Weapons of war not needed on the hunt
To the editor:
My dad trekked Colorado's plains and mountains, afoot and on horseback; often with my grandfather, often with his much younger brother. He loved to hunt. And, when my brother and I were big enough to lift a ".22," Dad taught us to shoot.
Some of the coldest memories of my life are of "hiding" behind a boulder along a deer trail to the North St. Vrain just before dawn. When my feet would turn numb, because every time I moved a tiny bit, Dad would turn to me with a frown. Not my idea as a teenage girl of having a really good time, even if it was with Dad.
Dad taught us that we only shot when we knew we had a "kill." Because the purpose is not the shooting; the purpose is to cull overpopulation, to provide food for you and yours or those in need. You don't want to wound, causing a lingering, painful death. Hunting, I learned, is a skill sport.
Now, I must ask: where is the skill in ambushing a mammal with a mega-round machine gun designed for the battlefield? How do you dress that shredded flesh? And, if that mammal is human, why?
Last year, there were more shootings in Chicago than troop deaths in Afghanistan, according to the Rev. Jim Wallis, evangelical pastor and leader of Sojourners. More than 100 Chicago kids died by gun.
I can't understand why a hunter would support the NRA assertion that hunters must have war zone weapons to kill an antelope.
Call me "old-fashioned."
Sue B. Mullins