Personally I can't stand hunting other than through necessity. I'll kill to eat, if I must (thats what the last bunch of bastards in charge of 'sick notes' and DLA etc (no, I didn't apply myself, that was done long before I knew it existed on my behalf, and buggered if I'm going to do myself out of income, as piss poor as it is right now)
I reckon your right though, I've had all of three interviews, total, in 30 years (bearing in mind for 16 of them I would have been within the scholastic system in one way or another) Moment they find out autistic, I might as well have followed through with 'comes with free novichok agent in your next breakfast' and the school system didn't help either.
If I was going to hunt, it would be something that could shoot back. More predator trophy hunting than african big game hunting. Thats for faggots and bellends who think themselves hard-cases because they managed to point a projectile weapon at a target capable of melee range combat only. IF I was going to hunt at all, I'd go for something that could shoot back. And preferably, in a manner that would pose the greatest challenge. I'm against animal cruelty, but at there are enough humans that have brought it on themselves. But use of firearms against an opponent incapable of fighting back at range, is cowardly. I'd have a lot more respect for hunters, which isn't to say I wouldn't still want to go and behead a few for wall-hangings, if they dropped their rifles and picked up a blade the next time they went after a lion, tiger etc. Because any fucker with working eyes can pick up a gun and hit a target that size. Christ alive, I've only got one that works half-well and I can hit targets smaller than that with pistol or rifle. At least, if 'big game' hunters restricted themselves to edged weapons/polearms/ or at the worst, chain-weapons (and I mean the likes of morning-star, or kusuri-gama rather than chainsaw-type weapons) where is the sport in picking off a target from two miles off with a .50 caliber round, for example, when the target hasn't the option of engaging with technology.
Like that prick that got vilified for killing a lion in africa relatively recently. What chance does a modern day 'hunter' stand of losing the fight.
If such are determined to prove their macho-ness, let them fucking have a chance of being torn to shreds in the attempt. If not, then they only prove they have a small dick. That is, when hunting targets for sport, rather than subsistence.
Nothing personal, btw.
Said you were looking for edgy, got it:D welcome.
But personally, as far as hunting goes, I'd sooner it be against an adversary worthy of the attempt, and for there to be a possibility of ending up AS the decorative rug or wall-hanging skull. Otherwise, what the fuck is the point. It isn't sport, its just killing for amusement because the person doing it thinks it funny. Sport implies an effort expended towards fulfillment of an end goal. And even the most intelligent animals, the higher primates and cetaceans have not the ability to respond in kind, even when a threat using technologically advanced weaponry is employed.
So at least in terms of modern hunting, I have very little respect for the buggers that do it.
And welcome:D
