This message was self-deleted by its author

[mmonk]

This message was self-deleted by its author (mmonk) on Wed Oct 7, 2015, 10:11 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[bowens43]

1. Discuss? Why? We don't have a bow and arrow problem.

Please provide statistics mass killings with bow and arrows in recent history.

[mmonk]

3. No need. Just providing an example of people here

throwing all gun owners in one category as gun nuts who don't believe in any regulation of their use like the NRA position.

[TheSarcastinator]

7. yeah, you failed

completely.

[mmonk]

13. How so?

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Because I still can't work out what your OP has to do with your reply #3

or guns. Though reply #3 did at least show your motivation for the thread, so you don't look quite as creepy as you did with just the OP posted - the OP on its own reads like "I think I can kill a lot of people without everyone hearing about it".

[mmonk]

95. Oh I see. Obviously I didn't look at it that way.

The thought that those of us who had bought guns in the past because they efficiently kill people just got to me. I've never bought one with the idea of using it on another human being. Thanks for drawing that to my attention.

[mmonk]

14. Right answer.

[-none]

80. If laid on a picnic table do any of them go off accidentally if a child picks one up?

[Darb]

89. Could you take a couple of them into a movie theater and kill 20 people?

The answer is no.

[edhopper]

4. Consider my reply hidden by a jury.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. No I am Spartacus!

[Decoy of Fenris]

68. Can I be Sporticus?

[edhopper]

79. That is a very obscure reference

your TV habits are noted.

[Decoy of Fenris]

81. I'm more a Game of Thrones guy, but hey. Who doesn't love puppets and a sports mascot in a blimp? nt

[edhopper]

91. with one pink haired girl

For some reason.

[Decoy of Fenris]

94. That's okay. Robbie Rotten more than makes up for the overly-pink hair. n/t

[TheSarcastinator]

5. Discuss what, precisely?

Should we discuss the use of the red herring in rhetoric? Or should we instead focus on the astonishing amount of cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning present in the mind of the average American gun-humper?

Please tell -- the tension is unbearable.

[upaloopa]

6. How many schools were shot up with arrows?

I use to have a high tech bow for target practice. Had a sight and everything. Much harder to take to a school and wipe out 26 little kids with.

[leftyladyfrommo]

8. And it would be hard to commit suicide

With a bow and arrow .

[Travis_0004]

10. Probably quite easy with a crossbow.

[leftyladyfrommo]

17. Suicide by cross bow?

Has there ever been one?

[Decoy of Fenris]

21. Just because I was curious...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/andrew-budd-man-commits-suicide-5595825

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8166108

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/01/11/police-crossbow-death-was-suicide/


Apparently, yes, and reasonably more common than you'd expect. Probably folks who couldn't/didn't get a gun.

[leftyladyfrommo]

24. Gees. That one guy didn't kill himself

The first time so he fired it again.

Wow.

[Orrex]

34. Is that a double cross?

[Decoy of Fenris]

38. Happened to my mate, with a 12 gauge shotgun at point blank.

Don't want to get into the details, but the first shot didn't kill him. Second one did.

[leftyladyfrommo]

82. Man, talk about overkill.

But then I can't imagine doing it for the first time.

When I was a little girl I knew a woman who had been shot in the face with a shotgun . It pretty much ruined her face.
What an awful thing to have to live with.

[Decoy of Fenris]

93. Yup.

I could get preachy about my stance on firearms, but I'm not going to. I'll just let it lie at "We need to help people more often."

[Orrex]

9. For the average user, they're harder to fire one-handed

Hard to fire from the hip, and concealed-carry is logistically impractical unless you're very tall.

Also tricky to carry one through a revolving door.

[KamaAina]

12. As do swords.

An antique shop in the French Quarter has a sign in the window that reads "Buy swords. There's no waiting period."

[mmonk]

15. .

[Eleanors38]

20. Oh, my!

[Bonx]

65. Knife-wielding separatists... attack in Xinjiang that killed at least 50

Massacre at Chinese coal mine: Knife-wielding separatists blamed for attack in Xinjiang that killed at least 50

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1863165/least-50-reportedly-killed-september-xinjiang-attack

[reflection]

74. You gotta be talking about Cohen and Sons. n/t

[KamaAina]

75. I forget the name, but it was on Royal or Chartres around St. Louis or Toulouse.

[reflection]

76. Yes, I believe that's it then.

My dad lived on Chartres for years and then moved to Toulouse. I spent a large portion of my formative years walking the Quarter. Oh, the things I saw as a younger man...

[NightWatcher]

16. Hey at least it's not another gun thread

Just as pointless though.

