106 replies to this topic

[iargue]

That makes plenty of point. It's point and shoot. Same functionality as a gun. I would contend that an untrained person with one bolt is just as deadly (one-on-one) as an untrained person with a gun. Also no idiot would be holding his crossbow sideways in an attempt to look gangster.

Your contention is wrong. Crossbows are far less deadly then a gunshot would. The arrows tend to deal less damage, as well as are easier to remove. A gun has both more power, and more impact, capable of physically leaving a hole in your chest, wheras an crossbow would stick an arrow in you and would thus have to hit something vital to actually kill you. Not to mention that the crossbow fires significantly slower shots, making it harder to hit a moving target, and it is harder to load.

The majority of arrow related deaths in the medieval ages was due to bleeding, as medical technologies was not that advanced.

[sonic]

Your contention is wrong. Crossbows are far less deadly then a gunshot would. The arrows tend to deal less damage, as well as are easier to remove. A gun has both more power, and more impact, capable of physically leaving a hole in your chest, wheras an crossbow would stick an arrow in you and would thus have to hit something vital to actually kill you. Not to mention that the crossbow fires significantly slower shots, making it harder to hit a moving target, and it is harder to load.

The majority of arrow related deaths in the medieval ages was due to bleeding, as medical technologies was not that advanced.

Were do you think the majority of gunshot deaths occur from? Couldnt be bleeding out. no way.

[iargue]

Were do you think the majority of gunshot deaths occur from? Couldnt be bleeding out. no way.

Obviously whenever a gunshot destroys the entire left side of your body, your going to gush blood and die. Thats much different then a arrow, which if left in the body until your in a place to stop the bleeding, will bleed a very very minimal amount.

[jcrdude]

Your contention is wrong. Crossbows are far less deadly then a gunshot would. The arrows tend to deal less damage, as well as are easier to remove. A gun has both more power, and more impact, capable of physically leaving a hole in your chest, wheras an crossbow would stick an arrow in you and would thus have to hit something vital to actually kill you. Not to mention that the crossbow fires significantly slower shots, making it harder to hit a moving target, and it is harder to load.

The majority of arrow related deaths in the medieval ages was due to bleeding, as medical technologies was not that advanced.

This is totally less damage than a gunshot wound:

[Lallard]

Also no idiot would be holding his crossbow sideways in an attempt to look gangster.

50 Cent does:

Spoiler

Although I might add that crossbows still isn't comparable to a gun when we're talking about efficiency. Consider the time it takes for someone to miss, reload, and THEN reaim and shoot, as opposed to someone who fires a gun, misses, and well just has to fire again and hope to hit their victim.


EDIT: TYPO LOL

Edited by Lallard, 08 September 2010 - 04:48 PM.

[iargue]

This is totally less damage than a gunshot wound:

Yes. A shitload less damage.

[jcrdude]

Although I might add that crossbows still isn't comparable to a gun when we're talking about efficiency. Consider the time it takes for someone to miss, reload, and THEN reaim and shoot, as opposed to someone who fires a gun, misses, and well just has to fire again and hope to hit their victim.


EDIT: TYPO LOL

I'm not claiming that the crossbow is a superior weapon. I'm claiming that in a world without gunpowder weapons, humans would still be able to kill with relative ease and without a lot of training with a simple point and shoot weapon.

Yes. A shitload less damage.

Derp.

[Sweeney]

Especially if you go ahead and give that crossbow an explosive arrow.

[iargue]

Derp.

http://www.hunting-f...splay/1737.html

[Lallard]

I'm not claiming that the crossbow is a superior weapon. I'm claiming that in a world without gunpowder weapons, humans would still be able to kill with relative ease and without a lot of training with a simple point and shoot weapon.

Alright, I'll agree with the fact that humans will find some other creative way to kill even without the use of gunpowder technology.

Only issue I wanted to address there was the crossbow -- it's this one humongous mothereffing weapon that's not so easy to walk around in (and while seen with it, everyone would get a heads up and take some precaution) while there are ways to be sneaky when you're carrying a pistol with you.

[jcrdude]

http://www.hunting-f...splay/1737.html

If there is a point in that wall of text, I would suggest you quote it. Most of the statistics are based on shooting deer at moderate distances. If I were untrained in crossbow usage, I still wouldn't be trying to shoot you from 35 yards away.

I also suggest that we take away this straw man now. It will not disprove my point to say that a crossbow is less effective than a firearm because that is not my point.

I'm not claiming that the crossbow is a superior weapon. I'm claiming that in a world without gunpowder weapons, humans would still be able to kill with relative ease and without a lot of training with a simple point and shoot weapon.

Only issue I wanted to address there was the crossbow -- it's this one humongous mothereffing weapon that's not so easy to walk around in (and while seen with it, everyone would get a heads up and take some precaution) while there are ways to be sneaky when you're carrying a pistol with you.

They can be made small, as the image I posted earlier proved




That thing can be hidden relatively easily.

