I really don't see why legally blind people shoot, other than for the twisted kick of murdering something. How can it be a 'sport' when the only skill you need is knowing how to hold a gun straight? Oh, and being able to listen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Texas, killing an animal and not removing the remains is considering a crime punishable by up to 8 years in Huntsville Prison. Hunting is for sport only, and if nothing else you have to turn over the body of the animal to wildlife authorities to dispose of it properly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, there are criminal codes for game. Our animals actually have rights when it comes to hunting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, the right to have your corpse dragged away and eaten rather than left in the forest. I'm sure the animals are just delighted!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry to bump after two weeks, but are you implying that animals should be given equal treatment to humans now?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you eat? Do you eat meat? Do you eat plants? If the former is the case, those animals spend their entire lives in captivity until Juan the illegal immigrant hits them over the head with a hammer and starts carving them up alive. At least hunted animals have the right to be free and succumb to a predator in the chain of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the case of the latter, plants are just as alive as you and me. They can think and react. I'm sure if Mr. Carrot had an electron-based brain like us, he would be offended if you ripped him out of the ground without asking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The basis of these two points? Humans are at the top of the food chain. A bobcat sees a rabbit? Does he ponder the morality of eating it? No. Does the bear worry about the trout's feelings before fishing it out of the water? No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Humans are the same way. We kill, we eat, we survive. Call yourself civilized, but you function in the same manner as Mr. Bear or Mr. Bobcat. If I want to go out and stalk a Buck and bring it down, then eat it, what is wrong with that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Killing animals for sustinence is morally fine. Killing animals for sport and selling the meat so that others can eat it is morally fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Killing animals for the hell of it and leaving them to die. That is where it is morally wrong. And as I said, Texas sends people who do that to jail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't see why legally blind people shoot, other than for the twisted kick of murdering something. How can it be a 'sport' when the only skill you need is knowing how to hold a gun straight? Oh, and being able to listen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because they enjoy hunting? Perhaps they were avid hunters before they went blind? Perhaps they are trying it out for the first time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the last time, people, the blind people are not walking alone shooting at sounds! They have an experienced guide with them! In Jacksburo, Texas, they have a one-armed dove hunt that was started by two Vietnam Vets who lost their arms!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And about your comment about the morality of hunting. We are not "murdering" the animals. Murder is what happens when you kill a human being without reasonability. Do we call it murder when a bear mauls a camper? Or when a diver gets attacked by a shark? No, it's an accident. A natural occurance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And about your loose comment about "only skill needed being to hold a gun straight". You have never been hunting. You have to track and stalk your prey for hours. It's nowhere near as simple as aiming and shooting.

Because in the UK, our MPs are less.... how can i put it... [developmentally delayed]ed (Yes, i know it bleeps it out #-o )

I think it's stupid, then again so is hunting. Think how many people could potentially be hurt. It's such a dumb thing to do. Hey, why not let blind people fly aeroplanes too?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I can't stand hunting in the first place. Sure, it may be fun for you, but thing how terrified those animals would be. It's cruel and sick. Still that's just how [developmentally delayed]ed the humanrace is anyway.

 

They're encouraging the use of live fire arms bu blind people. How is this not stupid?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Essentially all they get to do is pull the trigger :P A non blind hunter still has to guide their shot (unless it's [bleep] Cheney I wouldn't be too worried)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL! Sigged. :lol:

... Texas, texans.. :-s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

who says the guide tells him the truth?

I think it's stupid, then again so is hunting. Think how many people could potentially be hurt. It's such a dumb thing to do. Hey, why not let blind people fly aeroplanes too?!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I can't stand hunting in the first place. Sure, it may be fun for you, but thing how terrified those animals would be. It's cruel and sick. Still that's just how [developmentally delayed] the humanrace is anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hunting accidents are rare, and are generally caused by such stupid behavior that they ought to have happened. Believe it or not, most hunters actually know which side of the gun the bullet comes out of, and don't mix guns and alcohol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cruel and sick? Most times they would never have known what hit them! And it's the moral obligation of every hunter to kill the wounded animal as quickly as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not like hunters drop the animal in the forest like some Dr. Moreauvian situation. As far as the animal is concerned, they are merely fleeing (if they even know they are being tracked) from a predator. A human with a gun or bow is no more threatening to them than a bear. The squirrel is about as concerned with the hunter as they are with a hawk or an eagle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are simply higher than that creature on the food chain. Where would we be without hunting?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only acknowledgement I will give that hunting is wrong is the idiots who go out with a 32-pack and just "fire and forget." I applaud the hunters who hold respect for their prey and make sure that it's death serves a purpose.