[mmonk]

22. Not necessarily.

I'm a gun owner that supports regulation of firearms. I'm just tired of hearing about all of us who do own guns being labeled gun humpers. Some of us own them like we own other things.

[NightWatcher]

28. Same here. I've never humped any of mine

I have used mine for work and even have had to draw, but I've never shot anyone.

[mmonk]

30. I understand completely.

[dembotoz]

47. IF you were to hump your guns i do hope they are not loaded

safety is important

[mmonk]

96. LOL. Nope, don't hump them. Haven't fired any shots from them for years either.

I bought them in my younger years when I was a hunter. Now have them at my lake house in case we run into poisonous snakes. Never owned a hand gun.

[Eleanors38]

97. And try to make it an old Browning Auto 5 Humpback. 12 ga....

no .16 for me!

[Eleanors38]

29. I saw that!

[loyalsister]

18. Effective, maybe

But physics influence efficiency. Bullets travel faster than arrows.
Guns don't require nearly as much physical effort on the part of the shooter. And, they are small enough that even small children can and do sometimes use them.

[Eleanors38]

27. Well, the effective killing range of most bows and foster shotgun slugs is about the same.

I suppose this argument won't be settled until most guns are banned; but by then, we'll be quivering over bows!

[Decoy of Fenris]

70. That nice man deleted and never came back... :( n/t

[Decoy of Fenris]

37. You're right in that the thread seems to be for people outside basic understanding of physics.

For instance, a crossbow has comparable kinetic force in ft/lbs to a .22LR rifle, with a bow falling just under half the force of the .22. Hardly "orders of magnitude" by any stretch.

Seems someone is making arguments in bad faith... Or doesn't understand physics.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Guns pose a practical social problem. Arrows, a hypothetical one.

No one can tell I have a longbow tucked into my sock. They just think I have a wooden leg.

[mmonk]

31. Only because they were invented.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. True... the invention of a Klingon disruptor pistol will make firearm regulation less urgent. n/t

[mmonk]

100. .

[leftyladyfrommo]

86. Or a hard on

If it was stuck in their wrong.

[lumberjack_jeff]

87. Maybe that's why tailors never ask me that question.

"Right"... definitely.

[mmonk]

102. .

[zappaman]

25. Yes, those bow and arrow massacres have been out of control lately.

What a ridiculous post.

[mmonk]

32. As ridiculous as lumping all gun owners together as a homogeneous group.

[Gormy Cuss]

33. Gun trolling.

Discuss.

[LanternWaste]

36. How precisely does one sneak into a grade school

How precisely does one sneak into a grade school and kill twenty young children with a bow?

And, as we're in the realm of absurd conjectures pretending to be a discussion point, the sun also kills people efficiently and is from earth, silent.

[tkmorris]

39. Hypothetical: Gather an army of 100 people

Arm them with whatever bows you like. I will do the same, except my people get modern weaponry.

Pro tip: Don't put anyone you want to see again in your army.

[Decoy of Fenris]

41. Oddly, I'd put that fight at 50/50.

Presuming that you're using weaponry available to modern civilian consumers (Semi-auto, medium-sized mags with standard kit), and also presuming that we're in an urban or suburban setting, Shortbows (Mongolian or Cantabrian-style) would provide superior maneuverability, silent hunting (since silencers are, for the most part, banned) and higher lethality at both range and up close with barbed or mankiller arrows. In addition, arrows can be used for close quarters takedowns when wielded by hand. By the same token, arrows move too slowly to be easily stopped by body armor whereas bullets can be protected against.

As stated in the subject line, I'd put the fight at 50/50, depending on circumstances of the fight.

[bluedigger]

42. Not really, compared to firearms.

They require a high degree of skill and are useless in close quarters. Any fool with a working hand can work a gun pretty much. Silencers are pretty easy to improvise, if that is a consideration, which it shouldn't be, for defensive use.

[Decoy of Fenris]

44. A brief point about close quarters...

It was not uncommon for archers to wield their arrows as weapons in close quarters combat. Moreover, depending on the type of arrowhead, they were far from helpless; an arrow to the throat may as well be a gunshot (and is worse in many ways) if you're using broadhead, barbed or mankiller arrowheads.

[bluedigger]

69. Next time I meet a home invader on an open field of battle I'll keep that in mind.

As an ex-artilleryman, I can well imagine the enthusiasm of archers to wield their weapons up close. We used to love the idea of firing flechette rounds ourselves. Just not as much as never seeing the enemy at all. But, if I have to grab my longbow from the nightstand and meet an intruder in the hallway, I shall remember that it can be done.

