandman was a serious work of art and literature. Of course we've all read 1984. The real 1984 passed quietly enough, I noticed. Maybe I'm one of the ones with my head in the sand, but those visions of reality seem a bit far-fetched.
I think it is frightening to some of us to think that a person could become influenced by these graphic novels enough to warrant attempts to "take out the Pentagon" or some other violence, all in the name of some ideal or belief that says community/government organization is evil enough to warrant suicidal attacks.
On the other hand, I must confess that I believe revolution happens now and again in the human family. Usually it is called for. Still, I must confess that I'm not tracking with you. Free country though, right? Your thoughts are your own.
I wish you the best.
I should also add that my
I should also add that my comment about hunting and the second amendment was a response to the mis-characterization that gun control involves hunting. I agree with your comments about hunting. But the question about gun control isn't about the right to have hunting rifles, it's about the right to own and wield the same weapons your army and police service hold.
If you really think it would be wrong to destroy the pentagon through violent means, that is really terrifying.
You really should read V for vendetta. It is a meditation on the nature of freedom, versus the nature of justice. Watchmen is a meditation on the nature of power. If you really think 1984 is irrelevant, then, well you are not aware enough of your surroundings. I recommend listening to Immortal Technique, or reading some David Icke books. And Brave New World is a terrifying vision of what we are already becoming.
Also, it's really obnoxious to say that comic books or other media would "influence" an individual towards violence. That suggestion betrays an ignorance of psychology, which I know you don't possess. You've read Jung.
Further, I don't really
Further, I don't really advocate violence. I don't like it much. I'm asserting role reversal. It seems tremendously arrogant to me, for someone to dismiss someone else as insane.
I've read everything on your
I've read everything on your list, anonymous, and I don't agree with you. Violent revolution is necessary sometimes, but not here, and not now. Things aren't that bad yet, and while nonviolent means of improving the world aren't as flashy, they're a much better way of handling our present situation. The Republicans aren't the Norsefire party, the US government isn't Ingsoc, and if you're worried about Brave New World style materialism, that's something you combat by giving to the needy and eschewing greed, not by blowing up buildings. You'll get a lot farther by showing people a better, more humane way of life-- a sort of gentle revolution-- than you will by bombing them.
Maybe you don't think it's
Maybe you don't think it's time yet for violent revolution. But I think perhaps that the time when a peaceful revolution could have succeeded are long past.
It's not your children working in a factory for pennies a day.
It's not your democratically elected government being overthrown so that some ignorant rich fucker can eat bananas for cheap.
Non-violent resistance will work great against m4's and waterboarding. Yeah. They'll learn from your gentle way of life, while they never see you from inside their physical and economic green zone.
Again, not advocating violence. I am not a violent man. I am conceding that violence may be the only way from this point on.
You accidentally made a good point
Violent revolution is necessary sometimes, but not here, and not now. Things aren't that bad yet, and while nonviolent means of improving the world aren't as flashy, they're a much better way of handling our present situation
The people that the good preacher found it so convenient to vilify and pass judgement upon who own firearms as a defense against tyranical government (one of the primary purposes of the Second Amendment by the founders own writings) agree with you.
But once you've bought into the completely unsubstantiated emotional hyperbole of the aforementioned preacher and removed guns from civilian hands (well, except maybe for single-shot rifles and shotguns for hunting), when it gets to the point that violent revolution is necessary, how do you propose it be carried out? Sticks and rocks don't tend to fare too well against military weapons.
People like me who actually believe that the government should not have a monopoly on violence are not tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists who live in bunkers. But we do acknowledge that this human endeavor, as every other throughout history, WILL fall eventually. If that happens during my lifetime, I will be prepared. And my children will know to be prepared during theirs.
My last exchange with you.
My last exchange with you. You can have the last word if you want. I didn't say comic books would influence someone toward violence. I said it would be a shame if someone were to read graphic novels and, using some sort of philosophy found there, feel justified to use violence. In other words, reading V for Vendetta and deciding they were justified to "take out the Pentagon." That would be the responsibility of the actor and not the graphic novel.
In case anyone missed those
In case anyone missed those authoritative works:
George Bush and Kris Kristofferson are really reptilian Illuminati who rule the world
Some incredibly profound rap lyrics.
Icke is pretty out there.
Icke is pretty out there. You have to be able to use critical thinking skills to pick out the relevant information. But it's such a huge wealth of information, and one so far removed from popular thought.
