Ah great.. A die hard bowhunter... Here we go
:P !!! (just joking!!!)
I respect the skills and dedication of the bowhunting fraternity, as you need to creep much closer to critters before letting go than I would
so before I go any further, I'm saying this with utmost respect for yourself and dedication. And I have never shot at anything bigger than a fox as my form of hunting would be considered pest control (ie - just going after foxes, rabbits & cats) If I were to go after deer, I would most likely ask for a guide/mentor to go with me so that I don't have to revert to using a .308 at 4-500m (though, long range hunting has its own inherent skills and rewards - but lets not go there as this is not a hunting forum heh!)
As you've said, the bow "predate written history and have for the last 200 years been used solely for hunting." In response - yes, yes it does outdate written history and has not been utilised publicly as a weapon of warfare since the inception of the firearm, but it still doesn't change the fact that the bow and arrow was designed to kill. Whether the four legged animal variety or the two-legged animal variety, it is still a tool to kill (as just like the boomerang and the *many* other hand launched projectiles that have been used over time)
I do appreciate the facts & figures that you have presented, but I still come back to the fact that a bow always was and still is a weapon to be considered the same as a firearm ie - its sole purpose and function in its existence is to enable the user to kill in a more efficient manner. As far as I'm concered, there are no ifs, buts, ors, and maybes with this, no amount of information can segregate one from the other regardless of lethality threshholds and useability.
All of this ultimately comes down to the erosion of personal freedoms by ours and other Governments. In the case of firearms, it becomes very tricky, where, when one looks at the US system, (supposedly) a firearm is very easy to acquire, even if trouble with the law has occurred in the past (happy to be corrected on this) & minimal safe storage requirements. Compared to Australia, behind the scenes background checks (pretty sure that one has to agree to a Police background check prior to the issuing of a firearms license) and fairly stringent safe storage requirements combined with police inspections to ensure safe storage requirements are being met.
Should bows be in this class? Would you be happy to bolt a complying safe the the floor & wall of your house?
There are reports around where firearms safe's (legally complying ones at that) have been ripped out of the walls & floor of owners houses (this leads us to the much denied (by the Police) yet, increasingly obvious of the breaches of the national firearms database - yes this has happened - and yes the information was passed onto career crims)
Following that, why on earth would it make sense to screw the population down more, when the Government can't even 100% guarantee that Customs are actually able to do their job with regards to scanning of incoming shipments for illegal firearms - all of this talk of more restrictions is ludicrous - it does nothing to solve the problem in the first place - it's the equivalent of a Gypsy telling you to look to your right when they steal your wallet out of your left hand pocket!
Quote:
Originally Posted by GariJ
Whitemeat I am more than happy to field any question that’s what makes this a healthy debate and an excellent thread. As I am sure you and most of the hunting community are aware I went through nothing to purchase the bow. I even had it shipped by Fed Ex and Australia post from overseas with its ammunition. In fact the only issue with its import was the wood it was made from lol.
I most certainly agree with you to a point, the bow is a weapon. And I mean that in the strictest sense of the word. By its design it was created to inflict damage. The point at which I disagree with you is the “considered a “weapon” just like a firearm” statement. There is a vast contrast between bows and guns and to a lesser extent bows and crossbows with respect to their lethality.
This is largely a function of projectile velocity I think the highest poundcrossbows fire a quarrel at about 600fps while big draw weight compound bows are around the 450fps mark. Some major league baseball players can pitch at 150fps that would be equivalent to say a 45lbs bow. The average bows used for deer are about 200 fps so you can see they really aren’t similar to guns in that respect. I think the average .308 rifle fires a round at about 2800fps so not really the same thing.
I also believe that’s bows are so culturally accepted and thus un regulated because they predate written history and have for the last 200 years been used solely for hunting.
When hunting deer I have to get within 10m to ensure a kill 15m to wound and chase. And this is hunting with an 80lbs recurve. With the 110lbs longbow I might be able to get the same animal from maybe 25-30m. What could you shoot the same deer at? 400-500m? So again the lethality is very different. Regarding rates of fire I reckon I could get off maybe three well aimed arrows at a 50m target in a minute. Maybe 8-10 with zero accuracy with either bow before my shoulder and arms are done for the next few minutes.
Anyone can pick up your rifle even a child and fire it increasing its lethality. If and child could draw either of my bows I would awe struck. I’m impressed when a full grown man can draw either of them.
Cross bows are regulated because they are concealable and store their energy in a similar way to a gun. Thus a gun and cross bow can be discharged unintentionally a bow obviously needs to be drawn and released by the user. This combined with its low lethality and cultural acceptance make them unrestricted in my opinion although I’m sure most of you will disagree.
Yes they are dangerous but by comparison they aren’t really in the same ball park.
Having said all that I do believe compound bows should have some form of regulation due to their increased lethality. And I also believe that cross bows should be regulated just like low powered firearms. But the last thing I want is to turn this into a guns vs bows debate. I’m more than happy for people to use guns for sport as long as it’s strictly regulated. I don’t because for me the health benefits of owning a firearm don’t out way the health risks.
|