[Decoy of Fenris]

71. Snark all you like, I was just correcting your error.

If I had to choose between a firearm or an arrowhead/bolt in extreme close quarters, I'd take the arrow for self defense any day of the week. Guns in close quarters combat are a liability, especially anything larger than a handgun. ( I might pick a Makarov over the arrow, but that's still an iffy bet.)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

73. Here's a fun vid.

(The point blank is at 3:27 or so.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. It's good advice if the home invader is armed with a halberd or mace. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

43. they do not have rapid fire

and it takes a lot more skill to learn how to use a bow than a SMG

[Warpy]

45. Reloading time reduces the firepower

Mass murder with a bow and arrow is highly impractical. So is suicide.

?quality=100&strip=info&w=500

[Tommy_Carcetti]

46. Of course. I mean, there were tens of thousands of deaths attributed to bows and arrows last year.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry. That was guns.

Here's the thing about bows and arrows. Unless your name is Robin Hood, William Tell, or Darryl from The Walking Dead, it's going to take a considerable amount of skill to effectively kill someone with a bow and arrow. Especially mass numbers of people in a short amount of time.

Hence the reason that bows and arrows became something of a passé novelty upon the introduction of the gun.

[Mnemosyne]

56. My 14yo grandson wants a sword like Mishonne, but has great admiration for Darryl. Glad he likes

those weapons better than any guns.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

60. I'll be completely honest, in the event of a zombie apocolypse, my views on gun ownership.....

.....would certainly change radically.

Thankfully, we're about 5-7 years off from that point, so I'm okay for now.

[Mnemosyne]

63. That's about how long I give it too. I have an axe and a baseball bat. nt

[Xyzse]

78. Have a bunch of swords.

Made quite a few PVC bow and arrows for kicks and giggles as well. They seem to work well and have a 35-50 lbs. pull.

Can't say I can use the bows well though, I have very little experience using projectiles.

[mmonk]

104. But it's an intention thing, right?

At least that is what I was told in another thread about people who own guns.

[Scootaloo]

48. No, they really don't. Certainly not compared to guns.

• Arrows and bullets function very differently. A bullet is a fingernail-sized pellet of very malleable material traveling at supersonic speeds. When it hits a body, it tears through, deforming as it goes, changing trajectory according to the friction this causes. An arrow by contrast, is an arm-length shaft of fairly rigid material tipped with a blade. It cuts into its target, doesn't deform, and is self-stabilizing; where a bullet will bounce around in a body, an arrow follows the trajectory it was fired on. A bullet will leave open wounds and large internal damage, an arrow closes its own wound and causes fairly little internal damage.

• Some highly-skilled stunt shooters aside, there are no automatic or semiautomatic bows - and even those stunt shooters are working on stationary targets.

• Bows take very legitimate skill to utilize effectively. They're not "point and click" in the way guns are. Further, even compound bows require a fair bit of muscle use, further limiting their potential use as weapons of mass attacks.

[dembotoz]

49. have there been 85000 archery deaths since sandy hook?

[haele]

50. They also require more skill and strength to effectively use.

Most people don't realize that a killing shot typically requires a minimum of a 50 lb pull if you've got a high-tech compound bow. I've actually been hit in the back by a "blunt" from someone using a target recurve with a 30lb pull from around forty feet away; just raised a little welt and bruising, and pissed me off mightily in the process. If I had been inclined, the bowman might have ended up on the wrong side of my six-foot 1" thick staff with the brass footing - and a concussion.

Likewise, bows and a quiver of arrows are more difficult to conceal in public, and bows, bowstrings and arrows are easily broken. It's also an ungainly process to fire one unless you're constantly practicing; easy to "mis-fire" if you are rattled or on the move, takes much longer to set, draw, aim and release, and there's no real "rapid fire" capability. It's very easy to charge and overcome a bowman; that's why the bowmen tended to be in the back of fighting units where they were protected from the enemy forces.

A crossbow is more efficient, but some of the issues above still apply. Despite the purported effectiveness of Legoalas, Hawkeye or the Green Arrow, using a bow and arrow are just not optimal weapons for mass murders, crimes of passion, or suicide. Great for stalking and hunting animals or single targets - one shot killing machines if you're very skilled.. but other than that....

You really need a firearm to do mortal damage.

There's a reason why armies went to gunpowder as soon as the technology was up to the task instead of sticking with longbows or crossbows.

Haele

[Act_of_Reparation]

51. Bows require a modicum of skill to use effectively.

Any idiot with one hand and a pair of functional eyes can kill something with a gun.