I don't personally like Immortal Technique much. He's too combative. But at least he's talking about the shit that's going down in the world.
My critical thinking skills
My critical thinking skills say it's more fruitful to pick relevant information out of the work of people who are slightly less delusional to start with.
Picking through a sewer, you may find the occasional twenty-dollar bill; but if twenty-dollar bills are what you're looking for, going to an ATM might be a better use of your time.
Anonymous, do you mind if I
Anonymous, do you mind if I ask how old you are?
Sounds like...
You may have been reading "The Ominvore's Dilemma" recently, Gordon. If not, I recommend it. Some of the same echoes about the inherent dignity and valuing of life which comes with purposeful hunting. Mixed in with a lot of other stuff about how we get our food these days. Good read.
oh.
"It’s a thorny problem, and it lies at the very heart of the Christian spiritual tradition."
I hope you'll say some more about this. I'm a UU. I went to graduate school and lived in married student housing two miles from that church. (Working mostly full time and going to school full time I didn't practically ever go to church there, but I knew it was there.)
I've been reading the comments on the news stories and it hurts my heart so much that I want to crawl in a hole.
It isn't like its unthinkable - my home church now had a bomb threat a few years ago over a marriage equality banner. But I'm weirdly shaken by this.
OldPoet From what little has
OldPoet
From what little has been put out about Adkisson, I think we are going to find that he was dissatisfied with his lot in life, disgruntled with the folks around him for his perceived causing of this problem, and delusional about the "liberal" groups that were at the heart of the wrongs done to him. No doubt he could have, without the access to a gun, done some amount of mayhem to those church members anyway. It is just too easy and too effective to kill off large groups of people when using a gun. He got jumped quickly, thank God and quick reactions, but we have all seen cases of those who did much worse just because they had a gun at hand.
I am much more worried about his thinking than his ability to get a gun. And, don't mistake me...I am way worried about his ability to get a gun. Grouping folks into anonymous herds of "liberal" or "facists" or "insert whatever" makes it easy, too easy, to remove the faces of individual people. "THEY are not like me. THEY are taking my job. THEY are nuts. THEY don't deserve what they are getting. THEY can be killed without it seeming like a human being lost life."
Responsible gun control is necessary and desirable and does not have to infringe on the rights of an individual to pursue happiness. Responsible mouth and brain control is much harder to achieve. I hope we can do something about both of them for all our sakes.
PS...I am one of those people who has been in the military and has loved ones who were and are cops and in the military and I really hope anonymous thinks about my face when he advocates blowing up the Pentagon or police stations. I assure you that I nor none of my family mean you or society any harm. Peace.
I'm kinda sorta okay with part of it
I can certainly agree on some level that killing your food out of necessity and only the food you require could be considered noble and acceptable, I'm just not sure if it applies so easily in 2008.
I do question however what is so "natural" and "circle of life" about killing an animal with a high powered rifle and scope from a tree blind. Let's get some guys out there with knives, and bows (not those ridiculous compound ones) and give that deer a fighting chance. Then maybe I'll accept the natural moniker a little easier.
As far as the "classic hunter" goes, if we're really talking about poor country folk that can't afford to go to the store to buy meat then why wouldn't those people just have livestock? Isn't it easier to raise some chickens, or get a pig or something? I understand that not everyone has the acreage to do so, but I'd wager the vast majority of the people you are generalizing as classic hunters would fall into the category of people who could support livestock. Seems more efficient to me, and accomplishes the same thing.
It also seems to me that to continue killing animals no longer out of necessity but just to carry on a tradition, whether you eat it or not, seems like a waste. If there are plenty of dead animals already out there for eating doesn't killing more for that same purpose seem like a waste of animals? I just get tired of the, "well I'm going to eat it so it's okay" argument. It shouldn't be used as a free pass.
I guess what I'm saying is I think at the end of day I think most hunters, classic or not, just like to shoot things. If they didn't they would find other ways of getting food.
Livestock isn't exactly a
Livestock isn't exactly a dream life for animals. The argument could be made that the best and most natural life for animals is to run wild and take their chances. And unless you are living that life, you (nor I) should probably make the judgment about which of these is moral.
I don't recommend a free pass, certainly. But if you know serious hunters, you know that many of them care about ecology and the wilderness. People who eat fast food are thousands of times more violent to animals by their support of that industry.
It is an interesting point about rifles. Humans evolved a brain and not sharp fangs and claws. We've always used our minds to make tools. At some point it becomes absurd. I don't know where you make that dividing line. Kind of an interesting philosophical question.
