This

I think it’s fair to admit we likely won’t find a common ground to discuss this. Behind the lines of text, and forgive me if my assumptions are false, we both find the other lacking perspective. Maybe even a bit silly or naive. In a way, that’s what makes the world go around.

If you do your history on hunting, which has also been presented in this thread, the efficiency you are speaking of directly came from the desire to not be injured by the hunted animal. Projectile development was a direct response to fear of injury.

So I just wrote a page long response that got eaten by a browser crash sadly.

Thinking things through before typing would benefit you. It’s not the activity, it’s the gun use. Hours before you posted a hasty reply another commenter and I had a lengthy thread on hunting, right above your comment.

Actually, as many others have gotten, it was referring to WHY guns are used in said theaters. It’s a statement on guns.

Perhaps that’s true, spending my free time genuinely attempting to impart knowledge and perspective to a mass of random strangers. I suppose, with any luck, that time will tell and prove at least one of us wrong.

That’s a good thought, I just don’t think it goes deep enough.

Keep in mind we are just debating history and semantics, I don’t want to seem like I’m attacking your valid points.

This is pretty cute.

That is a valid point concerning non threatening animals at it’s base, but have you ever heard the saying “back a mouse into a corner...”? It’s not a judgment on hunting per say, but the basis is very much preventing injury. You piss of a duck to sufficient degree and you are in for quite a surprise.

Guns are for the delusional and cowards. The end.

Guns are for the delusional and cowards. The end.

How anyone can not see this as a pretty understandable reaction to the ridiculous amount of agenda pushing going on these days is puzzling.