DescentBB

Hard to buy a gun in Toronto? Just get a crossbow:

Three people were killed Thursday after they were apparently shot with a crossbow in Toronto's east end.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/08/25 ... ttack.html

Yea…crossbows were all the rage around here a little while back.

They're kind of hard to conceal and very slow to reload. The bolts don't blow a hole the size of a grapefruit in a person's body when hit with one either. Not a good weapon of choice for a quickie mass murder.

On the other hand, a crossbow bolt will cut right through a Kevlar vest.

I'd rather get hit with a crossbow bolt than a 5.56 NATO round or a hollow point or even a shotgun blast. Small area of damage verses a large area of damage once it penetrates flesh.

this thread is funny, in a sort of morbid way.

Sorry about that.

tunnelcat wrote:I'd rather get hit with a crossbow bolt than a 5.56 NATO round or a hollow point or even a shotgun blast. Small area of damage verses a large area of damage once it penetrates flesh.

I shoot bow, regularly. you really, really, really don't want to be hit by an arrow.

In the same sense that an usually cold day in your home town doesn't invalidate global warming, the fact that you can murder people with things other than guns doesn't invalidate that guns are much more efficient killing tools.

Bombs even more so.

Ferno wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:I'd rather get hit with a crossbow bolt than a 5.56 NATO round or a hollow point or even a shotgun blast. Small area of damage verses a large area of damage once it penetrates flesh.

I shoot bow, regularly. you really, really, really don't want to be hit by an arrow.

I agree whole hardheartedly. A hole is a hole, no matter what weapon makes it. It's just that sometimes, it's the size of that hole that matters.

TC, I suggest you look at some broadhead styles and tell me again how you'd rather get hit with a arrow.

Ooooooh! I looked at a few. Some of those are really nasty looking! Plus, you wouldn't be able to pull it out once it entered the body. I guess I haven't looked at the state of the art with arrowheads. I stand corrected.

Yea, some of those are even illegal to hunt w/ in OR...

Grendel, you may like this....Mich passed a law you can use silencers to hunt with

http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-164 ... --,00.html

woodchip wrote:TC, I suggest you look at some broadhead styles and tell me again how you'd rather get hit with a arrow.

bud, she just agreed with the fact that getting hit with an arrow is bad news. Are you so blind as to see a comment that agrees with you, that you just kneejerk a disagreement?

Nevermind, don't answer that. It's rhetorical.

woodchip wrote:Grendel, you may like this....Mich passed a law you can use silencers to hunt with

http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,4534,7-164 ... --,00.html

The more the merrier OR doesn't have restrictions on hunting w/ suppressors (as long you own and use them legally.) I just wish it wouldn't be such a PITA to get them. Rooting for H.R. 3799...

what sportsmen!!! Also, isn't there a safety issue, if your woods are similar to ours in the East? The last thing I'd wish is for some of those clowns to be out shooting supressed rounds. Bad enough when you can hear them shooting when they're right on top of you......

callmeslick wrote:what sportsmen!!! Also, isn't there a safety issue, if your woods are similar to ours in the East? The last thing I'd wish is for some of those clowns to be out shooting supressed rounds. Bad enough when you can hear them shooting when they're right on top of you......

That tells me that you don't know squat about suppressors. A good suppressor reduces the noise by ~30db, so you go from 160+db to 130+db on your hunting rifle. A Suppressor will do nothing to the supersonic crack of the bullet. You also reduce recoil and eliminate the blast that is the main cause for hearing loss (even w/ hearing protection) -- this is the main advantage for me since that blast wave also is a risk for my eyes (family history for retina detachment. Main reason why I use linear compensators instead of muzzle brakes. Another PITA. Look it up ). What you see in movies and on TV is pretty far from reality.

(Sportsmen ? You expect a deer to outrun a bullet ?)

thanks for the clarification. I was thinking more supression of noise than that. I was sort of raised with the 'stay quiet, select the prime target, you get one shot and they're all gone' school of deer hunting. Admittedly, these days, my main concern is sharing the woods with deer hunters, as fall trout fishing is a big thing with me(big streamers, big fish), and I am continually alarmed at the number of folks who will fire near visible humans, wearing orange, mind you, in season.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:TC, I suggest you look at some broadhead styles and tell me again how you'd rather get hit with a arrow.

bud, she just agreed with the fact that getting hit with an arrow is bad news. Are you so blind as to see a comment that agrees with you, that you just kneejerk a disagreement?

Nevermind, don't answer that. It's rhetorical.

Woody made his comment. I looked it up and figured it out. He didn't need to make a comment back. Simple.

callmeslick wrote:what sportsmen!!! Also, isn't there a safety issue, if your woods are similar to ours in the East? The last thing I'd wish is for some of those clowns to be out shooting supressed rounds. Bad enough when you can hear them shooting when they're right on top of you......

I would suggest you read my link (you know, the things you say I never post) and read the reasons for the new law as stated by the AG.