I've lived in major US
I've lived in major US cities and in areas that are so backwoods my friends from the city can barely imagine them. Where I live now we have a lot of organic and local food, a lot of small farming, a lot of backyard livestock...and the fact is, keeping livestock is really pretty expensive. Paying for feed, for barn, for vet bills, for maintenance, for breeding, staying up all night bottle feeding babies or fighting off predators...and doing it all IN ADDITION to holding down a day job? It's really hard. Compare that to getting a license and going out in the right season, tracking a deer (or possibly two) and freezing the meat. Hunting, even with its associated expenses, is cheaper...and if killing bothers you at all, hunting means you don't have a long established relationship with the animal you kill.
I don't hunt. I never have. I'm pretty sure I don't have the stomach for it. I ate vegetarian until medical reasons forced me to add fish to my diet (fifteen years vegetarian) and I try very hard to limit my diet to wild-caught animals. I have a lot of respect for people who are willing to confront the challenges involved in eating meat.
Thank you
As someone who grew up surrounded by the lakes, mines and pines of northern Minnesota, who also walked away from the family hunting tradition once he left home, I appreciate that someone else out there has come to the same conclusion as myself.
There's an episode in "The West Wing" that comes to mind. A conservative Republican has recently accepted a position in the Bartlett White House, and she is having a conversation in an office with Josh and Sam. Sam is railing her support of the second amendment, because he can't comprehend why some people just like guns. Ainsley responds that its not that the President's gun control policy is keeping anyone safer, is doing anything productive, is honoring the family traditions that exist -- its that the administration simply doesn't like the people who own guns. Period. This writing reminds me of that exchange.
"fundamentalists and militant atheists"
Good observation, that alliance between Christians and atheists. The same kind of politics at work when counties declare themselves "dry." Originally it was an alliance between Christians against drinking and bootleggers wanting to keep the stuff out of their market.
I'm a city person, and my
I'm a city person, and my only hunting experience was in a subsistence-hunting Arctic community. Elk was the big local hunt. I bagged a ptarmigan. I didn't stay long enough to eat it, but the people I was staying with did.
I don't have a problem with hunting to eat. I do have a problem with killing things for no good reason.
All that said...do you really know these fine-dining hypocrites? From way out here in NYC, where I've never met quite those people, it seems a little fictional. I know city snobs who denigrate country people generally, with hunting just being one easily-evoked symptom of that general hickhood, but I don't think I've ever heard quite the person I see in this essay. (And those are the same idiots who think anybody who lives more than two miles from Chelsea--say, in Queens, or above 125th Street--is a hick.)
I'm basically with you, but I felt it leaned a little stereotypey there. Is that because it's a legit type of person in your neck of the woods but not in mine?
You've never met someone who
You've never met someone who ate meat without questioning its source in a restaurant, but talked badly about hunters as though they were cruel? That's the person I described, or meant to anyway. Seems fairly common. I was using a bit of poetic language with fine dining. I just meant eating meat in nice restaurants, nice and clean, distant from the killing that takes place to put the meat on their plate.
Honestly, no. But I'm also
Honestly, no. But I'm also not in an area where it's much of a topic of conversation. In New York City, we use guns the way they're supposed to be used: To shoot people.
lol
lol
or maybe.....we should talk
or maybe.....we should talk about it now.
Have you seen the movie
Have you seen the movie "Fast Food nation"? A movie about where all that fast food meat comes from. Makes it really hard to ever visit McD's again.
Hi! I was interested in this
Hi! I was interested in this post because I'm not American, I grew up in a farming community (UK) where people do still go hunting, and we have very strict gun control laws. I like your characterisation because it takes it out of the 'gun = good/bad argument' and I hope focuses people on the main point. Guns in America are not usually used for hunting, and especially not for the kind of hunting you (rightly) espouse. No hunter would use any kind of military level weapon, it would mince the meat, not shoot it. So, I find it a load of CRAP that the gun ownership lobby even talk about hunting, it's all about feeling in control and kickin' ass.
And as a foreigner I simply cannot understand AT ALL how there is a 'debate' over this issue. I'm not being patronising, I just don't, genuinely, understand. Many other countries have guns, but they have laws to control them. They aren't perfect, but I would rather live under those laws than see weapons designed to kill freely available on the streets. It's a bit weird to me as it appears that the majority can see it's a bad idea, but they're unable to change the situation. That's perhaps the greatest shame.