 

Cruel and sick? Most times they would never have known what hit them! And it's the moral obligation of every hunter to kill the wounded animal as quickly as possible.

 

 

 

No, because tearing an animal apart bit by bit by crazed dogs, dangling it in the air for a minute or two and then shooting it is quickly as possible. Have you ever thought how much pain the animal would be going through? It would be completely unbearable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as the animal is concerned, they are merely fleeing (if they even know they are being tracked) from a predator.

 

 

 

Which is probably a most terrifying experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only acknowledgement I will give that hunting is wrong is the idiots who go out with a 32-pack and just "fire and forget." I applaud the hunters who hold respect for their prey and make sure that it's death serves a purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like a bit of entertainment, or a slab of meat. Great!

Issy, I don't think you understand. The point of hunting is to kill the animal as quickly and cleanly as possible, not dangle it and let it be eaten bit by bit by dogs. Any sensible hunter would aim for a one-shot and quick kill. And it's not just a "slab of meat", in the case of deer or elk is dozens of pounds of meat that can be eaten in lieu of mass-slaughter meat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS. It's fine to be against hunting, but basically saying anyone who hunts is a barbarian with no consideration for feeling, that's a little far.

Issy, I don't think you understand. The point of hunting is to kill the animal as quickly and cleanly as possible, not dangle it and let it be eaten bit by bit by dogs. Any sensible hunter would aim for a one-shot and quick kill. And it's not just a "slab of meat", in the case of deer or elk is dozens of pounds of meat that can be eaten in lieu of mass-slaughter meat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS. It's fine to be against hunting, but basically saying anyone who hunts is a barbarian with no consideration for feeling, that's a little far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you get to the body of what you shot and it's not dead, you finish it off quick. No reason to let it suffer any longer. I think I would enjoy hunting and my cousin said I could go with him next year, but I still have consideration for the feelings of other things (which is why I'm not going to shoot something in the leg and purposely chase it for hours).

 

Issy, I don't think you understand. The point of hunting is to kill the animal as quickly and cleanly as possible, not dangle it and let it be eaten bit by bit by dogs. Any sensible hunter would aim for a one-shot and quick kill. And it's not just a "slab of meat", in the case of deer or elk is dozens of pounds of meat that can be eaten in lieu of mass-slaughter meat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS. It's fine to be against hunting, but basically saying anyone who hunts is a barbarian with no consideration for feeling, that's a little far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And if you get to the body of what you shot and it's not dead, you finish it off quick. No reason to let it suffer any longer. I think I would enjoy hunting and my cousin said I could go with him next year, but I still have consideration for the feelings of other things (which is why I'm not going to shoot something in the leg and purposely chase it for hours).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really think it's that easy to give the animal a quick death? Well you'd have to be a master shooter to hit the head first try. And with dogs too... :|

You really think it's that easy to give the animal a quick death? Well you'd have to be a master shooter to hit the head first try. And with dogs too... :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I do. Because i'm talking from experience. You see, I know what i'm talking about. Depending on the positing of the animal a headshot can be somewhat easy, and even if you go for the center of mass, a quick second or third bullet will usually do it. And noone hunts big game with dogs, those are usually for fetching duck and fowl, which most definatly die quickly.

 

 

 

You really think it's that easy to give the animal a quick death? Well you'd have to be a master shooter to hit the head first try. And with dogs too... :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've proven myself to be more than quite accurate with a bow and arrow. True there will be recoil with a gun but it's harder to aim a bow and arrow. For what I'll be hunting, we won't use dogs.

 

You really think it's that easy to give the animal a quick death? Well you'd have to be a master shooter to hit the head first try. And with dogs too... :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I do. Because i'm talking from experience. You see, I know what i'm talking about. Depending on the positing of the animal a headshot can be somewhat easy, and even if you go for the center of mass, a quick second or third bullet will usually do it. And noone hunts big game with dogs, those are usually for fetching duck and fowl, which most definatly die quickly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you ride while hunting, or go on foot?

Do you ride while hunting, or go on foot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huh? Like a horse or an atv? We of course have to drive there, then its a few miles hike to wherever we're going to hunt. Why does it matter?

good job texas =D>

well those loud noises at railway crossings and rumble strips on roads will be useful if blind people are driving

well those loud noises at railway crossings and rumble strips on roads will be useful if blind people are driving

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really hope you're being sarcastic :shock:

 

Do you ride while hunting, or go on foot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huh? Like a horse or an atv? We of course have to drive there, then its a few miles hike to wherever we're going to hunt. Why does it matter?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It matters because it would affect your shot. And the '2nd or 3rd shot' isn't good enough. It does not justify the taking of an innocent life, I'm sorry but that's just what I think.