[Crunchy Frog]

53. I feel sick everytime there's a bow and arrow mass killing in this country.

[Bad Thoughts]

55. Why don't modern militaries use bows and arrows? Discuss. eom.

[Decoy of Fenris]

57. Ah, you put this post down here. :) To answer your question, they do.

Crossbows mostly, and mostly in special forces units, but they're used infrequently as stealth killers and when plausible deniability is on the table.

[Bad Thoughts]

59. Yet there more likely to arm soldiers with rifles

A single soldiers with modest training and good cover can hold down a bunch of enemy soldiers very effectively.

[Decoy of Fenris]

61. Oh, of course.

That's because modern combat-ready firearms aren't designed for accuracy or killing; they're designed simply to throw as many bullets downrange at the enemy as they can. Very few firearms, outside designated "marksman" rifles, are designed with any degree of accuracy in mind. By the same token, even a fully-armed squad of gun-totin' bad guys can be outdone by a single bayonet charge.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/9571522/Soldier-who-led-Afghanistan-bayonet-charge-into-hail-of-bullets-honoured.html

[Kelvin Mace]

58. So, how do you walk into a school

with a concealed bow and arrow and kill a few dozen people? How do you kill your girlfriend while "cleaning" your bow and arrow? Kind of awkward to use to commit suicide, isn't it?

[Paladin]

62. Bows and arrows do not kill in an efficient manner.

We've come to expect diversionary threads from pro-gun activists following whatever is the latest mass murder incident in which firearms are used. Not a very good effort, on your part.

[Initech]

64. Anyone need some butter?

[Decoy of Fenris]

67. Pass some here?

I'm astounded by how little knowledge people have of either firearms -or- other weapons in general. I mean, most of this is taught in elementary/high school.

[Agnosticsherbet]

66. Unless you are using masses of archers, as they did at Agincourt

It is dificult to use them to kill large numbers of humans. Also, they are very dificult to use at close range and require a lot of training to be an efficient murder weapon.


We do not have people buying a large number of arrows because people want to confiscate their strings.

We do not have a NAA that exists to lobby for bow makers.

[leftyladyfrommo]

83. I was just reading something about crossbows

And I think they have them now that don't take a lot of training to use. But you would think that it would take a lot of practice to be really accurate.

There are more people around who own them than you would think.

But as a weapon of mass destruction? It would take too long to reload. You would get jumped on and pounded into the ground after the first shot.

[MineralMan]

72. Absolutely. The National Field Archery Association lobby

is forcing legislation every day, and blocking archery regulations. Yes, indeed...

https://www.nfaausa.com/

[GeorgeGist]

77. Coming soon to a mass shooting near you ...

[Bonx]

84. Cleaner too. The 'Alternative Energy' of deadly weapons ?

[leftyladyfrommo]

85. That's very true.

Air pollution would definitely be better.

[NuclearDem]

90. They also require a slight bit more skill to use than a gun.

[olddots]

92. I don' want to gang up on you mmonk

you're doing a fine job on your own . Oh badda bing

[mmonk]

103. It's a communication thing.

[hunter]

98. Fuck silent. I prefer hand grenades.

If you want silence, nerve gas is your best bet. Work yourself up to resistance slowly like Dread Pirate Roberts, or shoot yourself up with antidote before deploying.

As a dread pirate myself, I don't fear anyone, nor would I choose to harm any innocent people. I'd even consider slimeball Vizzini a victim of his environment, and potential future ally. Maybe I could turn him, but i'd keep him in a cage until I was sure. I'm against the death penalty.

Switching into serious mode, the community of gun fetishists IS the problem. In what good universe is it okay to shoot anyone, or imagine shooting anyone, no matter how vile they may be?

Guns don't ever solve human vs. human conflicts, they simply escalate them into greater tragedies.

Cops, criminals, crazies... it doesn't matter, and I don't care. If you equate guns with any kind of human justice, you are horribly mistaken. Even in times of good vs. evil all out war, everyone loses. Every war is a civil war, from suicidal feelings of self vs. self, to worlds at war. There were plenty of good people living in Nazi Germany just as there were plenty of fascist Nazi sympathizers living in the U.S.A..

It's all an accident of birth.

[mmonk]

105. But can you hunt with them?

It seems it might be a little messy with hand grenades. Target practice would be easy though.

[ileus]

99. They don't have killer clipizines and things that go up....not scary enough.

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. This thread, in this environment, is ill-advised to say the least.

[mmonk]

106. I'll gladly shut it down.

Still doubt the righties will make a run on the nearest sporting goods store for bow and arrows though.

[mmonk]

107. OK, this thread was definitely interesting.

But I'm going to shut it down now.