The problem here is that people don't vote or cheer politicians based on considerations of what policy is superior but based on how to advertise their values and concerns. Studies show people make different choices if they think their choice really determines what happens. Unfortunately, this is at its worst in gun regulation.
For example, consider the issue of assault weapons. These are the worst guns to ban from a cost/benefit POV since handguns are far easier to conceal, easier to carry multiple guns for more rounds and people end up carrying them for discrete self-defense. I'd love to restrict handgun ownership. Moreover, the so called assault weapons aren't actually more deadly (indeed most mass shooters would be better served with multiple handguns) -- mostly they differ in their military aesthetic. And because of that people care particularly strongly about keeping their assault weapons relative to other gun types. Yet that's the focus of much gun control because people want to signal their moral disapproval of glorifying violence and the culture these assault weapons represent.
Indeed, I believe there are good policy solutions that gun owners would accept but only if they felt that their desire to own guns was respected (difference between I know it's a sacrifice and I'm sorry but it's needed and the attitude that your desire to own a weapon is sick and bad in itself). Unfortunately, I don't know how to get us there because every new tragedy makes policy less relevant and cultural clash more.
If you don't want a gun, you don't have to buy one.
I'm a pretty chilled guy. You do you, leave me and mine alone.
If you want to be part of the rainbow, cool. Just don't push your crap on my kids.
I'll let you in a little secret. You can collect all the weapons you want, and only the criminals will have weapons. Then they'll prey on the people who can no longer protect themselves.
I'm not allergic to the idea of gun rights for citizens. I don't trust the State enough to give them a monopoly on that.
But the recreational use of guns, if that includes hunting, is pretty terrible. Granted, this isn't a gun issue specifically, since people can go around killing animals for sport with lots of non-gun weapons, including their bare hands if they want.
Why not? Surely it's no different than eating meat -- you could go vegetarian but you choose not to because you enjoy it less.
Indeed, given that there are some creatures whose population needs to be controlled (deer in particular) surely it's a win win if we can find people who get joy out of doing that task.
--
Hell, I hope that if I get murdered my murderer really enjoys themselves.
I assume that if we substitute all the wild deer with wild humans that you would not think the overpopulation issue and the joy the hunter gets is sufficient grounds to murder them. So, what is true of deer that if true of wild humans would make it okay to murder the wild humans?
I'm enough of a utilitarian to say that if you had some magical hypothetical where a lone person (with no one to mourn their passing) whose expected future effect on happiness (their future happiness minus sadness adjusted for the loss of happiness caused by food they eat) is less than that gained by the hunter then it would be justified. But the problem with people is always that other people do know about it and the effect of hunting is then not just the end of a life but all the sadness and upset believing that people can be hunted causes -- so same answer as to the standard organ transpo hypothetical.
--
But yes, the view that the killing of animals is almost always wrong is perfectly coherent. What I'm challenging is the idea that the hunter getting a kick out of it is somehow a negative.
So just consider the case where people notice that some deer is obviously in pain and needs to be put down for their own benefit. Surely, it's best in that situation to send out someone who actually enjoys the hunt and killing the deer than someone who will find it unpleasant.
> What I'm challenging is the idea that the hunter getting a kick out of it is somehow a negative.
> So just consider the case where people notice that some deer is obviously in pain and needs to be put down for their own benefit. Surely, it's best in that situation to send out someone who actually enjoys the hunt and killing the deer than someone who will find it unpleasant.
I would say that's not particularly clear. We can think of a situation in the human context that actually does happen. For example, doctors sometimes have to deliver bad news to families in which they inform them that it may be best if they euthanize a loved one for their own benefit. Suppose that the medical system has a policy where they hire psychopaths who enjoy killing these ill humans as much as hunters enjoy killing deer as opposed to normal doctors who understand what must be done but have an ordinary reverence for human life. They do this in about as rigorous as a way as hunters kill animals as far as killing them painlessly and quickly (a bullet to the back of the head). That would seem a bit weird, right?
You may think the potential for abuse is high and that I'm not taking into account those kinds of externalities, but actually I think there are externalities in the hunting case exist too, and are probably larger. For example, if people "bite the utilitarian bullet" in the hunting case, they may be more likely to think hunting or eating meat in general is okay. But if there is a slightly higher disrespect for human life and dignity in the hospital setting, we'll probably still be okay.
