Hunting should be forbidden

I contend that hunting for sport should be illegal. Humans are an an omnivorous species and as such we raise and keep "slaughter houses" where animals are kept and killed for the purpose of food consumption. While some morally object to this practice, most of us don't worry about where our food comes from - we just like to eat it. Eating is the primary reason for the acceptance of this murder. We accept that in addition to tastiness, animal consumption has been a natural process for our species since the dawn of humanity, and offers nutrients and other health benefits that protein substitutes and vitamins simply do not. However, hunters don't kill for the purpose of nourishing humanity or even for the traditional enjoyment of food consumption that has been culturally sustained throughout the globe for ages. Instead, hunters kill purely for their own enjoyment or "sport." The problem with considering hunting a sport is that usually when one chooses to engage in sport, i.e. basketball, football or even swimming, his or her competitors or even the individual themself knows and chooses to participate in that activity. With hunting, the animal being killed has absolutely no inclination that they are participating in this so called "sport." Lisa from the great movie My Cousin Vinny describes, "Imagine you're a deer. You're prancing along. You get thirsty. You spot a little brook. You put your little deer lips down to the cool, clear water... BAM! A f****** bullet rips off part of your head! Your brains are lying on the ground in little bloody pieces!" An animal has no way of knowing that they are being hunted for one's amusement. They are not choosing to participate in the sport. They are not challenging you or accepting the challenge of your hunting skills vs. their survival skills. Thus, it's murder. An analogy to demonstrate this reasoning is boxing or Ultimate Fighting. If one were to randomly select someone to beat the living crap out of, it would be battery/assault. But when both opponents are choosing to consciensously participate in a battle of the senses, technique or skill, THEN and only then is it a SPORT. Now, Con has mentioned that overhunting is only the third leading cause for animal extinction in the world. While that may be true, it doesn't mean that hunting or overhunting should still be permissible simply because there are 2 more prominent causes. For instance, if larceny is the 3rd most committed crime in the United States, should that make it morally permissible or any less worth prosecuting simply because theft and burglary come in at numbers 1 and 2? Clearly no, if the act (larceny) is inherently wrong. So far I have argued that hunting for sport is inherently wrong because it is done for the sole enjoyment of taking pride in one's ability to kill another innocent being without a warranted necessity. Con has stated, "hunters hunt for the adrenaline of game getting close, the challenge of getting game, and the overall anticipation of the hunt." In other words they like the challenge of seeing if they can overcome animal instincts and defeat (kill) their "enemy." Two counters- One, this is a cheap experiment/win for humanity, as we are equipped with guns and other tools/devices that are man-made and do not come solely from nature. If we truly wanted to compete, we would use home-made spears and other minor devices instead of automatic rifles. And two, given today's technological advances, it is more than feasible to assume that we could invent some sort of system that allows humans to test their skill and ability without having to actually kill a living and innocent being. Consider Duck Hunt the Nintendo video game (hopefully some of you are old enough to remember that)... If my 14 year old opponent cannot, think about other more realistic yet censored and safe forms of competition, i.e. paintball. It is a way to act out a "war" against conscious opponents, without causing any type of real death or destruction. I contend that we can develop a program or game or SOMETHING to give hunters the "adrenaline" they so desperately seek, without having to comprimise the lives of animals, the morality of killing in general, OR the reality that many animals have and continue to go extinct because of this heinous "sport." This also effectively counters Con's point that hunting is not a slaughter, simply because "only GOOD" hunters actually achieve the kill. What kind of flawed logic is that?! That's like saying a singer is only a singer if they are good at singing. Clearly that is not the case. Next Con points out that no animal has gone extinct in North America since 1950 due to hunting. Again I have two counters. One, why is North America being singled out? He fails to mention other continents that continuously have animals going extinct thanks to human interference and overhunting. Two, he is absolutely wrong with his assertion. "By 2010, there will be no more fish in the North Atlantic. Scientists claim this is because of major overfishing in the area, which will result in everyone eating only jellyfish sandwiches. The North Atlantic catches have fallen by half since 1950, and the devastating decrease of ocean organisms are still continuing at a faster rate than ever before. Fish prices have risen a sixth fold during that time because of such demand for more fish. The only way to curb the amount of fish in the North Atlantic is to decrease the amount of fishing drastically, or else all hopes will be gone." Source- http://www.animalsgoingextinct.blogspot.com... Fishing, according to Con's definition, does count as a form of hunting. Another thing to consider is that legal hunting makes it possible for the wrong people to obtain licenses for weapons and firearms which can be dangerous to society. If hunting were illegal, the number of gun licenses would be drastically decreased, thus there would be less opportunity for the practice of illegal gun sales and trade. Also keep in mind that an instigated appreciation for violence for children of a young age can be dangerous to their mental health and the safety of others. Psychologists note that a violent tendency towards animals is an indication that one will harbor violent thoughts and carry out depraved actions as an adult. Now I'm not saying that all hunters are crazy psycho killers, however, the idea that a CHILD can be allowed to own a gun and use it to kill something (and possibly someone!) when they can't even legally buy a pack of cigarettes until they're 18 seems like incredibly backwards logic. On a final note, I'd like to note note that even if a hunter DID kill for food (and not just hanging a pair of antlers or stuffed animal skin on their walls), it is still wrong as it is not a warranted necessity. Legal "slaughter houses" exist which are far more government regulated than any hunting law could be. It is strictly enforced that these habitats exist at a certain standard of production and performance. And while I'm not arguing that they are more morally permissible than hunting, it is common knowledge that the likelihood of their perpetuated existance is far greater than the notion that most people hunt (or even many people, as most people do not), so they will continue to exist. Establishing hunting laws is not difficult, but enforcing them is. Thus if there is a legal and relatively safe way to raise and utilize animals for food, clothing, or whatever your preferred use may be, then hunting is an immoral and frivolous activity which comprimises the life of innocent creatures for the sake of some people's amusement.