Geronimo45
Member
Maybe so. Same probably goes for motorcycles, now that you mention it...Do you think guns would be more acceptable in the general populace if they didn't make a noise when fired?
Maybe so. Same probably goes for motorcycles, now that you mention it...Do you think guns would be more acceptable in the general populace if they didn't make a noise when fired?
Not missing the point.
I know what you're saying, I just think that asserting that the bow and arrow is as, if not more deadly is fallacious.
As they say, the devil is in the details.
The most advanced, most powerful hand-held bow and arrow (that I know of, I am no expert) is, all things considered, roughly equivalent in killing power to a .30-30, at best a medium-power cartridge (depending on where you end the power scale. .300 WM? .50 BMG? 20mm Lahti?).
You are correct in the proposition that noise bears a lot of the fear of firearm hoplophobia, but it's silly to use a false statement to back that up.
That's a good point actually. I'd argue that the slight sound is proportional to the fear, ie, the fear is small.(Minor nitpick: bows aren't completely silent, either...)
jakemccoy said:If the anti walks into your house and sees the .22lr pistol next to the bow, the fear will be greater for the pistol.
LOL. Thanks for that, it's been a long day.I still cry when it thunders
Yep, I got it.Here's the comparison to consider so that we don't argue the details:
Quality bow vs. Big black semi-auto .22lr pistol
Now, consider your average emotional anti-gun person. Which weapon would they be more hysterical over? What's the reason for the difference in reaction?
My hypothesis is the noise is the reason. They're conditioned to fear the sharp sound of the explosion.
Being able to conceal the .22lr pistol is irrelevant. If the anti walks into your house and sees the .22lr pistol next to the bow, the fear will be greater for the pistol.
Only the most deadly arrows are more effective than the least effective firearms.
When compared alongside modern firearms, bows are woefully ineffective weapons.Hmm, General Custer might disagree with that.
It seems like there may be a difference between the views of trained soldiers in a combat situation and people who have rarely or never been around guns.My uncle used to tell stories of when he was involved in something called a 'snatch mission' he would often carry a bow. His claim was there was nothing that would lower the enemy's morale like waking up in the morning and finding their sentries with an arrow through his throat.
It may or may not be true but the moral would pretty much say noise is not a factor.
When compared alongside modern firearms, bows are woefully ineffective weapons.