> 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.
Sorry I didn't express myself clearly.
I was referring to hunter-gatherer situations vs those from places like the US/Australia. A "primitive" hunter would have the feeding motivation as well as enjoyment of the hunt itself.
If I was living in the wilds I would have no compunction about hunting what I needed to eat, if necessary. I'm not interested in *shooting* things otherwise though.
> You might argue what you are arguing, but
> the statistics do
> not bear your argument out.
Actually I'd really like to see these. I found stuff on crime rates at http://www.justicefellowship.org/ but this doesn't differentiate between hunters and non-hunters.
> And what is a domestic carnivore? Hannibal Lecter?
:) No, I'd never hire help like that!
I was thinking of ferrets, etc. With ferrets as an example,those that have been trained to hunt tend to be more aggressive than those raised purely as pets. Of course a lot of this might be related to their general treatment. And a ferret is not a primate. The further we get away from primates, the more unreliable an animal model becomes.
I said that one **might** argue that people could get "blooded" by the experince of killing, not that it was necessarily true. And people might eventually become revolted by the process.
In fact my grandfather hunted and shot many kangaroos (they were considered a pest in Central Queensland), but eventually renounced it altogether.
> 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.
OK "violent urge" was a bit lurid, that was prompted
thinking about killing in particular.
Do our instincts have to be satisfied by killing, necessarily, or just the activity of tracking and pursuit? Pursuit can indeed be stimulating, I think we *do* have this in our bones.
Having worked as a volunteer rural fire fighter, it seems there can even be a sort of "hunt mentality" involved with tracking down and fighting a fire.
A wildlife photographer is also involved in a hunt of a sort, certainly they have to track their quarry, lie in wait for it, second guess it, etc.
I did *not* advocate ignorance of human evolution. It's how you deal with it.
But you cannot ignore all the other factors
influencing behaviour. Merely reducing it instincts
and g*n laws