It does not justify the taking of an innocent life, I'm sorry but that's just what I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First, what makes you think that morality can be applied to non-human animals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, if you can prove that holding animals morally responsible makes sense, can you prove that the animals being hunted are actually innocent?

 

It does not justify the taking of an innocent life, I'm sorry but that's just what I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First, what makes you think that morality can be applied to non-human animals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second, if you can prove that holding animals morally responsible makes sense, can you prove that the animals being hunted are actually innocent?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, I'm not saying it can. But surely even physical pain is extensive suffering? And if an animal suffers for the rights of human entertainment... really fair?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, Well, ok. Not innocent. I would never go as far as to say they're anywhere near the human level of intelligence and therefore do not have a sense of morals. But still, what kind of wrong could a rabbit, or a duck do? Innocent until proven guilty, I say.

thats texas for ya'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i mean what do you expect bush is from texas (no offence any Bush supporters, not that there are any :-w

 

 

Cruel and sick? Most times they would never have known what hit them! And it's the moral obligation of every hunter to kill the wounded animal as quickly as possible.

 

 

 

No, because tearing an animal apart bit by bit by crazed dogs, dangling it in the air for a minute or two and then shooting it is quickly as possible. Have you ever thought how much pain the animal would be going through? It would be completely unbearable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You use dogs to retrieve the dead game...and thats only when shooting small birds. Trust me...those things are long dead before the dog gets them...and the dogs very gently hold them in their mouths (unless you just absolutely didn't train your dog).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said, from the way you talk, you have never been hunting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You really think it's that easy to give the animal a quick death? Well you'd have to be a master shooter to hit the head first try. And with dogs too...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can hit a quarter on a target from 100 yards with a powder-fueled muzzle-loading rifle. I can imagine that a semi-decent hunter can hit the head of a fully-grown buck from 800 feet with a scope. If not, that's what the second shot is for. Your first and primary goal after the shot is to make sure the game is dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you ride while hunting, or go on foot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since this is not Victorian England, most hunters go on foot. Only a literal handfull of hunters worldwide still use horses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your feet can be silent, a horse is not. The main goal of game hunting is to not be heard before the shot. Getting to a site however might involve ATV's or even a truck if there are decent roads nearby. You would not want to carry a fully grown buck several miles on your back.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

good job texas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I have said many times, it has always been legal for blind people to hunt anywhere in the US. This law just lets them use lasersights and guides so they can actually hit something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It matters because it would affect your shot. And the '2nd or 3rd shot' isn't good enough. It does not justify the taking of an innocent life, I'm sorry but that's just what I think.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...Are you joking? Show me an expert hunter riding an ATV at 40 miles an hour while shooting things left and right!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU DONT SHOOT FROM THE ATV! You leave them a mile or two away. Goodness Gracious you seriously have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Who tought you to hunt? Larry the Cable Guy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thats texas for ya'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i mean what do you expect bush is from texas (no offence any Bush supporters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He got a degree from Yale, so he is obviously smarter than you. Also, he's from Maryland, he just lives here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second: Texas has the best non-Ivy University system in the US. Thank you very much. Like I said to Issy, you moronic Yanks think that Larry the Cable Guy is representative of the entire South.

Second: Texas has the best non-Ivy University system in the US. Thank you very much. Like I said to Issy, you moronic Yanks think that Larry the Cable Guy is representative of the entire South.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, this is a little off topic, but whoa. That's pretty arguable. I would definitely say California has the best non-Ivy University system in the US - and I'm from the East Coast.

Killing animals for sustinence is morally fine. Killing animals for sport and selling the meat so that others can eat it is morally fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thats illegal here(Tennessee)

Like I have said many times, it has always been legal for blind people to hunt anywhere in the US. This law just lets them use lasersights and guides so they can actually hit something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there were several laws allowing people to eat babies in other states do you think it would be okay to pass in a third state just because its in the first two states?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate people who think that just because somewhere, somehow a lame law got passed, it deems it alright for it to be passed in other areas. Or the fact that some law makes an act illegal automatically deems it immoral. I hate people who dont stop to think for a second about the actual fact of the matter instead of jumping to conclusions. THINK ABOUT IT. IS BLIND PEOPLE HUNTING OKAY. NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is NO basis for you to say its okay since it was passed in other states. So please stop using that invalid argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you eat? Do you eat meat? Do you eat plants? If the former is the case, those animals spend their entire lives in captivity until Juan the illegal immigrant hits them over the head with a hammer and starts carving them up alive. At least hunted animals have the right to be free and succumb to a predator in the chain of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Woohoo! I love racists!