I reviewed his argument with another friend and we've come to the conclusion that not only is his stance plain unreasonable, but it's also quite possibly hypocritical. and it stands on three basic legs that I call "the triangle".
The "better tools" leg: Arguing that there are better tools for the job, however he's taken to placing archery above even that of high caliber handguns. Which, depending on the user and their proficiency could make this true on an individual basis, but I would personally rank handguns over archery for quicker follow up shots if you happen to need them.
However, I find this argument to be completely irrelevant. As I've stated before hunting has become a form of leisure in the overall scheme of things, without it being a necessity for survival it's not necessary for a person to try and find the easiest and most efficient way to sleigh an animal.
To further prove this leg to be broken, as you all have also provided examples as to why some hunters may prefer a handguns over rifles or bows such as easier mobility and brushy areas where general range will be less than 100 yards, this is where a handgun might even out perform long guns.
Also, there is what I call the "just cos clause", whether it be for practical reasons or the challenge of handgun hunting. Which this "just cause" he also has a problem with that I will explain in the next leg.
The "Machismo" Leg: My friend has rather strong negative feelings about things he'd describe as "machismo", that being an excessive display of unnecessary masculinity. Okay, fair enough, I can sometimes concur that it can get annoying.
But I personally think this leg is "broken" on two fronts, for the first I don't believe doing things that may or may not be practical for the simple fact that you can, or to prove that you can; isn't necessarily an example of "excessive masculinity", challenging yourself to do something that either most people can't or won't do is to most people who do; a hobby. It's also how we separate ourselves from the crowd, and why we have HDTV's!
Secondly, this leg is completely irrelevant anyway because "who cares"? As long as the hunter isn't being irresponsible to the point of endangering themselves or others recklessly, they can go hunting with their bare hands for all that it matters.
And finally
The Political Leg:
In his arguments he has claimed that handguns were invented solely for the purpose of killing other people, despite me having given him examples of handguns that have been developed specifically for hunting and sporting in general. He holds this stance firmly and refuses to separate the actual intention specific handguns were designed for, like the difference between a Glock pocket pistol and a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum; where one is clearly designed for personal protection while the other is better suited as a target shooter or a hunting firearm.
He also holds the idea that people who use pistols to hunt are often doing so because they're trying to add more ammo to the "Don't take our guns" rhetoric (though I don't think he's actually full on anti-gun), while rejecting common scenarios like I have previously mentioned.
---------------------------------------
I say all this simply because I want to vent, he's otherwise a person I would idolize and aspire to emulate because I admire his intelligence and creativity. But he sometimes takes spells like these that are such a shock to his otherwise awesomeness as a human being, cos he just casts me aside and insults my intelligence simply because of my interest in specific guns over others, and the fact I play games like Fallout; and that I'm not an actual avid hunter or experienced shooter.
like an AR based 308.