Search
Calendar
Help
17 April 2013, 12:08
Pictures like the duck with a crossbow bolt through the head, or the Swans in a similar situation are emotive, and are often used as a tool for raising indignation within the animal loving population of the country, with a view to eventually banning any form of hunting or weapons.
Look at it this way, "does the picture of the Duck with a bolt through its head prove that crossbows are evil and cruel, and not suited to humane killing?, or could it prove that the person shooting it had no knowledge of shot placement or the range at which his weapon is effective? the media obviously uses the former argument, as to even entertain the idea that stringed weapons are suitable for hunting means that you have to debate the subject, and of course debate is bad in a democracy isn't it.
I'm willing to take some of your points raised Tonka with regards usefullness in a defence situation to try and get to the nitty gritty on this weapon. I agree the Tomcat will never be a "man Stopper" if you mean by dropping me dead in my tracks, is this what you mean? The only conceivable way I would see this happening is if you were lucky enough to hit the eyeball which is relatively soft allowing entry to the brain through the eye socket. That would be a lucky shot indeed and I agree very unlikely, but sometimes you are lucky, but not likely. For the sake of debate I will accept your position on the Jorge sprave gelatin test, and also the ability of clothing to stop the bolts penetrating deep enough to cause lethal wounding in the chest area.
Now consider the evidence from the Duck incident where the bolt has penetrated through both sides of the Duck's skull, I have just measured this and it is 4 and a quarter inches. If shot into a human neck there is no reason to believe the bolt would not penetrate just as far as it would in the Duck, it would probably penetrate deeper as there would be no Skull to pass through, though I will stick with the evidence from the photo. If a person was shot in the neck to a depth of four inches I for one believe it would stop them, if not kill them pretty quick due to major artery and vein damage. I know it would stop me.
Look at it this way, "does the picture of the Duck with a bolt through its head prove that crossbows are evil and cruel, and not suited to humane killing?, or could it prove that the person shooting it had no knowledge of shot placement or the range at which his weapon is effective? the media obviously uses the former argument, as to even entertain the idea that stringed weapons are suitable for hunting means that you have to debate the subject, and of course debate is bad in a democracy isn't it.
I'm willing to take some of your points raised Tonka with regards usefullness in a defence situation to try and get to the nitty gritty on this weapon. I agree the Tomcat will never be a "man Stopper" if you mean by dropping me dead in my tracks, is this what you mean? The only conceivable way I would see this happening is if you were lucky enough to hit the eyeball which is relatively soft allowing entry to the brain through the eye socket. That would be a lucky shot indeed and I agree very unlikely, but sometimes you are lucky, but not likely. For the sake of debate I will accept your position on the Jorge sprave gelatin test, and also the ability of clothing to stop the bolts penetrating deep enough to cause lethal wounding in the chest area.
Now consider the evidence from the Duck incident where the bolt has penetrated through both sides of the Duck's skull, I have just measured this and it is 4 and a quarter inches. If shot into a human neck there is no reason to believe the bolt would not penetrate just as far as it would in the Duck, it would probably penetrate deeper as there would be no Skull to pass through, though I will stick with the evidence from the photo. If a person was shot in the neck to a depth of four inches I for one believe it would stop them, if not kill them pretty quick due to major artery and vein damage. I know it would stop me.
