AmericanLongrifle
Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
- Messages
- 90
I will agree that there is a difference between hunting and war, but to say that there's no crossover would be disingenuous. It's no more ethical to wound a human than to wound an animal in my eyes. Though both happen because we are human.
Notice I said, "take game at 400+ yards with 100% consistency". That's my precondition for being ethical at extended range.
Notice again I said, "bring enough gun". I am fully aware that there are physiological differences between a human's body and an animal's body.
My point was solely on how people are treated when the subject of "long range" hunting is introduced. Marksmanship to me is important at 25 yards or 1000+ yards, in the wheat field or the battlefield, regardless as to the target. And as long as the shooter is capable, I have no issue with them hunting at whatever range they deem ethical.
Again, I'm not trying to argue. War is not ethical. And as stated, "effective" in combat is considered to put the enemy out of commission or hinder the enemy's ability to continue to fight. Wound or kill in combat is "effective". Thus the line is drawn between hunting and combat.
I respect your opinion, but unless you have served, your basis may be skewed by what is commonly taught in civilian society.
I will kindly admit I am wrong once I receive return fire from deer, elk or moose.