Hunting provides a benefit by controlling the population of wildlife. Without hunting, some species will experience wide population swings due to the absence of natural predators, resulting in starvation of the animals and negative impacts on humans. Reintroduction of predators might solve some of these problems at the cost of introducing other problems associated with the predators themselves.
Hunters have as much or better motivation to preserve wildlife species as non-hunting wildlife enthusiasts. It is not clear that ending hunting would reduce the suffering of animals. Only the total elimination of wildlife would end the suffering of wild animals.
Globally, land animals have been profoundly depopulated by hunters, as humans diasporized from Africa. Not sure I'd call that a benefit to the animals. In North America more recently, wildlife has been cleared to make way for our captive herds & flocks. The depopulation of the Buffalo and passenger pigeons in the 19th Century was accomplished mainly with guns, I believe.
I acknowledge there are ecologic-minded hunters, but hunting has also been the handmaiden of our decimation of non-human life on this planet.
I was not suggesting what gun control policy a time traveler should recommend to emigrants if they traveled to prehistoric Africa.
I am talking about hunting in the USA, which is relevant to contemporary gun control policy. Deer, turkey, and moose are the species that come immediately to mind. Pheasant? Duck? Feral pigs in Hawai’i. Conservation efforts benefit from hunting license fees, and assist in preventing deer from becoming overpopulated and over-stressing their habitat in the absence of natural predators.
Ecologic stewardship might require some version of population control, I concede. I'm suspicious of this very violent version of it, though, coming from a species who has used violence to take over the world.
If our concern is animals who overstress their environment, the deer & feral pigs are nothing compared to humans - today even moreso than prehistoric Africa.
It's a fair question, I wonder what the current options are. One that pops to mind is sterilizing - rabbit pellets that reduce spermcount for a season, that sort of thing.
I guess sterilizing is a kind of violence too, kills the genetic future of the individual affected.
I do have faith in our species to come up with non-violent solutions, if we're committed to it. There just hasn't been much incentive to, in the case of our relations with animals, because we've been mostly unbothered by violence against them.
The problem here is that people don't vote or cheer politicians based on considerations of what policy is superior but based on how to advertise their values and concerns. Studies show people make different choices if they think their choice really determines what happens. Unfortunately, this is at its worst in gun regulation.
For example, consider the issue of assault weapons. These are the worst guns to ban from a cost/benefit POV since handguns are far easier to conceal, easier to carry multiple guns for more rounds and people end up carrying them for discrete self-defense. I'd love to restrict handgun ownership. Moreover, the so called assault weapons aren't actually more deadly (indeed most mass shooters would be better served with multiple handguns) -- mostly they differ in their military aesthetic. And because of that people care particularly strongly about keeping their assault weapons relative to other gun types. Yet that's the focus of much gun control because people want to signal their moral disapproval of glorifying violence and the culture these assault weapons represent.
Indeed, I believe there are good policy solutions that gun owners would accept but only if they felt that their desire to own guns was respected (difference between I know it's a sacrifice and I'm sorry but it's needed and the attitude that your desire to own a weapon is sick and bad in itself). Unfortunately, I don't know how to get us there because every new tragedy makes policy less relevant and cultural clash more.
If you don't want a gun, you don't have to buy one.
I'm a pretty chilled guy. You do you, leave me and mine alone.
If you want to be part of the rainbow, cool. Just don't push your crap on my kids.
I'll let you in a little secret. You can collect all the weapons you want, and only the criminals will have weapons. Then they'll prey on the people who can no longer protect themselves.
I do not find it in any way acceptable for a jury to convict an innocent man in order to prevent a riot.
I'm not allergic to the idea of gun rights for citizens. I don't trust the State enough to give them a monopoly on that.
But the recreational use of guns, if that includes hunting, is pretty terrible. Granted, this isn't a gun issue specifically, since people can go around killing animals for sport with lots of non-gun weapons, including their bare hands if they want.
I don't think it's right to kill purely for fun. On the other hand, target shooting is a harmless pastime that many people enjoy a lot.
Why not? Surely it's no different than eating meat -- you could go vegetarian but you choose not to because you enjoy it less.
Indeed, given that there are some creatures whose population needs to be controlled (deer in particular) surely it's a win win if we can find people who get joy out of doing that task.
--
Hell, I hope that if I get murdered my murderer really enjoys themselves.
Huemer is a vegetarian.
