This is an interesting pair of discussions-- are graphic hunting pics a detriment to our sport?, and is a headshot a bad idea as a regular practice?
I respect the way that everyone here has presented their ideas, and congratulate y'all on going about posting your thoughts in a reasonable manner.
Personally, I have little problem with the pictures of animals taken in an ethical manner. I have NO room for shots of animals with evidence of torture or less then ethical methods employed to take them. But that's certainly what we're talking about here. I'll admit that I've got enough Irish in me to be disinclined to sanitize my posts of pertinent content, just because PETA might be offended. Scroom. And frankly, on the face of it, armedtotheteeth's pics are proof positive that the animals did not suffer. Note also that he posted a warning in the thread title: "Very Graphic".
If someone read the thread title, then opened the thread, and read his post, and then clicked on the link, and were STILL shocked, well, they're beyond help.
The only thing I object to, is that the bullet traveled toward the most moblile part of the deer (in three dimensions) for about 1/5 of a second before it hit, from 175 yards. During that time, a deer's head can easily move enough to create a tragic wounding. Add human reaction time, and it begins to take a lot of the certainty out of a certain kill.
Ever blown a shot? I sure have. Just a tiny throw-off costs not only a perfect kill, but creates a terrible tragedy.
I'd rather take the higher percentage shot.
"Welcome to The Firing Line, a virtual community dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership."T.F.L. Policy Page
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?