San Francisco voters will decide on Tuesday whether to ban the sale and posession of hand guns within city limits. This is good news, for a variety of reasons but on the whole will do little to impact upon the horrifying national gun crime statistics for the United States as a whole. See, I believe on a fundamental level that I should have a right to bear arms (I don’t in the UK in general) but I’m really glad we don’t allow just anyone to walk in off the street and buy a gun so they can go postal with it. If it weren’t for the fact that the US doesn’t implement gun control in a sane fashion and that you’re statisically far more likely to accidentally kill one of your family members than defend against a would-be burglar then I might understand the realities of a country which still believes it necessary for people to own guns to prevent the government from being too powerful. While it’s quaint that the constitution provides for this measure, they didn’t have nukes back then or big insane guns that exist today – the average person aint gonna take on the US government and win any more so quit with that rhetoric already.
Still, in the UK, it’s the first day of the first hunting season after the ban on fox hunting. There are still a few insane whackjobs out there trying to exploit loopholes or just ignore the law completely (because they believe that cruelty to animals is an acceptable side effect of their “sport”) but hopefully they’ll slowly be convinced that it’s no longer acceptable in society. I really do feel for those people losing livelihoods over the whole thing, but in much the same way that the tabacco industry is going to suffer, I think it’s right in the end. I would like to see more government provision for these people to retrain in less callous endevaours however.
Jon.
What about the cruelty of foxes to hens in the countryside? What about removing part of the cultural identity of certain areas?
If hunting is so unacceptable to society, why can’t it just be left to die out naturally instead of legislated against?
We have too much stupid legislation and most legislation that’s brought in has stupid loopholes. This points to a need to stop legislating so much to me at least but hey.
(ditto smoking in pubs dying out naturally really too)
I guess my view is seemingly at odds here because the foxes apparently don’t have the higher level reasoning to understand that what they are doing is “wrong”. It’s always a case of each person’s own moral view – but mine is very much that hunting animals for fun is barbaric. Humanely indiscriminately erradicating large numbers of wild animals is some how acceptable because we’ve agreed (someone’s view) that there’s a problem and the solution in that case is to remove them quickly and painlessly without a needless hunt. So, I’m all for reducing the fox population if necessary (and it might well be as a result of the ban).
Unfortunately, hunting isn’t dying out quite as quickly as it could. By pushing a ban sooner, they’re using legislation to help explain to people that animal cruelty is wrong. I would have prefered non-legislative means to address the problem (agressive taxation would have done the trick) but if we have to have yet more laws, then this one at least tries to do the right thing for all concerned. Those who want to hunt have always been free to chase after many alternatives – nobody’s saying hunting itself is a bad thing or that it is wrong, but hunting foxes for the sake of it is (in my own opinion). I also believe this is a defining difference between the UK and certain other countries in that we decide to take some action.
Jon.
So on the one hand you’re not unhappy about ’some’ people carrying guns, and all that suggests, but at the same time you think national law should protect foxes.
I can think of a reason why foxes might be hunted. However I can think of no sane reason why carrying a gun should be a right.
Indeedy. The only reason to have a gun is to use it. There are no valid reasons for using one. End of story.
how about self-defense? how about that guns enable the weak to protect themaelves from the strong? how about that I have guns and I’m never going to give them up no matter what laws you pass? Have a nice day.
Guns don’t protect the weak from the strong. How do you protect everyone else from people who don’t know when it’s a good idea to use a gun. If no one had guns, why would you need one?