Should we we use our teeth and claws instead of weapon to Hunt?

Question: I see alot of people criticize hunting here with the proposition that it's ok to hunt as long as we use our teeth and claws like a lion or tiger. Would that not be the same as telling someone they can get to work faster when they Learn to run as fast as a deer or gazelle? Since our evolutionary path allowed us the ability to make weapons and understand how to track and hunt animals?

Answers:
- We don't depend on hunting animals for food to sustain life. It's a choice people make. The animals dont get to choose whether or not they participate.
- Our evolutionary path (which implies a complete misunderstanding of evolution) allows us to make nuclear weapons too. Silly justification for nuking, isn't it?
- Currently the top rated diets in the country is the dash diet which is mostly vegetarian with some lean meat. Go figure. Also there was nothing bad to be said about vegan or vegetarian as long as your nutrition spectrum was met.
- We don't expect the world to change for us, we expect it to change to a better model for all including the animals. We are not so selfish to think that the only thing that should survive is our species.
- It's okay to hunt so long as we can hunt hunters. Also humans at 7 billion and 10 in 2050 have overpopulated everything. We are in serious need of a culling for environmental reasons
- You are an omnivore, not a carnivore. It is not your diet that defines that. An omnivore is a species that normally can get its energy and nutrients from a diet consisting of a variety of food sources that may include plants, animals. Even if you don't eat plants, you are still a omnivore. Even if you don't eat animals, you are still a omnivore.
- No! Because they have their own individual survival skills. We are pathetic and puny. We cannot run as fast as a gazelle or hunt like a lion. We need weapons because we are weak with no natural ability to defend ourselves unlike these animals!
- You just explained the rules of a logical fallacy but yet your argument is breaking all rules of it. So your main argument is that we shouldn't do the most probable, because things may happen. The only definite in the universe is that there isn't one. We live in flux this we choose the most logical paths.