I assume that if we substitute all the wild deer with wild humans that you would not think the overpopulation issue and the joy the hunter gets is sufficient grounds to murder them. So, what is true of deer that if true of wild humans would make it okay to murder the wild humans?
I'm enough of a utilitarian to say that if you had some magical hypothetical where a lone person (with no one to mourn their passing) whose expected future effect on happiness (their future happiness minus sadness adjusted for the loss of happiness caused by food they eat) is less than that gained by the hunter then it would be justified. But the problem with people is always that other people do know about it and the effect of hunting is then not just the end of a life but all the sadness and upset believing that people can be hunted causes -- so same answer as to the standard organ transpo hypothetical.
--
But yes, the view that the killing of animals is almost always wrong is perfectly coherent. What I'm challenging is the idea that the hunter getting a kick out of it is somehow a negative.
So just consider the case where people notice that some deer is obviously in pain and needs to be put down for their own benefit. Surely, it's best in that situation to send out someone who actually enjoys the hunt and killing the deer than someone who will find it unpleasant.
> What I'm challenging is the idea that the hunter getting a kick out of it is somehow a negative.
> So just consider the case where people notice that some deer is obviously in pain and needs to be put down for their own benefit. Surely, it's best in that situation to send out someone who actually enjoys the hunt and killing the deer than someone who will find it unpleasant.
I would say that's not particularly clear. We can think of a situation in the human context that actually does happen. For example, doctors sometimes have to deliver bad news to families in which they inform them that it may be best if they euthanize a loved one for their own benefit. Suppose that the medical system has a policy where they hire psychopaths who enjoy killing these ill humans as much as hunters enjoy killing deer as opposed to normal doctors who understand what must be done but have an ordinary reverence for human life. They do this in about as rigorous as a way as hunters kill animals as far as killing them painlessly and quickly (a bullet to the back of the head). That would seem a bit weird, right?
You may think the potential for abuse is high and that I'm not taking into account those kinds of externalities, but actually I think there are externalities in the hunting case exist too, and are probably larger. For example, if people "bite the utilitarian bullet" in the hunting case, they may be more likely to think hunting or eating meat in general is okay. But if there is a slightly higher disrespect for human life and dignity in the hospital setting, we'll probably still be okay.
Recreational use also includes target shooting.
Hunting provides a benefit by controlling the population of wildlife. Without hunting, some species will experience wide population swings due to the absence of natural predators, resulting in starvation of the animals and negative impacts on humans. Reintroduction of predators might solve some of these problems at the cost of introducing other problems associated with the predators themselves.
Hunters have as much or better motivation to preserve wildlife species as non-hunting wildlife enthusiasts. It is not clear that ending hunting would reduce the suffering of animals. Only the total elimination of wildlife would end the suffering of wild animals.
Globally, land animals have been profoundly depopulated by hunters, as humans diasporized from Africa. Not sure I'd call that a benefit to the animals. In North America more recently, wildlife has been cleared to make way for our captive herds & flocks. The depopulation of the Buffalo and passenger pigeons in the 19th Century was accomplished mainly with guns, I believe.
I acknowledge there are ecologic-minded hunters, but hunting has also been the handmaiden of our decimation of non-human life on this planet.
I was not suggesting what gun control policy a time traveler should recommend to emigrants if they traveled to prehistoric Africa.
I am talking about hunting in the USA, which is relevant to contemporary gun control policy. Deer, turkey, and moose are the species that come immediately to mind. Pheasant? Duck? Feral pigs in Hawai’i. Conservation efforts benefit from hunting license fees, and assist in preventing deer from becoming overpopulated and over-stressing their habitat in the absence of natural predators.
Ecologic stewardship might require some version of population control, I concede. I'm suspicious of this very violent version of it, though, coming from a species who has used violence to take over the world.
If our concern is animals who overstress their environment, the deer & feral pigs are nothing compared to humans - today even moreso than prehistoric Africa.
What is the non-violent alternative?
It's a fair question, I wonder what the current options are. One that pops to mind is sterilizing - rabbit pellets that reduce spermcount for a season, that sort of thing.
I guess sterilizing is a kind of violence too, kills the genetic future of the individual affected.
I do have faith in our species to come up with non-violent solutions, if we're committed to it. There just hasn't been much incentive to, in the case of our relations with animals, because we've been mostly unbothered by violence against them.