I'm praying for all the victims, and for the perpetrator. So sorry for that community.
Hunters and Vegetarians
That's it. I've got to get my "Why I Am Not a Vegetarian (Anymore)" post written. I've been sitting on it for months now, and this might be just the kick in the ass I need.
As a former-vegan-turned-conservationist marrying a former-competitive-shooter-in-the-process-of-turning-hunter... well, what more needs to be said? I will support my partner when he hunts, even though I have a bit of gun-phobia, because I'd rather eat game than factory farmed meat for all the reasons you mentioned.
Preacher, I'm a
Preacher, I'm a mostly-non-militant atheist, and this line...
And we can’t talk about it easily because we’ve allowed fundamentalists and militant atheists to draw lines between you and me as well.
...strikes at the heart of why I've been reading RLP since you were on Salon. So many of the images of Christianity that those of us outside the tradition come from the fundamentalist wing, and they're really kind of scary to someone who mostly just wants everyone to be...left alone, to worship or not as they see fit. Peace, love, hope, and brotherhood don't make really good soundbites for the nightly news, but your writing serves to remind me that that's really all most mainstream Christians want, no matter who's yelling at me this week.
Thank you.
It always seems to be the
It always seems to be the angry people on the edges trying to keep the curious people toward the center from talking.
Angry People
AMEN!!
An Observer
Dear rlp, Your post manages
Dear rlp,
Your post manages to frame the entire control debate in terms that could lead to some compromise solution to the insane world in which we find ourselves. Like you, I grew up hunting, though I cannot claim a great deal of success. As I embark on my mid 60s, I sometimes wonder if my reduced physical capacity merits the risk of purchasing a firearm for protection. However, I could never live with myself if one of my grandchildren were to find the gun and hurt themself or anyone with it. So I will put my life at risk rather than risk the life of those I love (I really didn't mean for this to sound maudlin.)
Wow...and I thought that
Wow...and I thought that 25,000 people on this planet dying each day because of bad water was a problem! What was I thinking?
As a city-dwelling omnivore,
As a city-dwelling omnivore, I've always felt that I should go hunting someday. I feel like if it turns out I'm unwilling to participate in the kill/butchery, I should waive my right to eat meat.
Sistermarie, I feel that you have described the Jesus way of life: willingness to lay down one's own life rather than risk the life of another. Amen.
Urban homesteading and peacemaking
RLP - I really appreciated this post on so many levels. But wanted to respond to Antje. My husband and I live in a large city in the midwest but have chickens and ducks for eggs and meat, raise vegetables and fruit and have bee hives for honey. We heat with wood and try to live gently on the earth and with our neighbors. We moved to an area of town where many "friends" refuse to visit because they believe it is a violent area.
We also work very closely with a Catholic Worker community who is reclaiming vacant inner city lots by planting organic gardens and the making it available to the neighborhood that does not have access to organic or fresh produce, let alone items that are affordable.
There is an incredible respect and awareness the grows from having a direct relationship with our nutrition sources and the earth. It helps make us human. I think the underlying hope is to not only meet basic needs in a more sustainable way but to engage others in ways to see how they are connected to and dependent on other life. So very simple, but so powerful when experienced.
The oddity gets the headlines
Think about this single incident and how it has sparked the debate AGAIN and brought out all the insults AGAIN.
It is the media in general (not liberal, not conservative, not gun-hating, not gun-loving - just in general) making the unusually tragic seem common.
Let me give an example - an airline crashes or makes an emergency landing or has some other close call. That news is splattered all over the headlines from coast-to-coast (or all over the world for that matter). People get scared - some cancel flight plans. Some go overboard and never fly again.
Consider this: when was the last time you read this headline - "Two million airline passengers reached their destination safely today." Seriously, when have you read this headline? You proabaly haven't because IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. And, consequently, sparks no adverse reaction.
Right now over half of the households in the United States, and use their firearms in a proper manner (including the many times when the proper choice is not to use them). But again, have you ever read a headline about how may gun owners use their weapons properly on a daily basis? Probably not.
Final word - don't let the single random act define the deabte. Don't let the individual define the population. Way too much gets left out.
yes
Thank you for this essay, i have been a way for a while but always enjoy coming by.
i am a vegetarian who lives in Kansas City and i have a couple of friends who still hunt their own food and we get a long very well. We see and agree that many around us(including me till i worked in the food industry) do not know the amount of waste that we having in the food industry and there is a disconnect from cycle of life when we get our food in a nice package. Other assume what we believe often and try to make our points that of the extreme groups. It is easier to debate the extreme elements of any position but in doing this little is done about the real issue which are in the middle where the diffe
opps
rent points meet.
