The following is a Counterpoint:
By Charles A. Jones
After reading recent ill-informed opinions about Michael Vick and violence in general, I wondered if I inhabit the same planet as these people.
The opinions excoriate hunting, holding that the unspeakable cruelty to animals Vick inflicted is no different from hunting. They also hold that hunters and Vick share a "low-life mentality," asserting that animals killed by people like Vick and animals killed by hunters are both killed in pursuit of sport. The anti-hunters accuse hunters of killing not for food, but for fun, and assert that those disagreeing with anti-hunters are "weak thinkers."
Although I am a gun owner, I do not like hunting (although I tried it once). But I do not condemn those who enjoy hunting. Hunters I know kill not out of cruelty but are responsible people who hunt as a test of skill and for enjoyment and sport (why object to hunting as "sport" when we call violent activities such as hockey or football "sports”?).
One hunter I know is a Marine veteran of Iwo Jima. Now at age 83, he is a sport hunter who is responsible: He and his family eat what he kills and donate part of his kill to his town so that the food can be given to poor people.
So, to compare the average hunter to someone who kills for fun is to equate an SS guard at Auschwitz with a correctional officer at Central Prison.
Even though I am a "weak thinker," I found a major source of the culture of violence: the Life section of the Aug. 24 edition of USA Today, which involved new movies. Although Hollywood liberals abhor firearms, that front page features four large photographs, each with the actor holding a firearm.
Equally disturbing was the drama shown recently on NBC during which a small child holding a large handgun repeatedly shoots an adult.
Segments of society condoning and exploiting violence, such as Hollywood and those who engage in dogfighting, not hunters, are the true proponents of violence.
Those opposing hunting obviously know nothing about it; they should talk to responsible hunters rather than condemn them without factual basis. And they instead should condemn Hollywood's obsession with violence in an obscene hunt for money.
The writer lives in Norfolk, Va., and is a native of Greensboro.


Comments (1)
I think that the letter writer has some strong points on a long discussed topic. I don't have a gun, I am not a hunter and I abhor violence. All the hunters whom I know are truly responsible and sensible when they hunt. So unless I'm missing something, what's the difference if I buy a steak at a food store or go and hunt for it myself? At some point the animal(s) were alive and then some outside agent changed the equation. Unless one is a vegetarian, then both kinds of meet end up on peoples' plates.
Posted by joejoe
|
September 18, 2007 3:26 PM