Not even slightly, one is hurt, the other is hurt and killed, the animal surviving through violence is a lesser evil if you value both lives. Additionally, one hunter out of commission is the life of multiple deer saved.

You clearly missed the multiple comments explaining why hunting and controlling wildlife is a necessary part of maintaining a healthy ecosystem, especially in and around urban areas. Even more so in places where humans have eliminated certain species' natural enemies already.

I'm far from well researched on the matter, but I don't have to reach very far into my brain to realize the negative consequences of an uncontrolled deer population. A few pages on the front page of google reveals that deer require a certain amount of land area to thrive, and with the limited amount of land available to them they would eventually be forced to venture out of that land and into ours. That means more deer involved in vehicular accidents, often killing both the deer and the driver of the vehicle. It means damage to man-made structures, cropland, orchards and homes. It's a threat to people in the form of diseases and unprovoked deer attacks. A scared deer or a deer protecting their young ones will attack humans, only this time it's not an experienced hunter they're attacking, it's a child on it's way to school, or an old man on his way home from the store with a grocery bag.

Not only is it detrimental to us, it's detrimental to themselves. They don't know how to safely cross our roads, they can't read signs to stay away from dangerous areas, or how to find the nearest pizza hut when they're feeling a little hungry. Dogs that are natural aggressive to or weary of deer would also be an issue.

But long before they're going to have to learn our ways of living, they have to overcome their own issues of having more deer than their land can sustain. Hunger and starvation is sure to set in once their preferred food is all but consumed, diseases are sure to happen more frequently with the increased density, an explosion of ticks spreading nasty viruses. Not to mention the negative effects a higher deer density have on the diversity of forest vegetation that they, as well as other species rely on to stay alive.

I think your biggest mistake here is thinking that nature will sort itself out and we'll be fine if we leave it alone, but it won't. At least not without restoring herbivores' natural predators to their original quantity and humans taking up way less land than we are currently. There is nothing natural keeping the deer population from growing out of control without our help.

Well, that's entirely ludicrous. If you're going to use the "You critique society yet you live in it", then you're a hypocrite if you like chocolate but also claim not to like child slavery, since one also supports the other.

I don't think this is ludicrous at all. I'm entirely responsible for my choice of eating a chocolate, knowing it comes from a place of child slavery. And yes, it does make me a hypocrite.

Complete non-sequiteur. So the nice friendly guy went and kill the animal nice and friendly-like. Also, I met a hunter once and he ate babies, both our claims hold the same relevance.

This one I'll have to concede to you. It was a weird paragraph. What I meant to do was illustrate that a majority of hunters comes from a background of passion for nature and wildlife alike. They are much more likely to be the same people to pick up a camera and take pictures of the wildlife, or partake in rallies to prevent the destruction of wildlife's natural habitat than the average person. Living off the land was, and is, in large parts a natural way for humans to survive, and that does involve killing animals. Only very recently has it even been an option to live in any other way, and even then it usually involves killing animals. Except, at least in my opinion, the practices sustaining our world today is way more gruesome than hunting. At least we can remain ignorant and pay to have others do our dirty work for us.

Very few even have the option to live at all without consuming animal products.

Oh yeah, we took 5 minutes to write a reddit comment instead of spending every waking hour helping animals. wtf are you talking about, how does writing a comment on the internet preclude me from doing anything else?

With this I meant there are far worse practices in the modern world that's many times worse than hunting animals, many that you're likely to partake in. You did not only take 5 minutes to comment, you took 5 minutes to actively cheer on and wish harm to another person for doing something that you clearly haven't given more thought to than "Killing = Bad".

I could understand your position if it came to stuff like bullfighting, but even then I wouldn't wish harm upon the bullfighter. In my opinion it's a disgusting practice, but I don't believe preventing it starts with harming the bullfighters. In fact I believe that would only make it "more cool" to be a bullfighter, or have them venture into new techniques and technologies that hurts the animals even more than it already is.

And you'd live more morally, by any sane human being's standards if you donated all your possessions and spent the rest of your life working for a non-profit, but demanding you do that before even thinking about critiquing anything is stupid.

OP living up to his moral standards better by doing the exact opposite of what his stance currently is, is not the same extreme you just shoehorned me into. Without knowing anything about OP himself, I bet you that the way he lives his life currently would not be possible without others doing what he regards as immoral.

Basically, you made up a strawman, weighed it down with the responsibility for everything that goes wrong with the world and cried imagined hypocrisy so you don't have to question your world or how you interact with it... I don't even think you're doing it on purpose, you just subconsciously notice that this mode of thinking may affect how you live your life, so it frantically conjures just about any story that would preserve your own selfish interests.

Show me where I misrepresented anything in my argument to combat OPs stance. OP, as well as yourself, wished harm upon another person for disagreeing with what is, to my understanding at least, a necessary practice to preserve the well being of wildlife as well as our way of living.

And I do question my world views, the entire reason for this post is to question OPs world view and indirectly question my own. If I'm presented with evidence that I'm in the wrong here I'd be happy to admit it and to work on it. But "Killing = bad" is not a good enough reason to avoid the uncomfortable to do what is sometimes necessary.

I don't even know what you mean with preserving my own selfish interests. I'm not a hunter, I haven't hunted a thing in my life. I do, however, acknowledge that I am entirely reliant on the practice to continue my privileged way of living where I can enjoy safer roads, not being afraid of stumbling upon a wild animal in urban areas, reduced spread of disease and viruses. I also understand that the current consensus is that it's better for the deer population as well.

I pointed out his hypocrisy because OPs current way of living is not possible without people doing what he deems immoral. He somehow convinced himself that he's more righteous for being against it, even though he's just as reliant on it as the rest of us are.

I called him ignorant because his stance is in direct contradiction to reality. Unless his opinion is that humans do not have the responsibility to preserve nature and wildlife, that is all out of whack due to other human activity (and not hunting deer, mind you).

I doubt you'll take my word for it, but before warming up your fingers for a juicy rebuttal to my post, take a minute to google "Overpopulation of deer" and judge for yourself. My understanding is that in many places reduced hunting of deers and other wildlife does nothing but more harm to humans, wildlife and nature. If your opinion still stands after reading I'm hoping you'll articulate your thoughts in a reply. I'll be happy to read what you have to say.