I just think that it sends a bad message to everyone. Basically, it glorifies shooting stuff, and I have a problem with that, and like you said, I hope you can appreciate my reasoning.
Oh, sure. I'm not reacting to your position in and of itself. Just pointing out that it's not really very productive to "despise" those who hold a different position, whatever that position happens to be.
I'd say they should only use it for hunting if they are going to use the kill for something. It would be hard to implement that though. The thing is, those people hunting for food are doing it for food. They might do it for fun and then eat it, or they are doing it because they really need to do it. Either way, they are making use of the gun, you (the royal you) aren't.
This is where I
do have to disagree, however. If your position is that people should be allowed to use a gun to hunt, then I think it stands to reason that it is dangerous to restrict gun use to
hunting only. You have to let hunters engage in recreational shooting at the range or some other place and be able to spend time taking the gun apart, cleaning it, reassembling it, and doing other things gun owners typically do. One fact that I don't think
anyone can dispute is that guns are dangerous. But here's the thing: they are exponentially more dangerous in the hands of someone who is not intimately familiar with how they operate and who is not skilled at using them and well versed in how to use them in a safe manner. Accidents happen much more frequently with those who only have a casual or passing familiarity with their gun, or who have no experience at all. And that goes for hunters as well. Most experienced hunters (Dick Cheney excluded) do not accidentally shoot others, do not injure themselves with their guns, and do not have other unfortunate mishaps--at least not nearly as frequently. So while I understand and respect your position, I don't think what you have proposed is a workable option.