> --- "Joe E. Dees" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > --- "J. R. Molloy" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > From: Bryan Moss <email@example.com>
> > > > >I bet active hunters tend to live in areas that
> > > > have low incidences of
> > > > >criminal behaviour to begin with.
> > > >
> > > > Good bet. I'd also bet that areas with low
> > > > incidences of criminal behavior
> > > > have high incidences of active hunters to begin
> > > > with. First come the hunters
> > > > to new areas, then come the gun laws, then comes
> > the
> > > > crime.
> > > >
> > The most obvious conclusion is that those areas
> > which have
> > enough wilderness to allow hunting have a low
> > incidence of people
> > in general.
> Yes. One needs stats of crime per head of population
> in rural vs city areas, not just absolute numbers.
> Hunters from real wilderness areas would often be in
> it for food, not sport. They needn't have the same
> motivations as sports hunters from the city. Not sure
> what this means in terms of satiating violent urges,
> in either case. You *might* argue that hunting
> "bloods" people and makes things worse (in the same
> way as happens with domestic carnivores).
You are so ignorant. I have lived in the city and I have lived in the country and out in the sticks. I know hunters from all walks of life, and there is no difference in motivation. Sure some of the rural hunters save money on food during the winter by having plenty of venison around, but that is not their prime motive, as there are plenty of others who do not hunt. You might argue what you are arguing, but the statistics do not bear your argument out. And what is a domestic carnivore? Hannibal Lecter? It is not a 'violent' urge that is satisfied, you can leave that to psychopaths. What is resolved is a release of stress, a resolution of a contest, the most basic contest our evolved bodies know of. You ignore human evolution at your own peril.