[sonic]

Obviously whenever a gunshot destroys the entire left side of your body, your going to gush blood and die. Thats much different then a arrow, which if left in the body until your in a place to stop the bleeding, will bleed a very very minimal amount.

lol what gun have you seen that blows of the entire left side of your body. .50 cal maybe? And everyone is toting them around these days.

isuckaatdebates

[iargue]

If there is a point in that wall of text, I would suggest you quote it. Most of the statistics are based on shooting deer at moderate distances. If I were untrained in crossbow usage, I still wouldn't be trying to shoot you from 35 yards away.

I also suggest that we take away this straw man now. It will not disprove my point to say that a crossbow is less effective than a firearm because that is not my point.

Its not easy though. Thats what you failing to grasp. Crossbows are less accurate. Less powerful, and less deadly. That makes it much much much harder to kill someone.

Myth: Crossbows make deer hunting too easy.

Fact: The only advantage a crossbow has over a conventional bow is that it holds the bow in the drawn, or ready to fire, position for the shooter. While shooting a crossbow is generally easier to master than shooting a vertical bow, it cannot be argued that it is just plain easy. The crossbow hunter must have the same woodsmanship ability and nearly all of the same shooting skills as the vertical bowhunter.

Myth: Anyone can pick up a crossbow, practice for an hour, and be ready to head to the woods.

Fact: Any experienced crossbow hunter will tell you that there are many ways to make a bad shot with a crossbow. First, if a crossbow is not cocked perfectly straight, it will not shoot straight. If the bowstring is pulled even 1/16th of an inch to the right or left of center, that difference can translate into a six-inch error at 20-yards. Additionally, like any conventional bow shooter, a crossbow shooter must maintain a proper stance, control breathing, squeeze rather than “jerk” the trigger, steady the entire body, and follow through (watch the entire arrow flight through the sighting mechanism) after the release. And finally, the crossbow hunter must also be a good judge of distance and be practiced at shooting the crossbow at distances between five and approximately 35 yards.

Myth: Crossbows have the knockdown power of a firearm.

Fact: Comparison tests have proven that there is a negligible ballistic difference between compound bows and crossbows. These tests disprove the groundless claims that crossbows perform like firearms. In other words a crossbow has no ballistic similarities to a firearm.

Myth: Crossbows shoot as flat as black powder rifles.

Fact: Again, through comparison tests it has been shown that crossbows do not perform the same as firearms. Crossbows typically start loosing velocity and energy at 30 yards compared to a black powder rifle which begins to lose velocity and energy at 100 yards or more.

[jcrdude]

All of those quotes are appropriate for the woods at 35 meters. I don't have to be Captain Accurate to walk into a room with the crossbow ready to go, walk a few paces and hit you.

[iargue]

All of those quotes are appropriate for the woods at 35 meters. I don't have to be Captain Accurate to walk into a room with the crossbow ready to go, walk a few paces and hit you.

You dont need a gun to kill someone five feet in front of you.

Guns power comes from killing people are range. You can hit someone across the street, or from a car during a driveby. All of those attacks would be reduced, making things alot safer.

[sonic]

isuckaatdebates

[iargue]

isuckaatdebates

Good for you.

[luvsmyncis]

 All I can think of is this murder that happened in my town a while back: Restaurant Owner Killed with Bow and Arrow

[Faval]

isuckaatdebates

Good for you, that's the second time you said that in the same topic?

Its not easy though. Thats what you failing to grasp. Crossbows are less accurate. Less powerful, and less deadly. That makes it much much much harder to kill someone.

Well what's to prevent someone from inventing an automatic crossbow? Weapons of killing will always improve over time.

If a crazy old man can do it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS4RKoRyTik I don't see why researchers wouldn't do it if there weren't any guns.

Edited by Faval, 09 September 2010 - 07:18 AM.

[luvsmyncis]

 

If a crazy old man can do it: 

This man is a genius and a gift to humanity. You watch what you say, goddammit!
Of course, it's not like you can just whip that out of your pocket at a bank orsumshit.

[Faval]

This man is a genius and a gift to humanity. You watch what you say, goddammit!
Of course, it's not like you can just whip that out of your pocket at a bank orsumshit.

Oh, I'm sure someone would invent a smaller one eventually

Edited by Faval, 09 September 2010 - 07:44 AM.

[WakaWaka]

Oh, I'm sure someone would invent a smaller one eventually

a smaller one with a poison at the tip....

that or they can use the blowdart

[Lallard]

a smaller one with a poison at the tip....

that or they can use the blowdart

While we're at it we could have spears as well. Instead of a shootout we'll be seeing jousts in the streets of LA soon.

[Sweeney]

While we're at it we could have spears as well. Instead of a shootout we'll be seeing jousts in the streets of LA soon.

Jousts are performed with lances, not spears.

[Lallard]

Jousts are performed with lances, not spears.

But lances are categorized under spears/polearms aren't they?...