So, the other day I was looking up some stuff on pistol/rifle ammunition. Basically, I’d like to spend less money on ammunition and switch to only having to buy one for both guns.
The .22LR is the cheapest ammunition and there are plenty of good rifle/pistol combinations out there that will use the same ammo.
But that’s not really what I wanted to talk about (but wheee! guns! I learned to shoot on a .22 rifle in Boy Scouts)
What I wanted to talk about were people’s comments on using a .22 rifle for hunting. For small game, they said, it worked great. Rabbits, mice, uh, squirrels, and such–perfect.
But when it came to larger game, i.e. deer (not bears), the argument against using the .22 rifle wasn’t that it was inaccurate, hard to use, or inefficient.
It was that it was inhumane to try to kill a deer with a .22.
(.22 indicates the caliber of the ammunition the gun uses–.22 is .22 of an inch, .45 is .45 of an inch, etc. Bigger calibers mean bigger bullets, which mean more damage, usually).
Here were people talking about hunting, commenting on the humaneness of how an animal was killed. Using a .22 is an almost guarantee that the animal will die slowly and be in a lot of suffering.
[*to me, this is one of the best reasons that .22’s make good home defense firearms. They are enough to scare away a burglar (who, I imagine, is not thinking to himself “hmm, he might shoot me, but the caliber is small, so maybe I can take him anyway” and is instead thinking “Eeek! a gun!”). At the same time, if I did shoot someone, the chances of a .22 round killing them would be less than with a more powerful gun–and I, like a lot of people, am not looking to go around killing people, just stopping them. You don’t have to agree with this; but I kind of think that we should be trying to use the minimum level of force to keep ourselves safe, and not necessarily the maximum allowed by law].
Which I think says something important about the hunting community, which is that hunters care about animals, which isn’t all that surprising. Farmers love their farm animals, all the way to the dinner table.
Knowing that something is going to be your dinner doesn’t stop you from wanting it treated well before that. Hunters are hunters, but their also conservationists and nature-lovers. Hunters love the animals they kill.
I think this is a good contrast to vets. Vets also love animals, but their goal is not to kill them. Sometimes they do, but not with the intention of eating them. In fact, vets spend years studying how to make sick animals healthy.
On the other side of the planet, though, are butchers. Butchers might know a lot about the anatomy of a cow or pig, but nobody should mistake what they do as love. Killing and cutting up an animal are a job.
You might even be able to confuse a conversation with a butcher about a cow with a conversation with a vet about a cow. Both can identify where all the organs are, what physical problems an animal might have, and so forth.
The difference, of course, is in why they know that stuff. Vets know stuff to heal, butchers know stuff to kill.
All of this got me thinking about euthanasia and abortion.
The first rule of medicine, of course is “First do no harm.” The Hippocratic Oath explicitly prohibits abortion and euthanasia (and probably lethal injection).
So, like 2 millennia ago, at a time when Western Civilization enthusiastically embraced slavery, pederasty, war for conquest, and all manner of inhumane things, its doctors were still like “Nah, we don’t kill people.”
But not our doctors. The moral vector of the vanguard of our medical community seems to be much more akin to butchers (we kill these babies so we can sell the parts).
Of course, vets euthanize pets all the time. But then, to complete the analogy, if doctor and a vet are euthanizing patients for the same reason, then we’re saying that the same medical protections that apply to old dogs apply to old people (or young people).
But, like, it’s not like there hasn’t been a side history of evil-doctoring. Just in the last century, and without invoking Godwin’s law, we have the Tuskegee experiments, the Guatemala experiments, the Milgram experiments (which were both unethical and good at showing why people do unethical things), and a host of others.
[Maybe those of who are a little skeptical of “science” wouldn’t be so skeptical of it if it wasn’t so easy to point out horrors inflicted in its name. Like, you know how atheists are always like “more people have died from religion blah blah blah”? Go look up and see what scientific socialism has done recently…]
So, I guess, in a sense, my big complaint is our looseness in what we call “medicine” and “physicians.”
I think historically, these things have been healers, and the idea that killing people or babies is somehow a form of healing just strikes me as fundamentally wrong.
I’ve argued this before, but the goal of medicine should be to make the human body work as it’s supposed to. (This is why Viagra is medicine but contraception is not–the one restores the body to a state of wholeness, the other degrades it to a state of illness). I just can’t see any squaring of the killing of humans and calling such practices “medicine”.
But, then again, Orwell was fighting against doublespeak back in the 1940’s.
But then again, maybe today, the medical community would embrace Boxer’s trip to the glue-maker as “health care” and require taxpayer funding for it.