Well said. -g
Well said.
-g
Bill said: I do question
Bill said: I do question however what is so "natural" and "circle of life" about killing an animal with a high powered rifle and scope from a tree blind. Let's get some guys out there with knives, and bows (not those ridiculous compound ones) and give that deer a fighting chance. Then maybe I'll accept the natural moniker a little easier
I don't hunt, but I'm friends with a lot of hunters and the general consensus here from what I understand is that a knife, even a nice, compound bow, can really hurt an animal, but not kill it — at least not quickly. A good, responsible hunter, that's a pretty decent shot, can usually kill a deer very quickly and humanely.
For the record, I've been a vege (ovo-lacto, love my cheese) for 15 years. I have a lot of problems with corporate farms, but zero problems with hunting and local farms.
--
Not to sidetrack the issue, but RLP, if I read the bible right, it seems to me that Adam and Eve were veggies, and "meat-eating" didn't start until Noah (incidentally, the time when we became more of a hunter-gatherer society). Am I confused or misinterpreting? I always thought that'd be interesting if I were right there.
I have been reading that the
I have been reading that the shooter's most recent ex-wife attended the Knoxville UU.
It may be that this is much more a domestic violence issue than a political divide, although certainly oppressive and repressive politics can be argued to permit or encourage intimate partner violence.
It will be interesting to see how the church handles this if the madman is not a stranger but an enemy within. I've never seen a church handle domestic violence well -- I sincerely hope the UU steps up, but I fear they won't.
Some other time?
Preacher, you said: "But it probably won’t happen because of another problem that I don’t have time to deal with here. It’s a thorny problem, and it lies at the very heart of the Christian spiritual tradition. And we can’t talk about it easily because we’ve allowed fundamentalists and militant atheists to draw lines between you and me as well.
Which is a shame. Maybe we’ll talk about that some other time."
We don't need "some other time". Now would be good.
Please?
Hey preach... If God didn't
Hey preach...
If God didn't want us to eat meat, how come he made his critters so tasty?
I dont do shootin' but I do do fishin' and I do get mad at the kids if they don't eat what I had to kill in front off them. Some animal gave up it's life and freedom for their dinner.
Perhaps it's just all the excess we chuck out that's obsene. OK spiritualise that. Perhaps that's the rejection that Hell is about. Rejecting what Jesus gave up his life for...
Well thought out....
RLP,
I recently had a conversation with a friend that was not a vegetarian, but refused to go fishing because he said he could not "bare to kill a living thing." As we went out to dinner that night he happily ordered a steak and we went on our way. This perplexed me greatly. I think you just helped me figure out why I was so perplexed.
Sometimes people want to take credit for the platitude without backing it up with the action. Perhaps, as a meat eater I should be more mindful of what I put on the plate.
Thanks for a good post.
Don't disagree, other than
Don't disagree, other than the word assault weapon. There is no true definition as such. As long as the weapon doesn't have a selection that says full auto then there is not much difference from a military and civilian piece other than ruggedness and choice of stock. I can purchase a fully civilian weapon that packs the same punch, fires the same round, at the same fire rate, with the same size magazine and probably more accurately. Assault weapons are just a moniker used to stir up people with no knowledge of weapons other than Hollywood.
Look behind a few store owners counter and you will find the Louisville slugger to be the assault weapon of choice. And we don't see a movement to ban it.
In WW1 the shotgun was the weapon of choice of many soldiers. We don't see a big movement to ban it either.
Sustained fire shown in the movies limits a soldier's ability to protect himself by using up his ammunition and can disable his weapon from heat or dirt. It also makes him easier to find. A solider use automatic fire because he has to and not because he wants to.
Machine guns while invented to be so terrible killing machines they would end wars, became area denial weapons. i.e. not to shoot people but to keep them away.
As for me I have a small collection for hunting and home protection. Most of show their military heritage, but all are of fully civilian made. And I pray a very long time even when I have to shoot a rabid animal.
Maybe we should ban the Hummer because they can accept a 50 cal machine gun ring. O yeah, Toyota's and Land Rovers accept them also. Guess I am walking home.
Split: A Divided America
Check out Split: A Divided America (non-partisan feature film)
DVD available here:
http://www.bside.com/films/splitadividedamerica